United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest 

Service

July 2011

DRAFT

Environmental 

Assessment

Briggs Spring

Hell Canyon Ranger District, Black Hills National Forest

Pennington County, South Dakota

T01N, R01E Sections 11-14, 21-28, 33-36 

T01S, R01E Sections 1-5, 9-16, 21-24, 28-30, 33-36 

T01S, R02E Sections 6-8, 18, 19, 30-32 

T02S, R02E Sections 5-8, 18, 19 

T02S, R01E Sections 1-5, 9-13, 243

For Information Contact: 

Wendy Steuerwald

330 Mt. Rushmore Road

Custer, SD 57730

Phone: (605) 673-4853

Email: wsteuerwald@fs.fed.us
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its 

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

and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, 

sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or 

part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not 

all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large-print, 

audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202)720-2600 (voice 

and TDD).

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

Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call 

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

provider and employer.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment 

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Summary............................................................................................................................. i

Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................................................................. 1

Document Structure..........................................................................................................1

Background ......................................................................................................................1

Location............................................................................................................................2

Management Direction.....................................................................................................2

Purpose and Need for Action ...........................................................................................4

Proposed Action ...............................................................................................................4

Decision Framework ..............................................................................................5

Public Involvement ..........................................................................................................5

Issues................................................................................................................................5

Chapter 2: Comparison of Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action....................7

Alternatives Considered in Detail ....................................................................................7

Alternative 1 – No Action........................................................................................7

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action..............................................................................7

Alternative 3...........................................................................................................13

Design Criteria ...............................................................................................................18

Alternatives Not Considered in Detail ...........................................................................18

Comparison of Alternatives ...........................................................................................18

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences......................22

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Activities........................................22

Forest Vegetation..........................................................................................................22

Affected Environment............................................................................................22

Environmental Consequences................................................................................27

Wildlife ..........................................................................................................................37

Affected Environment............................................................................................37

Snags and Down Woody Material .............................................................37

Riparian Habitat.........................................................................................38
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment 

Table of Contents

Management Indicator Species (MIS) .......................................................38

Species of Local Concern (SOLC) ............................................................41

Threatened and Endangered Species .........................................................48

Region 2 (R2) Sensitive Species................................................................48

Migratory Birds..........................................................................................53

Demand Species.........................................................................................54

Environmental Consequences................................................................................55

Snags and Down Woody Material .............................................................55

Riparian Habitat.........................................................................................56

Management Indicator Species (MIS) .......................................................57

Species of Local Concern (SOLC) ............................................................60

Threatened and Endangered Species .........................................................67

Region 2 (R2) Sensitive Species................................................................67

Migratory Birds..........................................................................................73

Demand Species.........................................................................................75

Fire and Fuels...............................................................................................................76

Affected Environment............................................................................................76

Environmental Consequences................................................................................83

Botany, Rangeland, and Noxious Weeds....................................................................89

Affected Environment............................................................................................89

Environmental Consequences................................................................................93

Minerals.........................................................................................................................99

Affected Environment............................................................................................99

Environmental Consequences..............................................................................100

Lands and Special Uses..............................................................................................100

Affected Environment..........................................................................................100

Environmental Consequences..............................................................................101

Heritage Resources.....................................................................................................102

Affected Environment..........................................................................................102

Environmental Consequences..............................................................................103

Scenery ........................................................................................................................104
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment 

Table of Contents

Affected Environment..........................................................................................104

Environmental Consequences..............................................................................105

Transportation............................................................................................................109

Affected Environment..........................................................................................109

Environmental Consequences..............................................................................110

Recreation ...................................................................................................................112

Affected Environment..........................................................................................112

Environmental Consequences..............................................................................114

Soils and Hydrology ...................................................................................................117

Soils - Affected Environment ..............................................................................117

Soils - Environmental Consequences...................................................................121

Hydrology - Affected Environment.....................................................................127

Hydrology - Environmental Consequences.........................................................132

Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination................................................................138

Chapter 5: Literature Cited and Glossary .................................................................144

Literature Cited ....................................................................................................144

Glossary ...............................................................................................................153

List of Tables and Figures

Table 1. Alternative 2-Proposed Action commercial treatments ...................................8

Table 2. Alternative 2-Proposed Action non-commercial treatments...........................10

Table 3. Alternative 3 commercial treatments .............................................................13

Table 4. Alternative 4 non-commercial treatments ......................................................14

Table 5. Comparison of commercial treatments by alternative ...................................18

Table 6. Comparison of non-commercial treatments by alternative ............................19

Table 7. Comparison of structural stages (SS) by cover type for all alternatives ........19

Table 8. Total miles of all Forest system roads and OHV trails on National Forest 

lands within the project area, by alternative ..................................................................20

Table 9. Total miles of Forest system roads within the project areas, for all alternatives 

........................................................................................................................................20
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment 

Table of Contents

Table 10. Total miles of Forest system OHV trails within the project area, by 

alternative ......................................................................................................................20

Table 11. Road density for all Forest system roads on National Forest lands within the 

project area, by alternative ............................................................................................20

Table 12. Effects of issues by alternative......................................................................21

Table 13. Existing cover types in the Briggs Spring project area ................................23

Table 14. Existing structural stages (SS) by cover type in the Briggs Spring project 

area (shown in acres)......................................................................................................23

Table 15. Structural stage objective percentages for ponderosa pine in MA 5.1 across 

the Black Hills National Forest .....................................................................................24

Table 16. Forest Plan objectives versus existing ponderosa pine structural stage 

distribution in MA 5.1 across the Black Hills National Forest (USDA Forest Service, 

2010) ..............................................................................................................................25

Table 17. Forest Plan objectives versus existing condition of ‘VL’ tree size 

distribution in MA 5.1 across the Black Hills National Forest (USDA Forest Service, 

2010)...............................................................................................................................25

Table 18. Current MPB rating for ponderosa pine in the Briggs Spring project area 

........................................................................................................................................26

Table 19. Structural stage/MPB risk rating relationship ..............................................26

Table 20. Alternative 1-MPB risk rating for the Briggs Spring project area ...............29

Table 21. Alternative 2-ponderosa pine structural stages throughout MA 5.1, across 

the Black Hills National Forest .....................................................................................30

Table 22. Mountain pine beetle risk rating – Comparison for all alternatives .............32

Table 23. Existing screening cover in the Briggs Spring project area on Forest lands

........................................................................................................................................39

Table 24. Fire regimes in the Black Hills (USDA Forest Service, 2005).....................77

Table 25. Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) rating descriptions (Hann et al., 2003)

........................................................................................................................................78

Table 26. Known fire history in the Briggs Spring project area from 1950 to present 

........................................................................................................................................79

Table 27. Area of each large fire falling within the project perimeter .........................80

Table 28. Current acres of each structural stage and existing Fire Hazard Rating ......82

Table 29. Total acres and percentage of project area for the existing Fire Hazard 

Rating ............................................................................................................................83
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment 

Table of Contents

Table 30. Fire Hazard Rating by alternative ................................................................88

Table 31. Forest Service R2 Sensitive Species in Briggs Spring project area .............91

Table 32. Historical use by allotment in the Briggs Spring project area ......................92

Table 33. Existing roads and OHV trails within the Briggs Spring project area .......109

Table 34. Travel Management – NFSRs in miles and road density ...........................109

Table 35. Travel Management – National Forest System (NFS) OHV trails in miles 

and trail density ............................................................................................................110

Table 36. Approximate mileages of system trails in the project area ........................114

Table 37. Soil Map Units in the Briggs Spring project area and respective percentage 

of the project area.........................................................................................................117

Table 38. Soil Map Units in the Briggs Spring project with elevated risk of erosion 

......................................................................................................................................119

Table 39. 6th Level Watersheds (HUC 12) associated with the Briggs Spring project

......................................................................................................................................128

Table 40. Wetlands within Briggs Spring project area ..............................................129

Table 41. Miles of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams in the Briggs Spring 

project area ..................................................................................................................130

Figure 1. Map 2-Alternative 2 commercial treatments. ................................................12

Figure 2. Map 4-Alternative 3 commercial treatments. ...............................................17

Figure 3. Existing condition of age class distribution of ponderosa pine in the Briggs 

Spring project area. .......................................................................................................24

Figure 4. Typical stand structure for each Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC).. .....79

Figure 5. Large fire history in and around the project area and the point fire history 

within the project boundary. ..........................................................................................80

Figure 6. At-Risk Communities (ARC) adjacent to the project boundary and structures 

located within the project area. ......................................................................................81

Figure 7. Fire Hazard Rating by Alternative ................................................................89

Appendices

Appendix A: MAPS
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment 

Table of Contents

Appendix B: DESIGN CRITERIA

Appendix C: MONITORING PLAN

Appendix D: TREATMENTS and POST SALE ACTIVITIES BY SITE

Appendix E: FINDINGS: SILVICULTURE 

Appendix F: PAST, PRESENT, and REASONABLY FORESEEABLE 

FUTURE ACTIVITIES

Appendix G: SUMMARY: BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT and 

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
 

Commonly Used Acronyms and Abbreviations

APE Area of Potential Effect NEPA National Environmental Policy 

Act 

AUM Animal Unit Months NFMA National Forest Management 

Act 

BA Basal Area NFSR National Forest System Road 

BABE

Biological 

Assessment/Biological 

Evaluation 

NHPA National Historic Preservation 

Act 

BCC Birds of Conservation Concern NRHP National Register of Historic 

Places 

BCR Bird Conservation Region NWSI Natural Watershed Sensitivity 

Index 

BHNF Black Hills National Forest OHV Off Highway Vehicle

BHNF 

LRMP 

Black Hills National Forest 

Revised Land and Resource 

Management Plan 

POL Products Other than Logs 

BMP Best Management Practice s R2 Forest Service Region 2 (Rocky 

Mountain Region) 

CCF Hundred Cubic Feet RIS Resource Information System 

CDA Connected Disturbed Areas RMBO Rocky Mountain Bird 

Observatory 

CEQ Council on Environmental 

Quality RMRS Rocky Mountain Research Station 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations ROS Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum

DBH Diameter at Breast Height RX Prescribed Fire

DENR Department of Environment and 

Natural Resources SD South Dakota 

EA Environmental Assessment SDGFP South Dakota Game Fish and 

Parks 

EPA Environmental Protection 

Agency SDNHP South Dakota Natural Heritage Program 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management 

Agency SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

FPS&G Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines SHR Stream Health Rating 

FRCC Fire Regime Condition Class SIO Site Integrity Objective 

FSM Forest Service Manual SOLC Species of Local Concern 

FSPro Fire Spread Probability SOPA Schedule of Proposed Action 

FSR Forest Service Road SS Structural Stage 

GIS Geographic Information Systems TES Threatened, Endangered, & 

Sensitive Species 

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code USC United States Code 

IDT, ID Interdisciplinary Team USDA United States Department of 
Team Agriculture 

LRMP Land and Resource Management 

Plan USFS United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service 

MA Management Area USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service 

MBBH Monitoring Birds of the Black 

Hills USGS United States Geological Survey 

MIS Management Indicator Species WCP Watershed Conservation 

Practice 

MPB Mountain Pine Beetle WCPH Watershed Conservation 

Practice Handbook 

WIZ Water Influence Zone 

WUI Wildland Urban Interface 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Summary

i

SUMMARY

The Hell Canyon Ranger District of the Black Hills National Forest proposes to

implement multiple resource management actions, including commercial and noncommercial vegetation treatments, prescribed burning, and construction of a new 

campground within the Briggs Spring project area. Proposed resource management 

actions apply only to National Forest lands. The project area is located approximately 

twenty-five miles northwest of the town of Custer, South Dakota and is in Pennington 

County, South Dakota (Map 1, Appendix A). The project area is entirely within 

Management Area (MA) 5.1, Resource Production Emphasis. There are 24,548 acres of 

National Forest land and 4,368 acres of private owned land, totaling 28,916 acres 

included within the project area. This action is needed, because the current condition of 

forested stands does not meet Forest-wide objectives for this management area; there is 

existing mountain pine beetle outbreak near the Briggs Spring project area and there is 

opportunity to reduce potential mountain pine beetle caused mortality by sanitation and 

thinning; there is an opportunity to reduce fire hazard through fuels treatments; and in 

support of the recently decided Black Hills Travel Management Plan there is opportunity 

to develop a new off highway vehicle (OHV) campground.

The proposed action was described in a scoping document and mailed to approximately 

108 individuals, tribal representatives, groups, government entities and other interested 

members of the public. The proposed action includes vegetation treatments, prescribed 

fire, fuel treatments, and construction of a campground.

The Forest Service also evaluated the following alternatives:

Alternative 1 – No Action: The National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) requires the study of the ‘No Action’ alternative as a basis 

for comparing effects of the proposed action and other alternatives. 

The ‘No Action’ alternative assumes no implementation of any 

elements of the proposed action or other action alternatives would 

take place within the Briggs Spring project area. This alternative 

represents no attempt to actively respond to the purpose and need for 

action or the issues identified during scoping. For example, there 

would be no effort to modify existing vegetation or related fuels 

conditions in the project area; current timber sales, fire suppression 

efforts, noxious weeds treatments and regular system road 

maintenance would continue on National Forest lands.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action: This alternative was developed to 

meet the purpose and need for action and it represents the agency’s 

recommendations prior to public scoping. The proposed action would 

manage vegetation within the project area to provide for a sustainable 

supply of commercial timber, and manage fuels in order to reduce 

losses of timber and other desired forest habitat and reduce the risk of 

large-scale, high intensity wildfire. The proposed action includes a 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Summary

ii

developed recreation campground facility which is designed for OHV 

recreational use, including both day use and overnight camping.

Alternative 3: This alternative addresses the key issues identified 

during the scoping process, which are 1) effects of developing a new 

OHV campground; and 2) susceptibility to mountain pine beetle. The 

elements that differ from the proposed action (Alternative 2) are 

expanding the existing Redbank Spring campground to accommodate 

OHV use rather than develop a new OHV campground and an 

increase in thinning and sanitation.

Based upon the effects of the alternatives, the responsible official will decide:

(1) whether or not the information in this analysis is sufficient to make an informed 

decision;

(2) whether or not vegetation and fuels treatments should be implemented and, if so,

in what manner and in which locations;

(3) whether or not an OHV recreation campground should be implemented and, if so, 

in what manner and in which locations.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 1

1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Document Structure

The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws 

and regulations. This Environmental Assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and 

cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and 

alternatives. The document is organized into five chapters:

• Chapter 1: Introduction: The section includes information on the history of the 

project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal 

for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service 

informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded.

• Chapter 2: Comparison of Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This 

section provides a more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well 

as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were 

developed based on significant issues raised by the public and other agencies. 

Finally, this section provides a summary table of the environmental consequences 

associated with each alternative.

• Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This section 

describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other 

alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource area (i.e. Silviculture, Wildlife, 

Recreation). Within each section, the affected environment is described first, 

followed by the effects of the No Action Alternative that provides a baseline for 

evaluation and comparison of the other alternatives that follow.

• Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination: This section provides a list of preparers, 

agencies and persons consulted during the development of the environmental 

assessment.

• Chapter 5: Literature Cited and Glossary

• Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the 

analyses presented in the environmental assessment.

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

may be found in the project planning record located at the Hell Canyon Ranger District 

Office in Custer, South Dakota.

Background

The first known photographs ever taken in the Black Hills were taken during General 

George A. Custer’s 1874 expedition. These historic photographs give a glimpse of the 

appearance of the Black Hills in pre-European settlement times. The Black Hills 

represented a fire adapted ecosystem and past fires created a landscape quite different 

than what we see today. There were far fewer trees and open spaces were more 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 1

2

abundant. Alteration of natural fire cycles in the Black Hills, as a means of protecting 

people, timber resources, and private property, has created dramatic changes in the 

landscape. The development of continuous, dense forest with few open spaces has led to 

both recent large forest fires and increased mountain pine beetle activity. These are 

issues familiar to many people living and working in the Black Hills, and to people that 

visit this unique region. The number of fires on lands managed by the Black Hills 

National Forest has remained fairly constant at 65-130 starts per year.

The mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosa, is showing increased activity in the 

densely stocked pine stands within the project area. In the late 1990’s mountain pine 

beetle infestation started becoming more widespread, eventually reaching the current 

level of epidemic across the forest. Over the past 10 years there has been extensive tree 

mortality across the forest, changing the forest at landscape levels. Within the project 

area, patches of dead trees ranging from 1-2 trees to small groups (5-10) of infested trees 

can be found in almost every site of the project area. The most noticeable areas of 

infestation are in the north-eastern area and south of Bert Howey spring. The most recent 

beetle activity was noted just south of Six-mile Road (Forest Service Road [FSR] 301) 

and along Custer-Limestone Road (FSR 284), just east of Heggie Road (FSR 284.5D).

The proposed management actions within the action alternatives are designed to reduce 

the risk of MPB infestation and to provide a sustainable supply of commercial timber 

(consistent with Forest Plan direction). The action alternatives are also designed to 

reduce hazards related to large scale wildfire.

The forest-wide Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan was signed on 

March 22, 2010, with implementation beginning on December 01, 2010. This decision 

designated approximately 13 miles of system trails within the project area.

Location

The Briggs Spring project area is located approximately twenty-five miles northwest of 

the town of Custer in Pennington County, South Dakota (see Map 1, Appendix A). The 

project area is located with T01N, R01E Sections 11-14, 21-28, 33-36; T01S, R01E 

Sections 1-5, 9-16, 21-24, 28-30, 33-36; T01S, R02E Sections 6-8, 18, 19, 30-32; T02S, 

R02E Sections 5-8, 18, 19; and T02S, R01E Sections 1-5, 9-13, 24. The gross acreage of 

the project area is 28,916 acres with approximately 24,548 acres of National Forest 

System land and 4,368 acres of interspersed private land. Major arterial roads that access 

the project area include FSR 117.1 (Boles Canyon Road) which provides north-south 

access throughout, FSR 301 (Six Mile Road) which provides east-west access centrally, 

and FSR 284 (Custer-Limestone Road) is the southern-most boundary.

Management Direction

The Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), as amended (2006), 

provides direction for the management of the forest. The Forest Plan contains 

management goals and objectives, management area direction, and identifies desired 

future conditions for the forest. Resource specialists reviewed the current condition of the 

project area and compared these conditions with the desired conditions identified in the 

Forest Plan including applicable goals and objectives. Opportunities for improvement 

were identified.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 1

3

The Decision for the Phase II Amendment to the Forest Plan was signed on October 31, 

2005 and became effective on February 28, 2006. The Forest Plan, as amended, 

establishes 11 goals and associated objectives for multiple-use management of the Forest. 

Goals 1, 2, 4, and 10 address natural resource objectives for multiple-use management of 

the Forest. Goals 3 and 5-9 provide socioeconomic emphasis for management of the 

Forest. Goal 11 addresses recovery rates and fuel-loading after significant fire or other 

natural event. Goals and objectives provide basic direction for defining a purpose and 

need for a project and developing a proposed action. Forest Plan goals are discussed in 

Chapter 1 of the Phase II Amendment of the Forest Plan.

The Forest Plan assigns a management emphasis to each portion of the Forest to meet 

multiple-use objectives. For each designated Management Area (MA), Chapter 3 of the

Forest Plan includes a description of desired future conditions, goals, objectives, 

standards, and guidelines. National Forest lands within the Briggs Spring project area are 

completely within MA 5.1 (USDA Forest Service, 2006).

MA 5.1: Resource Production Emphasis. These areas are managed for wood products, 

water yield, and forage production, while providing other commercial products, visual 

quality, diversity of wildlife and a variety of other goods and services. Numerous open 

roads provide commercial access and roaded recreation opportunities, while closed roads 

provide non-motorized recreation opportunities.

Goals and objectives within the Forest Plan were used to develop the proposed action for 

the Briggs Spring project.

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

ecosystems.

Objective 201: Manage for a minimum of 92,000 acres of aspen, and 

16,000 acres of bur oak during the life of the Plan. The highest priority 

for hardwood restoration is where conifers (e.g., spruce and pine) have 

out-competed aspen adjacent to riparian systems that once supported 

beaver.

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

Objective 303: Offer the following allowable sale quantity (ASQ) of 

timber on suitable and available timber lands.

Goal 4: Provide for scenic quality, a range of recreational opportunities, and protection 

of heritage resources in response to the needs of the Black Hills National Forest visitors 

and local communities.

Objective 420b: Provide recreation facilities, trailheads, trail crossings 

and other road corridor components to meet demand.

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. Three objectives associated with this goal that 

pertain to this project include:
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 1

4

Objective 10-01: Manage for 50 to 75 percent moderate-to-low fire 

hazard in the wildland-urban interface and reduce fire hazard within 

proximity of structures to current NFPA standards...

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.

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.

Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose of this project is to maintain forest health, to manage ponderosa pine within 

this portion of MA 5.1 in order to provide for a sustainable supply of commercial timber, 

to manage fuels in order to reduce losses of timber and other desired forest habitat and 

the risk of large-scale, high intensity wildfire, and to provide a developed recreation 

campground facility which is designed for OHV recreational use, including large trailers, 

in support of the recently designated Travel Management OHV trail system within the 

Briggs Spring project area. This action is needed because: the current mountain pine 

beetle outbreak in forest stands within and near the Briggs Spring project area indicates 

there is opportunity to reduce potential mountain pine beetle caused mortality by thinning 

dense timber stands (Forest Plan, Goal 10 and Objective 10-07); there is opportunity to 

contribute to the Forest-wide objective (Forest Plan, Goal 3 and Objective 303) through 

timber harvest throughout the project area; there is opportunity to reduce fire hazard 

through fuels treatments (Forest Plan, Goal 10 and Objective 10-01 & 10-04); and in 

light of the recently closed Moon Campground, which is adjacent to the project area, the 

opportunity exists to create a recreation campground in support of the newly developed 

OHV trail system (Forest Plan, Goal 4 and Objective 420b).

This action responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the Forest Plan and helps 

move the project area toward desired conditions described in that plan.

Proposed Action

The Forest Service proposes to implement vegetation treatments with both commercial 

and non-commercial activities. Commercial treatments include commercial thinning, 

group shelterwood, overstory removal, shelterwood seedcut, hardwood release or 

conversion, pine encroachment, and sanitation treatments. Commercial treatments would 

occur on approximately 12,224 acres with the potential to treat an additional 6,063 acres 

through sanitation treatment, if needed. Non-commercial treatments include hardwood 

release, pine encroachment, products other than logs (POL) thinning, deadfall, 

mechanical fuels treatments, and prescribed burning. Non-commercial treatments would 

occur on approximately 22,305 acres, including 6,295 acres of prescribed burning. Some 

commercial and non-commercial treatments overlap each other within the same sites. A 

recreation campground facility (New Moon Campground) which is designed for OHV 

recreational use, including both day use and overnight camping would be developed 

along the east boundary, within sites 040704-23 and 25, northeast of the junction of roads 

FSR 296.3A and FSR 296.2.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 1

5

Decision Framework

Given the purpose and need, the deciding official reviews the proposed action, the issues 

identified during scoping, the other alternatives, and the environmental consequences of 

implementing each alternative in order to make the following decisions:

(1) whether or not the information in this analysis is sufficient to make an informed 

decision;

(2) whether or not vegetation and fuels treatments should be implemented and, if so, 

in what manner and in which locations;

(3) whether or not an OHV recreation campground should be implemented and, if so, 

in what manner and in which locations.

Public Involvement

The proposal was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions in October, 2010. The 

proposal was provided to the public and other agencies for comment during scoping on 

October 14, 2010. In addition, as part of the public involvement process, the agency 

mailed a detailed scoping document to approximately 108 individuals, tribal 

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

Scoping documents were also uploaded to the forest website, 

http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php/?project=28361, in October 2010. Scoping 

comments received are located in the project record.

Using the comments from the public, other government agencies, groups, tribal 

representatives the interdisciplinary team (IDT) developed a list of issues to address.

Issues

Issues are unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources. 

Comments received during the scoping process raised various issues in relation to 

management activities in the Briggs Spring project area. From these comments and other 

sources, the project interdisciplinary team identified two key issues that drove the 

development of the alternatives. A brief description of the issues follows.

The Forest Service identified two topics raised during scoping. These issues include:

Issue #1: Effects of Developing a New OHV Campground – Some 

commenters noted that the proposed action would result in two 

campgrounds located within close proximity of each other. It was 

suggested that expanding the existing Redbank Spring Campground 

should be considered to meet the anticipated needs of OHV users, rather 

than creating a new campground. Measures: Number of OHV 

recreational campgrounds and size. Number of acres of ground 

disturbance.

Issue #2: Susceptibility to Mountain Pine Beetle – Some commenters 

were concerned that the proposed action would not sufficiently reduce the 

potential for mountain pine beetle caused mortality throughout the project 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 1

6

area. Further sanitation and thinning was suggested. Measures: Acres of 

sanitation and thinning and level of insect risk rating.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 2

7

CHAPTER 2: COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES, 

INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Briggs Spring 

project. It includes a description of each alternative. This section includes a description of 

each alternative considered in detail, including the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), 

the Proposed Action (Alternative 2), and one alternative to the Proposed Action, 

Alternative 3, as well as alternatives not considered in detail. This section also presents 

the alternatives in comparative form, defining the differences between each alternative 

and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the 

public.

Alternatives Considered in Detail

The Forest Service developed three alternatives, including a no action and proposed 

action alternative. The alternatives considered in detail by the interdisciplinary team are 

discussed below. This section provides the summary of activities proposed to occur 

during implementation of any action alternative. Exact figures, such as acres, miles, or 

other numerical units of any particular activity, may vary slightly. These figures, which 

are based on inventory and survey estimates, may vary during preparation of a timber 

sale, prescribed burn, or other project based upon various site factors such as topography, 

non-uniform site structure, fuels, refinement of the standard of road needed, etc.

Alternative 1 – No Action

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

alternative as a basis for comparing effects of the proposed action and other alternatives. 

Under the No Action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide 

management of the project area. This alternative represents no attempt to actively 

respond to the purpose and need for action or the issues presented during scoping. No 

effort would be made to modify existing vegetation or related fuel conditions within the 

project area. No vegetation treatments, fuels treatments, or prescribed burning would be 

implemented; nor would the construction of an OHV campground be implemented to 

accomplish project goals.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

This alternative was developed to meet the purpose and need for action and it represents 

the agency’s recommendations prior to public scoping. The proposed action would 

manage vegetation within the project area to provide for a sustainable supply of 

commercial timber, and manage fuels in order to reduce losses of timber and other 

desired forest habitat and reduce the risk of large-scale, high intensity wildfire. The 

proposed action includes a developed recreation campground facility which is designed 

for OHV recreational use, including both day use and overnight camping.

The proposed OHV recreation campground facility, New Moon Campground, would be a 

Roaded Natural Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Design, located within sites 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 2

8

040704-23 & 25 (see Map 2-Tile 2, Appendix A). A defined ‘training’ lot would be 

constructed for hands-on learning of common OHV trail features. The proposed location 

for the New Moon Campground is on an existing OHV trail, eliminating the need for a 

connector trail from the campground to an existing trail system.

Features of the New Moon Campground would include the following:

• OHV facility would be approximately 17 acres in size, including approximately 15 

units of OHV Specialized Fee Campground and 4 units of OHV Day Use Trailhead. 

o Campground – approximately 15 acres

 Pull through design for camping units (~15 units) with parking spurs 

for two vehicles with trailers for each site. 

 Two Unisex Vault Toilets.

 Alternative 2 specific – Defined and fenced training lot (~1 acre) for 

hands-on learning of common OHV trail features.

 No potable water or garbage collection services, “visitor pack it in –

pack it out”. 

o Day Use Trailhead – approximately 2 acres

 Four gravel surface parking spaces to accommodate vehicles with 

trailers. 

o Hardened surface roads and concentrated use areas with crushed gravel. 

o The facility would be fenced for cattle exclusion and resource protection.

Vegetation treatments for Alternative 2 include both commercial (see Table 1) and 

noncommercial treatments (see Table 2). 

Table 1. Alternative 2-Proposed Action commercial treatments

Commercial Treatments Acres Description

Commercial Thin (CThin) 2,204 Thinning of immature ponderosa pine stands, 

generally 9-12” in diameter. Objective is to reduce 

basal area in stands to improve health, tree vigor, 

and future growth capacity of the stand and to 

reduce stand susceptibility to mountain pine beetle 

attack. This treatment would reduce stand basal 

area (BA) to 50 ft2/ac or 60 ft2/ac depending upon 

existing and desired condition of the stands. A 60 

BA will be used in stands to minimize stand 

susceptibility to mountain pine beetle (MPB) and 

wildfire. Reducing the basal area will minimize 

the expansion of the MPB infestation. A 50 BA 

will be used in stands that are located within or 

adjacent to areas of existing MPB infestations. A 

60 BA will be used in areas that do not have 

current MPB infestation.

Group Shelterwood 6,376 This is a shelterwood system treatment that is 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 2

9

(GRSH) applied within pine sites which are not 

homogenous, but rather have patches or groups of 

trees of various age classes throughout the stand. 

A GRSH prescription may include all phases of a 

shelterwood system such as a commercial thin, 

seed cut or overstory removal. 

Hardwood Release 

(HWDR)

250 Removal of encroaching conifers from existing 

hardwood stands. No change of cover type results. 

Removal of non-commercial conifers will follow 

commercial removal.

Hardwood Conversion 

(HWDC)

123 Removal of conifers from mixed conifer/hardwood 

sites that contain an abundance of hardwoods for 

the purpose of converting the site to an aspen 

stand. Removal of non-commercial conifers will 

follow commercial harvest.

Overstory Removal (OSR) 138 Removal of mature to over-mature trees in the 

overstory of stands which have been successfully 

regenerated. 

Shelterwood Seed Cut 

(SWSC)

479 An even-aged regeneration cutting in mature 

stands. The most desirable seed trees are retained 

at basal areas of 30-50 ft2/ac. Opening the canopy 

creates a favorable growing environment for pine 

regeneration. 

Pine Encroachment (PE)* 2,674 Removal of pine trees from existing meadows to 

maintain the meadow into the future. Both 

commercial and non-commercial sized trees may 

be removed. No change in cover type results.

Sanitation** 6,063 Sanitation is used to remove only individual green 

trees, which have live mountain pine beetle brood 

in them. These trees are already dead, however, 

the foliage will not change color until the 

following summer. This is a suppression strategy 

designed to remove live beetles from the site. The 

stands prescribed for sanitation are in areas of high 

beetle concentration. This treatment will also be 

used within commercially treated stands if there is 

beetle infestation occurring.

 Total Acres 18,307

*Commercial and non-commercial PE treatments would occur on the same acres. 

**These acres are planned for sanitation treatment only. All other commercial treatments would include sanitation. 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 2

10

Table 2. Alternative 2-Proposed Action non-commercial treatments

Non-Commercial 

Treatments Acres Description

Pine Encroachment (PE)* 2,674 See description in Table 1.

POL (Products other than 

log) Thinning

8,478 Non-commercial thinning of dense stands of pine 

that are less than 9-inches in diameter. Stands of 

trees will be thinned to reach a desired tree 

spacing of 18’ x 18’. The objective is to reduce 

stand density to concentrate future growth on the 

most desirable trees.

POL Thinning/HWDR** 1,021 See description above. A hardwood release 

treatment would occur in areas that have 

hardwood inclusions. See description of HWDR 

above.

Hardwood Release 

(HWDR) 564 See description in Table 1.

POL Thinning/Deadfall 300 See POL description above and Deadfall 

description below. Both types of treatment 

would occur on these sites.

Fuels Treatments:

 Mechanical 1,252 Mechanical thinning of pine less than 9-inches in 

diameter and to desired tree spacing of 14’ x 14’ 

spacing. Mechanical fuels treatment may 

include hand cutting and piling. Slash piles 

resulting from this treatment would be burned, 

however no broadcast burning would occur. 

 Prescription (Rx) Burning 6,295 Management-ignited fire used for reducing 

woody material fuel loading in order to modify 

potential fire behavior which can reduce risks to 

life and property associated with wildfire. The 

objective of using prescribed fire in this project 

is to consume a portion of the dead/down fuels 

as well as limb a portion of the green trees in 

support of decreasing overall fire behavior. This 

treatment contributes to creating a mosaic of 

burned and unburned areas which results in an 

appearance of a naturally-burned landscape. 

Ignition may include but is not limited to both 

hand and aerial ignition.

 Deadfall 1,693 Mechanical treatment of existing slash to a 

height within 18-24 inches of the ground. May 

include various methods but not limited to 

lopping, chipping, crushing, piling and burning, 

or mastication. No snags would be removed as 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 2

11

part of this treatment. Some of these sites 

include hardwood inclusions that would be 

released (HWDR). 

 Total Acres 22,305

*Commercial and non-commercial PE treatments would occur on the same acres.

**Commercial and non-commercial HWDR treatments would occur on some of the same acres.

Alternative 2 would produce approximately 30,127 hundred cubic feet (CCF) of 

commercial sawlog volume and approximately 8,075 CCF of POL as a byproduct of the 

mechanical treatments. In addition, 75.9 miles of roads would be maintained, 31.9 miles 

would be reconstructed, and 0.8 miles of an existing unauthorized road would be 

reconstructed and converted to a Forest system road, as part of the mechanical treatments 

proposed in this alternative. Figure 1 shows the entire project area, however Appendix A 

has more detailed maps. Please refer to Map 2-Tiles 1-3, Appendix A, for a detailed 

view of Alternative 2 treatment areas.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 2

12

 Figure 1. Map 2-Alternative 2 commercial treatments.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 2

13

Alternative 3

This alternative was developed to address the issues identified during scoping: 1) effects 

of developing a new OHV campground; 2) susceptibility to mountain pine beetles.

To address issue #1, Alternative 3 eliminates the development of a new OHV 

campground and proposes to expand the existing Redbank Spring Campground to 

accommodate OHV recreationists. To address issue #2, Alternative 3 proposes additional 

group shelterwood and sanitation treatments in more ponderosa pine stands to further 

reduce MPB susceptibility.

An expansion at the existing Redbank Spring Campground would be a Roaded Natural 

ROS Design, located within sites 040705-144 & 170 (see Map 4-Tiles 1-2, Appendix A). 

The expanded OHV campground would include a connector trail to link the campground 

to the existing OHV trail system. The connector trail would be approximately 0.8 miles 

in length and be designed for OHVs of 62” in width or less. The facility design features 

are the same as those proposed for Alternative 2, except Alternative 3 would not include 

a training lot.

Vegetation treatments for Alternative 3 include both commercial (see Table 3) and noncommercial (see Table 4) treatments. 

Table 3. Alternative 3 commercial treatments

Commercial Treatments Acres Description

Commercial Thin (CThin) 2,204 Thinning of immature ponderosa pine stands, 

generally 9-12” in diameter. Objective is to reduce 

basal area in stands to improve health, tree vigor, 

and future growth capacity of the stand and to 

reduce stand susceptibility to mountain pine beetle 

attack. This treatment would reduce stand basal 

area (BA) to 50 ft2/ac or 60 ft2/ac depending upon 

existing and desired condition of the stands. A 60 

BA will be used in stands to minimize stand 

susceptibility to mountain pine beetle (MPB) and 

wildfire. Reducing the basal area will minimize 

the expansion of the MPB infestation. A 50 BA 

will be used in stands that are located within or 

adjacent to areas of existing MPB infestations. A 

60 BA will be used in areas that do not have 

current MPB infestation. 

Group Shelterwood 

(GRSH)

13,845 This is a shelterwood system treatment that is 

applied within pine sites which are not 

homogenous, but rather have patches or groups of 

trees of various age classes throughout the stand. 

A GRSH prescription may include all phases of a 

shelterwood system such as a commercial thin, 

seed cut or overstory removal. 

Hardwood Release 

(HWDR)

259 Removal of encroaching conifers from existing 

hardwood stands. No change of cover type results. 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 2

14

Removal of non-commercial conifers will follow 

commercial removal.

Hardwood Conversion 

(HWDC)

123 Removal of conifers from mixed conifer/hardwood 

sites that contain an abundance of hardwoods for 

the purpose of converting the site to an aspen 

stand. Removal of non-commercial conifers will 

follow commercial harvest.

Overstory Removal (OSR) 138 Removal of mature to over-mature trees in the 

overstory of stands which have been successfully 

regenerated. 

Shelterwood Seed Cut 

(SWSC)

479 An even-aged regeneration cutting in mature 

stands. The most desirable seed trees are retained 

at basal areas of 30-50 ft2/ac. Opening the canopy 

creates a favorable growing environment for pine 

regeneration. 

Pine Encroachment (PE)* 2,674 Removal of pine trees from existing meadows to 

maintain the meadow into the future. Both 

commercial and non-commercial sized trees may 

be removed. No change in cover type results.

Sanitation** 3,678 Sanitation is used to remove only individual green 

trees, which have live mountain pine beetle brood 

in them. These trees are already dead, however, 

the foliage will not change color until the 

following summer. This is a suppression strategy 

designed to remove live beetles from the site. The 

stands prescribed for sanitation are in areas of high 

beetle concentration. This treatment will also be 

used within commercially treated stands if there is 

beetle infestation occurring.

 Total Acres 23,400

*Commercial and non-commercial PE treatments would occur on the same acres. 

**These acres are planned for sanitation treatment only. All other commercial treatments would include sanitation. 

Table 4. Alternative 3 non-commercial treatments 

Non-Commercial 

Treatments Acres Description

Pine Encroachment (PE)* 2,674 See description in Table 1.

POL (Products other than 

log) Thinning

8,889 Non-commercial thinning of dense stands of pine 

that are less than 9-inches in diameter. Stands of 

trees will be thinned to reach a desired tree 

spacing of 18’ x 18’. The objective is to reduce 

stand density to concentrate future growth on the 

most desirable trees.

POL Thinning/HWDR** 1,021 See POL description above and the HWDR 

description in Table 1. A hardwood release 

treatment would occur in areas that have 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 2

15

hardwood inclusions. See description of HWDR 

above.

Hardwood Release 

(HWDR)

564 See description above.

POL Thinning/Deadfall 300 See POL description above and Deadfall 

description below. Both types of treatment 

would occur on these sites.

Fuels Treatments:

 Mechanical 1,274 Mechanical thinning of pine less than 9-inches in 

diameter and to desired tree spacing of 14’ x 14’

spacing. Site 040705-170 (Redbank Spring 

Campground) would have tree spacing of 24’ x 

24’. Mechanical fuels treatment may include 

hand cutting and piling. Slash piles resulting 

from this treatment would be burned, however 

no broadcast burning would occur. 

 Prescription (Rx) Burning 7,009 Management-ignited fire used for reducing 

woody material fuel loading in order to modify 

potential fire behavior which can reduce risks to 

life and property associated with wildfire. The 

objective of using prescribed fire in this project 

is to consume a portion of the dead/down fuels 

as well as limb a portion of the green trees in 

support of decreasing overall fire behavior. This 

treatment contributes to creating a mosaic of 

burned and unburned areas which results in an 

appearance of a naturally-burned landscape. 

Ignition may include but is not limited to both 

hand and aerial ignition.

 Deadfall 1,693 Mechanical treatment of existing slash to a 

height within 18-24 inches of the ground. May 

include various methods but not limited to

lopping, chipping, crushing, piling and burning, 

or mastication. No snags would be removed as 

part of this treatment. Some of these sites 

include hardwood inclusions that would be 

released (HWDR). 

 Total Acres 23,452

*Commercial and non-commercial PE treatments would occur on the same acres. 

**Commercial and non-commercial HWDR treatments would occur on some of the same acres.

Alternative 3 would produce approximately 41,531 hundred cubic feet (CCF) of 

commercial sawlog volume and approximately 9,931 CCF of POL as a byproduct of the 

mechanical treatments. In addition, 77.3 miles of roads would be maintained, 33.4 miles 

would be reconstructed, and 0.8 miles of an existing unauthorized road would be 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 2

16

reconstructed and converted to a Forest system road as part of the mechanical treatments 

proposed in this alternative. This alternative also proposes to add approximately 0.8 

miles of OHV trail to connect the Redbank Spring Campground to the existing OHV trail 

system. Figure 2 shows the entire project area, however Appendix A has more detailed 

maps. Please refer to Map 4-Tiles 1-3, Appendix A, for a detailed view of Alternative 3 

treatment areas.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 2

17

 Figure 2. Map 4-Alternative 3 commercial treatments.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 2

18

Design Criteria

Design criteria include Forest Plan standards and guidelines, USFS Region 2 Watershed 

Conservation Practices (WCPs), Best Management Practices, and site specific design to 

avoid resource impacts. They are applicable and to be implemented as a matter of 

standard operating procedure for the action alternatives. Design criteria are applied to 

protect resources and forest users. All activities proposed in this project, including any 

post-sale activities or monitoring, must implement these design criteria. A complete list 

of project design criteria is available in Appendix B.

Alternatives Not Considered in Detail

Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all 

reasonable alternatives, and to briefly discuss reasons for eliminating any alternatives that 

were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in response to 

the proposed action provided suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the 

purpose and need. Some of these alternatives may have been outside the scope of the 

project, duplicative of the alternatives considered in detail, or determined to be 

components that would cause unnecessary environmental harm. Therefore, the following 

alternatives were considered, but dismissed from detailed consideration for reasons 

summarized below.

• An alternative that excludes a developed recreation campground facility which is 

designed for OHV recreational use, including both day use and overnight camping 

– This alternative would not meet the purpose and need for action in this project 

and the no action alternative also serves as an alternative without a developed 

recreation campground.

Comparison of Alternatives

This section provides a summary of each alternative. Appendix A, Maps 2-5 with 

corresponding tiles, provide a detailed visual display of vegetation treatments.

Comparison of Vegetation Treatments:

Table 5. Comparison of commercial treatments by alternative 

Commercial Treatments by Alternative

Acres

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Commercial Thin (CThin) 2,204 2,204

Group Shelterwood (GRSH) 6,376 13,845

Hardwood Release (HWDR) 250 259

Hardwood Conversion (HWDC) 123 123

Overstory Removal (OSR) 138 138

Shelterwood Seed Cut (SWSC) 479 479

Pine Encroachment (PE)* 2,674 2,674

Sanitation** 6,063 3,678

*Commercial and non-commercial PE treatments will occur on the same acres.

**These acres are planned for sanitation treatment only. All other treatments will include sanitation.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 2

19

Table 6. Comparison of non-commercial treatments by alternative 

Non-Commercial Treatments by Alternative

Acres

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Pine Encroachment (PE)* 2,674 2,674

POL Thinning 8,478 8,889

POL Thinning (with HWDR) 1,021 1,021

POL Thinning/Deadfall 300 300

Hardwood Release (HWDR)** 564 564

Deadfall 1,693 1,693

Mechanical Fuels Treatment 1,252 1,274

Prescription (Rx) Burning 6,295 7,009

* Commercial and non-commercial PE treatments will occur on the same acres.

**Commercial and non-commercial HWDR treatments will occur on some of the same acres.

Comparison of Structural Stages (SS) by Cover Type:

Structural stage definitions (USDA Forest Service, 2005):

SS1 (grass/forb): This stage is dominated by grasses and forbs lasting until tree seedlings 

become established. 

SS2 (shrub/seedling): This stage consists of shrubs and seedlings. This stage remains 

until seedlings reach 1” diameter at breast height (DBH). 

SS3 (sapling/pole): This stage contains trees with stems 1-9” DBH.

SS3A – sapling/pole stage with less than 40% canopy cover

SS3B – sapling/pole stage with 40-70% canopy cover

SS3C – sapling/pole stage with greater than 70% canopy cover

SS4 (mature): This stage contains trees which are at least 9” DBH.

SS4A – mature stage with less than 40% canopy cover

SS4B – mature stage with 40-70% canopy cover

SS4C – mature stage with greater than 70% canopy cover

SS5 (late succession): This stage is characterized by very large trees (16+ inches DBH). 

Trees are at least 160 years in age. Late succession ponderosa pine may occur in dense 

stands but may also grow in the open or in “park-like” stands.

Table 7. Comparison of structural stages (SS) by cover type for all alternatives

Cover Type → 

Structural 

Stage ↓

Ponderosa Pine Aspen Meadow Total Acres

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

Meadow/Grassland 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,697 2,697 2,697 2,697 2,697 2,697

SS1 497 497 497 0 0 0 0 0 0 497 497 497

SS2 485 485 485 65 65 65 0 0 0 550 550 550

SS3A 49 133 133 130 242 242 0 0 0 179 375 375
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 2

20

SS3B 132 175 175 47 50 97 0 0 0 179 225 272

SS3C 42 42 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 42 42

SS4A 12,725 16,570 16,570 42 97 50 0 0 0 12,767 16,667 16,620

SS4B 7,590 3,495 3,495 47 0 0 0 0 0 7,637 3,495 3,495

SS4C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SS5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Acres 21,520 21,397 21,397 331 454 454 2,697 2,697 2,697 24,548 24,548 24,548

Comparison of Roads and Trails:

Table 8. Total miles of all Forest system roads and OHV trail on 

National Forest land within the project area, by alternative

Existing/Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

System Roads 108.9 109.8 109.8

System OHV Trails 12.8 12.8 13.6

Total Miles 121.7 122.6 123.4

Table 9. Total miles of Forest system roads within the project area, for 

all alternatives

Existing

 Roads Closed to All, Yearlong (as storage) 7.9

 Roads Open to All, Seasonal 11.3

 Roads Open to All, Yearlong 14.3

 Roads Open to Highway Legal Vehicles Only, Seasonal 5

 Roads Open to Highway Legal Vehicles Only, Yearlong 70.4

System Roads – Total Miles 108.9

Table 10. Total miles of Forest system OHV trails within the 

project area, by alternative

Existing/Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

Trails Open, Seasonal 8.2 8.2 9

Trails Open, Yearlong 4.6 4.6 4.6

System Trails – Total Miles 12.8 12.8 13.6

Table 11. Road density for all Forest system roads on National Forest land within the 

project area, by alternative

Existing/Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

Miles Miles/Sq. Mile Miles Miles/Sq. Mile Miles Miles/Sq. Mile

Closed

Roads 7.9 0.2 8.8 0.2 8.8 0.2

Open

Roads 84.7 2.2 84.7 2.2 84.7 2.2
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 2

21

Seasonal 

Roads 16.3 0.4 16.3 0.4 16.3 0.4

Total 108.9 2.8 109.8 2.9 109.8 2.9

Comparison of Effects to Issues by Alternative:

Table 12. Effects of issues by alternative

1. Effects of Developing a 

new OHV Campground

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3

Number of campgrounds 1 2 1

Number of designated OHV 

recreational campgrounds 

and sizes (acres)

0 (0 acres) 1 (18 acres) 1 (17 acres)

Acres of new or expanded 

campground 0 acres 18 acres 13 acres

2. Susceptibility to 

Mountain Pine Beetles

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3

Acres of sanitation and 

thinning 0 acres 18,307 acres 23,400 acres

Acres of Low Risk Acres of Medium Risk** Acres of High Risk***

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

Acres of Low, Medium, and 

High Insect Risk Rating* 1,031 1,115 1,115 12,857 16,745 16,745 7,633 3,538 3,538

*Insect Risk Ratings were evaluated by linking them to structural stages in ponderosa pine. The Forest Plan lists Insect 

Risk Rating by structural stages. (FEIS Phase II Amendment, p. III-385)

**Note that acres of medium risk would not change between Alternatives 2 and 3. The additional treatments in 

Alternative 3 would occur on sites that are currently structural stage 4A and after treatment the stands would remain at 

structural stage 4A. 

***Acres of high risk stands remain the same between Alternatives 2 and 3. These sites are wildlife sites that require a 

higher density of trees, placing them into the high risk category. 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

22

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section summarizes the environment of the affected project area and the potential 

changes to those environments due to implementation of the alternatives. It also presents 

the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives presented in Chapter 2. 

For the purposes of this analysis and under federal regulations, “impacts” and “effects” 

are assumed to have the same meaning and are interchangeable.

The information presented here is based on analysis prepared by resource specialists from 

the interdisciplinary team (IDT). Analysis was accomplished by field observations and 

surveys, past experience and professional recommendations, aerial photography, resource 

modeling, literature review, information obtained through monitoring, Forest Plan 

direction and associated analysis, and public participation. The specialist reports are 

included in the project file, which is located at the Black Hills National Forest, Hell 

Canyon Ranger District, 330 Mount Rushmore Road, Custer, South Dakota. All resource 

specialists used the best available science in completing their analysis, in accordance with 

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1920.

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions 

Analysis of cumulative effects include past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

activities that could affect the biological or social environments. See Appendix F for a 

listing of past, present, and future activities considered in the Briggs Spring project 

cumulative effects analysis. The project area boundary was used to address cumulative 

impacts, unless otherwise noted in the resource discussions. Rationale for cumulative 

effects boundaries is noted in the cumulative effects discussions by resource.

Forest Vegetation

Affected Environment

Cover Type

The vegetation in the Briggs Spring area is dominated by ponderosa pine (Pinus 

ponderosa) (88%). Very little white spruce (Picea glauca) is present but can be found 

growing along the bottom of north facing slopes which have limestone cliffs and as 

scattered individuals in some pine stands. Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) stands 

(1%) are found throughout the analysis area but are mainly found in the northern half. 

There are many small aspen clones and individuals found within the pine stands 

throughout the project area. Large meadows/grasslands (11%) tend to dominate the wide 

drainage bottoms throughout the northern half of the analysis area. While smaller 

meadows run up the draws in the southern half of the analysis area. See Table 13 for 

existing cover types within the project area.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

23

Table 13. Existing cover types in the Briggs 

Spring project area

Cover Type Acres Percent (%)

Meadow/Grassland 2,697 11

Aspen 331 1

Ponderosa Pine 21,520 88

Total Acres 24,548 100

Structural Stage

There are several age classes and diameter size classes within the forested sites. 

Approximately 50% of the stands are multi-storied, 33% of the stands are two-storied and 

the remaining (approximately 20%) is single-storied. Most multi-storied stands are pine 

stands that have regenerated that give the stands multiple layers within the canopy. See 

Table 14 for existing structural stages by cover type within the project area.

Table 14. Existing structural stages (SS) by cover type in the Briggs 

Spring project area (shown in acres)

Cover Type →

Structural Stage 

↓

Ponderosa 

Pine Aspen Meadow Total Acres

Meadow/grassland 0 0 2,697 2,697

SS1 497 0 0 497

SS2 485 65 0 550

SS3A 49 130 0 179

SS3B 132 47 0 179

SS3C 42 0 0 42

SS4A 12,725 42 0 12,767

SS4B 7,590 47 0 7,637

SS4C 0 0 0 0

SS5 0 0 0 0

Total Acres 21,520 331 2,697 24,548

The slope in the project area ranges from level ground to 65%. Approximately 95% of 

the project area has a slope less than 20% with an average of 10%. The average elevation 

is 6,465 feet.

Ponderosa Pine

Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) dominates the Briggs Spring analysis area with 21,520 

acres, 88% of the area. Pine is often in pure ponderosa pine stands, however pine is 

associated with quaking aspen in most of the analysis area with the exception of the far 

northern location (040502), where pine is associated with white spruce and quaking 

aspen. In the southern locations (040807, 040808) ponderosa pine can be found with 

Rocky Mountain Juniper (Juniperus scopulorum) on occasion.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

24

The overall average stand age for ponderosa pine stands of 8-inch trees and larger is 99 

years old. Thirteen percent of the pine stands are over 120 years old, rotation age for 

pine in the Black Hills, while 8% of pine stands are less than 80 years old (See Figure 3). 

Figure 3. Existing condition of age class distribution of ponderosa pine in the Briggs 

Spring project area. 

Structural Stage – Management Area 5.1 has a structural stage objective (Objective 5.1-

204) within the ponderosa pine cover type (Table 15). This objective is to manage for the 

following percentages of structural stages in the ponderosa pine cover type across the 

management area in a variety of sizes and shapes.

Table 15. Structural stage objective percentages for ponderosa pine in

MA 5.1 across the Black Hills National Forest

Structural

Stage

Objective

Percentage

Structural

Stage

Objective

Percentage

SS1 5% SS4A 25% *

SS2 5% SS4B 25% *

SS3A 10% SS4C 5% *

SS3B 15% SS5 5% **

SS3C 5%

*10% of the SS4 ponderosa pine acres in the management area will have an average tree size of 

‘very large’ (16-inches or greater DBH). Seek opportunities to increase understory shrubs in 

open-canopy structural stages.

**Active management is allowed, and may be necessary to provide desired late-successional 

characteristics. 

The current condition of the structural stage percentages for ponderosa pine cover type 

throughout MA 5.1, including the Briggs Spring project area, is as follows:

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100 101-120 121-140 141-160 161-180

P

e

r

c

e

n

t

Age Class in Years

Age Class Distribution of Ponderosa Pine
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

25

Table 16. Forest Plan objectives versus existing ponderosa pine 

structural stage distribution in MA 5.1 across the Black Hills National 

Forest (USDA Forest Service, 2010)

Structural

Stage

Forest Plan 

Objective (%)

Existing 

Condition

Pine Acres

Existing* 

Condition (%)

SS1 5% 26,760 6%

SS2 5% 16,673 4%

SS3A 10% 24,236 5%

SS3B 15% 17,047 4%

SS3C 5% 10,269 2%

SS4A 25% 185,062 39%

SS4B 25% 142,228 30%

SS4C* 5% 50,437 11%

SS5* 5% 1,227 0.3%

Total 100% 473,939 100% *Note that SS4C and SS5 are not present within the Briggs Spring project area.

In MA 5.1, pine sites in SS4 have 13% of the stands in the ‘very large’ (VL) tree size 

(16” DBH or greater), which is 3% over the management area objective of 10%.

Table 17. Forest Plan objective versus existing 

condition for VL tree size distribution in MA 5.1 across 

the Black Hills National Forest (USDA Forest Service, 

2010)

Structural

Stage

Forest Plan

Objective

VL Tree Size

Existing Condition

VL Tree Size

Percentage

4A, B, C 10% 13%

Structural stages change over time within a management area due to harvest activities, 

large wildfires, wind events, or mountain pine beetle (MPB) infestations that would affect 

an entire stand. Natural or artificial regeneration of a SS1 site would also change 

structural stages.

Mountain Pine Beetle – Mortality in ponderosa pine from MPB continues to be the most 

evident of any insect or disease problem in the analysis area. The MPB epidemic 

continues to increase within the Black Hills National Forest. In 2010, the mapped 

acreage affected by MPB doubled, as compared with acres attributed to MPB during each 

of the previous three years, representing significant new pine mortality (Schaupp, 2011).

Currently, there are approximately 7,633 acres of ponderosa pine at high risk for MPB 

infestation. This is about 35% of the pine stands in the analysis area (Table 18). Highrisk pine stands are at a greater potential for increased MPB activity. Generally, stands 

are considered to be most susceptible to infestation if 75% of the stand is in the 7-13 inch 

diameter range and the stand density is over 120 ft2/ac of basal area (Allen, 2003). 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

26

Table 18. Current MPB rating for ponderosa pine in the 

Briggs Spring project area 

Insect Rating Acres Percentage

Low 1,031 5%

Medium 12,856 60%

High 7,633 35%

Total 21,520 100%

Mountain pine beetle risk ratings were determined by structural stages in ponderosa pine 

(Table 19).

Table 19. Structural stage/MPB risk

rating relationship

Ponderosa Pine

Structural

Stage

MPB Risk

Rating

1 Low

2 Low

3A Low

3B Medium

3C High

4A Medium

4B High

4C High

5 High

Even though a SS4A is in the lowest tree density the tree size of SS4 (>9 inches DBH) is 

largely in the 7-13 inch diameter range and therefore 4A stands remain at medium risk 

(Table 19).

The MPB is showing increased activity in the ponderosa pine stands in the project area. 

Patches of dead trees ranging from one or two infested trees to small patches, consisting 

of several infested trees, could be found in almost every site of the analysis area. The 

most noticeable areas of infestation are in the northeastern area (location 40705) just 

north of the old powerline and the area to the south of Bert Howey spring in location 

40806. Most recently, increased activity was noted in the goshawk stands (location 

40802) just south of Six-mile Road (FSR 301) and in a stand (location 40805) along the 

Custer-Limestone Road (FSR 284) just east of the Heggie Road (FSR 284.5D).

Quaking Aspen

There are 331 acres of quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) in the Briggs Spring project 

area. More than half of these stands are in the northern half of the project area (north of 

Six-mile Road; FSR 301). Most of the pine stands within the analysis area are commonly 

intermixed with smaller aspen clones and individuals scattered throughout the site. Aspen 

stands within the project area have an average stand age of 70 years within trees of 5-

inches DBH and larger, while the average age of aspen less than 5-inches DBH is 13 

years. Approximately two-thirds of the aspen stands have large conifers that are outcompeting the hardwoods.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

27

White Spruce

There are no white spruce (Picea glauca) stands within the project area, however white 

spruce individuals can be found within the project area. In the northern half of the 

project area spruce can be found intermixed with ponderosa pine stands and aspen clones. 

In the southern half of the project area spruce are also found along the northern face of 

rimrock ledges. Because the presence of white spruce is so minimal throughout the 

project area, discussion of white spruce will not be carried further in the analysis. 

Understory Vegetation

Shrubs, forbs, and grasses are plentiful in the forest understory. Common juniper 

(Juniperus communis) is the most widespread shrub found in the project area. Common 

juniper typically reaches a height of approximately two to three feet. Oregon grape 

(Berberis repens) and kinnikinnik (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) are also common shrubs 

found in most sites, while snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus) is found in greater numbers 

in the southern half of the analysis area. Other shrubs include russet buffalo berry 

(Shepherdia canadensis) in the southern locations and shrubby cinquefoil (Potentilla 

fruticosa) in the northern locations. There are a large variety of forbs and grasses in the 

analysis area.

Meadows/Grasslands

Large meadows throughout the northern half of the project area dominate the wide 

drainage bottoms while smaller meadows run up the draws in the southern half dividing 

the conifer stands. There are areas where conifers are encroaching upon the meadows. 

Conifer regeneration can be found coming into the meadows that are adjacent to conifer 

stands while other areas with meadow soils have larger conifers already well established.

Environmental Consequences

Cover Type

Alternative 1 – No Action

Under this alternative, no new vegetation management activities would occur within the 

project area.

Direct and Indirect Effects

No changes would occur to existing cover types in the Briggs Spring project area. 

Common to Both Action Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects

The number of existing pine acres would decrease as 123 acres of ponderosa pine are 

converted to aspen. Pine acres would decrease from 21,520 to 21,398 in both action 

alternatives, a 1% reduction. 

Structural Stage

Alternative 1 – No Action
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

28

Under this alternative, no new vegetation management activities would occur within the 

project area.

Direct and Indirect Effects

No changes would occur to existing forest vegetation structural stages in the Briggs 

Spring project area. 

Common to Both Action Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects

All action alternatives would move structural stages toward correcting deficiencies in 

early structural stages in MA 5.1. Both action alternatives would have the same minor 

impact on the range of structural stages in ponderosa pine in MA 5.1. 

Ponderosa Pine

Alternative 1 – No Action

Under this alternative, no new vegetation management activities would occur within the 

project area. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

The effects of deferring treatment in the pine stands would be a slower increase a yield as 

the size of the existing trees would increase at a reduced rate due to competition, a 

reduction of diameter growth due to age and overstocking, an increased risk to MPB 

infestations, and an increased risk of large-scale, high intensity wildfire. The number of 

ponderosa pine acres would remain the same. 

Age class distribution may change where mortality occurs due to MPB. The mortality 

caused by MPB would open up the pine stands creating large openings or whole stands 

could be reduced to SS1 (grass stage). 

Structural Stage – The forest-wide structural stage objective (Objective 5.1-204) 

percentages for MA 5.1 would not change with this alternative in the short term 

(approximately <10 years) unless the MPB infestation would change stand structure. 

Structural stages 1, 4A, 4B, and 4C would continue to be over target percentages for MA 

5.1, while SS 2, 3A, 3B, 3C, and 5 would be under the target percentages for MA 5.1. 

In the long term, structural stages would change as trees grow and regenerate, wildfires or 

wind events take place, or insects and disease related mortality occurs. These changes 

could take decades, or depending on the event, could happen overnight. Eventually, the 

majority of structural stages would grow into SS4B or SS4C without any disturbances to 

the stand. This would not move ponderosa pine stands toward the forest objective 

(Objective 5.1-204) for structural stages for the management area. 

There would be no changes to the ‘very large’ tree size percentages for MA 5.1. 

Alternative 1 would not move the stand conditions towards the Forest Plan objectives for 

structural stages.

Mountain Pine Beetle – Mountain pine beetle risk would not be reduced with Alternative

1. The analysis area would continue to have 35% of the stands in high risk and 60% of 

the stands in medium risk for susceptibility to MPB infestation. Mortality is expected to 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

29

increase from present numbers. The current infestations (Table 20) are expected to 

increase in size and spread to healthy green trees.

Table 20. Alternative 1-MPB risk rating for the Briggs 

Spring project area

MPB Risk 

Rating

Existing 

Acres Existing Percent (%)

Low 1,031 5 %

Medium 12,856 60 %

High 7,633 35 %

Total 21,520 100 %

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

In this alternative 12,244 acres would be commercially harvested, including 6,063 acres 

of sanitation; 6,295 acres prescribe burned; and 22,305 acres of non-commercial 

treatments. An estimated volume of 30,127 CCF (14,110 MBF) and 8,075 CCF of POL

is expected. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Group shelterwood (6,376 acres) is the main treatment proposed. Group shelterwood was 

recommended because many of the stands in the project area are not homogeneous, but 

rather have patches or groups of trees of various age classes throughout the stand. This 

prescription may include all phases of the shelterwood system such as overstory removal, 

commercial thin and shelterwood seed cut and would all be harvested to the same basal 

areas as previously mentioned. After harvest, residual trees would increase in yield as the 

size of existing trees and their diameter would increase due to reduced competition. The

resulting less dense stands would provide a decreased risk of catastrophic wildfire. 

POL thinning improves the residual stand by increasing the quality of the timber through 

the removal of damaged, diseased, and poorly formed trees. An increase of individual 

tree growth also occurs by releasing the remaining trees from competition.

In this alternative, 6,295 acres are planned for prescribed burning, of which 5,669 acres 

would occur in pine sites. Mortality limits were designed to prevent excessive mortality 

within pine stands differentiated by tree diameter sizes. 

Structural Stage –Alternative 2 would move the project area toward Forest Plan structural 

stage objectives for MA 5.1. Timber harvesting would open up the stands and change 

stand densities and/or tree size depending on the treatment prescribed. 

A shelterwood seed cut in the short term would cause more acres to move into SS4A by 

maintaining tree size but reducing stand density. Initially, more SS4A would need to be 

created in order to move to the other structural stages. A shelterwood seed cut is a 

regeneration cut; after implementation the area would regenerate naturally. The 

shelterwood seed cut would enable the stand to move towards early SS2 and SS3.

An overstory removal would change tree size from sawtimber (SS4) to seedlings/saplings 

(SS2) following the commercial harvest. This would increase the number of acres of

SS2. 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

30

Commercial thinning would maintain tree size but depending on residual basal area, the 

stand could be reduced to SS4A or SS4B.

For SS4 pine sites, 13% of all stands within the management area would maintain a tree 

size of ‘very large’ (16” DBH or greater) with all alternatives. This is 3% over the target 

of 10%.

In the short term, the percentages for all structural stages after harvest would remain the 

same except SS4A and SS4B. Structural stage 4A would increase by 1% to 40%, which 

moves away from the objective of 25%. Structural stage 4B would decrease by 1% to 

29%, which moves toward the objective of 25%. See Table 21 for SS comparisons by 

alternative.

Table 21. Alternative 2-ponderosa pine structural stages throughout MA 5.1, 

across the Black Hills National Forest

Structural 

Stage

Forest Plan 

Objective 

(%)

Existing Condition 

Ponderosa Pine 

Acres

Existing 

Condition 

(%)

Alt. 2 

Ponderosa Pine 

Acres

Alt. 2

(%)

SS1 5% 26,760 6% 26,760 6%

SS2 5% 16,673 4% 16,673 4%

SS3A 10% 24,236 5% 24,320 5%

SS3B 15% 17,047 4% 17,090 4%

SS3C 5% 10,269 2% 10,269 2%

SS4A 25% 185,062 39% 188,909 40%

SS4B 25% 142,228 30% 138,133 29%

SS4C* 5% 50,437 11% 50,437 11%

SS5* 5% 1,227 0.3% 1,227 0.3%

Total 100% 473,393 100% 473,818 100%

*Note that SS4C and SS5 are not present within the Briggs Spring project area.

The forest objective for structural stages applies to the entire management area. 

Depending on the type of harvests that are prescribed and how many acres are treated 

will depend on how soon the percentages of the forest plan objectives are reached. Forest 

growth rates and funding of post harvest treatments also must be taken into consideration. 

As a result, it may take two or more decades to achieve the Forest Plan structural stage 

objectives (USDA Forest Service, 2005).

Mountain Pine Beetle – See “Common to All Action Alternatives” below. 

Alternative 3

In this alternative 23,400 acres would be commercially harvested; 3,678 acres of 

sanitation treatment; 23,452 acres of non-commercial treatment, including 7,009 acres of 

prescribed burning; and an estimated volume of 41,531 CCF of sawtimber and 9,931 

CCF of POL would be expected. This alternative harvests the most volume from the 

greatest amount of acres. This alternative was designed to treat the project area more 

aggressively and to incorporate more acres of preventative treatments for mountain pine 

beetle infestation. 

Direct and Indirect Effects
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

31

The majority of proposed treatments would occur in ponderosa pine stands as in 

Alternative 2. This alternative proposes to treat more than 11,000 additional acres than 

Alternative 2. 

Group shelterwood is the main proposed treatment as in Alternative 2; however 

Alternative 3 increases group shelterwood treatments to 7,469 more acres than 

Alternative 2. Alternative 3 has converted many of the sanitation only treatments from 

Alternative 2 to group shelterwood treatments. Group shelterwood may include all 

phases of the shelterwood system such as overstory removal, commercial thin and 

shelterwood seed cut. 

After harvest, residual trees would increase in yield as the size of existing trees would 

increase due to the reduced competition and increased diameter growth as a result of less 

competition. These results would be the same as in Alternative 2, but spanning across

more acres in the project area. There would be a greater decrease in catastrophic wildfire 

potential because of a more open canopy created by more acres treated than Alternative 

2. 

Up to 8,889 acres of POL thinning is proposed with this alternative. This is 411 more 

acres than Alternative 2. Trees less than 9-inches DBH would be thinned to a spacing of 

18’ x 18’. POL thinning improves the residual stand by increasing the quality of the 

timber through the removal of damaged, diseased, and poorly formed trees. An increase 

of individual tree growth also occurs by releasing the remaining trees from competition. 

Mechanical fuels treatments would increase by 22 acres more than Alternative 2, to 1,274

acres. These areas would be thinned to 14’ x 14’ spacing.

This alternative would prescribe burn 7,009 acres (5,964 acres of which are pine sites), 

which is 714 acres (295 acres of which are pine sites) more than Alternative 2. The same 

mortality limits listed in Alternative 2 would be used for Alternative 3. 

Mountain Pine Beetle – Sanitation only treatments would be done in sites where no other 

commercial treatments are proposed. These sites were deferred from other treatments for 

wildlife reasons and to maintain the current stand structure. Sanitation would be 

implemented if the stand becomes infested with MPB. Alternative 3 increases the acres 

of commercial treatment from Alternative 2, resulting in 2,385 acres less than Alternative 

2 of sanitation only treatment. 

See “Common to All Action Alternatives” below.

Common to All Action Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects

Commercial thinning would occur on 2,204 acres where a basal area of 60ft2/ac would be 

prescribed for the majority of the stands. In areas with MPB infestation a 50ft2/ac would 

be prescribed. Overstory removal would occur on 138 acres to release established 

seedlings and 479 acres of shelterwood seed cut to regenerate mature pine stands.

A combination of POL (Products Other than Logs) thinning and a fuels treatment 

(deadfall) is proposed on 300 acres in both action alternatives. The fuels treatments are 

interspersed with the POL thinning. These acres are located within the Jasper Fire area 

on the south end of the project area. Trees less than 9-inch DBH would be thinned to a 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

32

spacing of 18’x18’. POL thinning improves the residual stand by increasing the quality 

of the timber through the removal of damaged, diseased, and poorly formed trees. An 

increase of individual tree growth also occurs by releasing the remaining trees from 

competition. The fuels treatment would be to reduce the existing slash to a height within 

18-24 inches of the ground.

A combination of POL thinning and hardwood release is proposed on 564 acres in both 

action alternatives. Pine trees less than 9-inch DBH would be thinned to a spacing of 

18’x18’. POL thinning improves the residual stand by increasing the quality of the 

timber through the removal of damaged, diseased, and poorly formed trees. An increase 

of individual tree growth also occurs by releasing the remaining trees from competition. 

Inclusions of aspen occur within these pine stands. Removing all sizes of competing 

conifers would allow more sunlight to reach the forest floor, which would promote 

sprouting.

The number of existing pine acres would decrease as 123 acres are converted from pine 

to aspen. Pine acres would decrease from 21,521 to 21,398 in both action alternatives, a 

1% reduction. An additional 53 pine acres would be converted to aspen, but new sites 

would need to be created.

Mountain Pine Beetle – Both action alternatives would reduce the same amount of acres 

of pine in the high-risk and medium risk categories for MPB infestation. Acres in the 

high-risk rating would decrease by approximately 18% to 3,538 acres of ponderosa pine. 

Pine stands at the medium risk rating would increase by approximately 18% (16,745 

acres). The low risk rating would remain the same at 5% (1,115 acres). See Table 22.

Table 22. Mountain pine beetle risk rating - Comparison for all alternatives

MPB 

Risk 

Rating

Existing 

Condition 

Acres

Alt. 1

Existing 

Condition

%

Alt. 1

Acres 

PostSale

Alt. 2

PostSale 

%

Alt. 2

Acres 

PostSale

Alt. 3

PostSale 

%

Alt. 3

Change 

(%) from 

Existing 

Conditon

Low 1,031 5% 1,115 5% 1,115 5% 0%

Medium 12,857 60% 16,745 78% 16,745 78% + 18%

High 7,633 35% 3,538 17% 3,538 17% - 18%

Total 21,521 100% 21,398* 100% 21,398* 100%

*Pine acres minus 123 acres converted from pine to aspen or meadow.

Quaking Aspen

Alternative 1 – No Action

Under this alternative, no new vegetation management activities would occur within the 

project area. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

This Alternative would not move the aspen stand conditions towards the forest objective. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

33

Eighty-six acres would be prescribed burned in this alternative. A light prescribed fire 

could initiate a new cohort of suckers in an aspen clone by killing all of the exiting stems. 

Combining a harvest of conifer overstory with subsequent prescribed burning of scattered 

slash may most closely approximate the natural fire disturbances that historically 

maintained aspen in the Black Hills (Sheppard & Asherin, 2004).

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

A commercial hardwood release would occur on 259 acres of aspen. This is nine acres 

more than Alternative 2. Removal of conifers 9-inches DBH or greater would be 

commercially harvested.

Alternative 3 would prescribe burn 255 acres of aspen stands. This is 169 acres more 

than Alternative 2. Prescribe burning would be used to stimulate suckering in aspen and 

introduce new age classes within aspen stands in this alternative.

Common to All Action Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects

Existing aspen acres (331 acres) would increase as three pine sites (123 acres) and 

portions of eight additional pine sites (53 acres) would be converted to aspen sites (total 

of 176 acres). 

Aspen stands would receive more light, moisture, and nutrients, as the more shade 

tolerant conifers would be removed from the existing aspen stands. Removing conifers 

growing in and around an aspen clone can reduce competition for moisture and light, 

which will favor the aspen. Aspen roots extend a considerable distance away from 

existing stems. Clearing the surrounding conifer forest back 1-1.5 tree heights away from 

a declining aspen clone will allow new aspen suckers to establish and expand the area 

occupied by the clone (Sheppard & Battaglia, 2002). Eliminating conifers from the 

understory would keep conifers from taking over aspen stands in the future. Conifers less 

than 9-inches DBH would be removed as a post sale activity from the understory of 331 

acres of existing aspen stands.

Understory Vegetation

Alternative 1 – No Action

Under this alternative, no new vegetation management activities would occur within the 

project area. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Within conifer stands, forbs, shrubs, and grasses would be shaded out reducing benefits 

to other resources such as wildlife and range. In areas with MPB infestation there would 

be an increase in forbs, shrubs, and grasses where MPB has caused mortality in pine 

allowing sunlight, moisture, and nutrients to become available to the understory 

vegetation creating more grass and forage for cattle and wildlife. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

34

Direct and Indirect Effects

This alternative would harvest and open up the canopy on 12,244 acres. This would 

allow an increase in light, nutrients, and moisture to become available to the understory 

vegetation of forbs, shrubs, and grasses. The result would be an increase in grass and 

forage for cattle and wildlife.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

This alternative would harvest and open up the canopy on 23,400, which is 11,156 more 

acres than Alternative 2. This would allow an increase in light, nutrients, and moisture 

over more acres to become available to the understory vegetation. Forbs, shrubs, and 

grasses would increase creating more grass and forage for cattle and wildlife than 

Alternative 2.

Common to All Action Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects

The understory vegetation within timbered stands could be set back in the short term (3-5 

years) by prescribe burning. Shrubs may be temporarily reduced in size by the prescribe 

burning but most would re-sprout.

Meadows/Grasslands

Alternative 1 – No Action

Under this alternative, no new vegetation management activities would occur within the 

project area. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Meadows would continue to be encroached by conifers, decreasing grass and forage 

production. Conifers currently growing in meadows would continue to increase in 

numbers, taking over the meadows. Meadows without conifer encroachment at present 

may eventually become encroached. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Prescribe burning in meadows could delay or help remove conifer regeneration from 

occurring if the tree seedlings are very small in size. Alternative 2 would prescribe burn 

540 acres within meadow sites.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Prescribe burning in meadows could delay or help remove conifer regeneration from 

occurring if the tree seedlings are very small in size. Alternative 3 would prescribe burn 

790 acres within meadow sites, which is 250 acres more than Alternative 2.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

35

Common to All Action Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects

Approximately 2,674 acres of existing meadows would be maintained by removing 

encroaching pine in both action alternatives. All conifers are to be removed 

commercially for trees 9-inches DBH or greater or as a post harvest activity for trees less 

than 9-inches DBH.

Cumulative Effects

The Briggs Spring analysis area has been commercially harvested many times in the past 

with recorded activities going back to the 1960s. Post sale activities followed with 

natural disturbances occurring throughout the years, such as wildfires and insect and 

disease. Appendix X lists past, present, and future activities considered in this analysis.

Time Boundary (1980 to 2022) - Commercial and non-commercial treatments in the early 

1980’s are the earliest known activities that still affect the landscape today. 

Implementation of activities could occur starting in 2012. Full implementation of all 

activities is expected to be completed by 2022. 

Space Boundary - The Briggs Spring analysis area boundary will be used for the 

cumulative effects analysis. Harvest activities along with post sale activities are confined 

to the stand level while natural disturbances such as wildfire or insects and disease may 

be confined to the stand level or the project area.

Ponderosa Pine

Much of the Briggs Spring analysis area has been harvested in the past. At least 19 

timber sales have taken place since 1980. The effect of past treatments has been an 

increase of merchantable volume growth and improvement in the quality of timber. 

There has also been an improvement in the quality of timber through removal of 

damaged, diseased, and poorly formed trees. Precommercial thinning has occurred and 

improved stand health by removing damaged, diseased, and poor quality trees.

Future treatments for the area might be further thinning or regeneration cuts. Any 

treatments for growth and yield purposes would not occur until stands became 

overstocked again or regeneration cuts were prescribed at culmination of mean annual 

increment or when more even-aged treatments were desired.

The Black Hills, including the Briggs Spring analysis area, had been in an on-going 

drought condition the last 10 years. While MPB does not depend on drought conditions 

for the insect to continuously increase their population, the drought aided the MPB by 

increasing stress in healthy trees thus making the trees more vulnerable to a successful 

MPB attack.

Thousands of acres of ponderosa pine in the analysis area had been harvested or 

precommercially thinned to a density that has left them more vulnerable to MPB attack 

than the currently proposed thinning densities. As a result, these stands are now 

encompassing a large area of even-aged trees, all of which are about the same size, with 

high-risk densities. Ponderosa pine trees with an average DBH of 7 inches or greater and 

basal areas over 80ft2/ac leave the stands susceptible to MPB infestation. Overall, 35% 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

36

of the analysis area is at high risk for MPB and 60% is at medium risk. Most of these 

stands would have been harvested before the MPB epidemic, leaving stands at a higher 

density than considered today. 

The current epidemic has not shown signs of slowing down but continuously increasing 

in numbers. In 2010 the mapped acreage affected by MPB doubled, as compared with 

acres attributed to MPB during each of the previous three years, representing significant 

new pine mortality (Schaupp, 2011). From the mapping of the 2010 Aerial Overview 

Detection Survey, areas of MPB mortality have increased in the Briggs Spring analysis 

area.

There would be potential adverse cumulative effects to ponderosa pine with the no action 

alternative. Lack of vegetation treatment within ponderosa pine sites would amplify the 

potential for beetle populations to increase throughout the project area. Not harvesting 

ponderosa pine stands would encourage beetle populations to rise and would contribute to 

the MPB epidemic growing within the analysis area. The MPB population is expected to 

increase in numbers.

There would be positive cumulative effects under both of the action alternatives. 

Treatment of ponderosa pine stands intended to lower stand density would reduce the 

susceptibility to MPB infestation. The proposed activities would result in MPB caused 

mortality to decrease with the action alternatives.

Quaking Aspen

Many of the aspen stands have been invaded by conifers. Under the no action alternative, 

the aspen stands would not be released from competition by having conifers removed. 

This would result in a loss of aspen stands throughout the project area. Under the action 

alternatives the aspen stands would be released and not be further invaded by conifers as 

conifer seed sources would be removed. Future hardwood releases and prescribed 

burning would maintain and enhance the existing aspen stands. 

Understory Vegetation

Past harvest activities have opened the forest canopy and produced more understory 

vegetation in forest stands. In the long term (greater than 10 years) trees would reoccupy the understory and future treatments would be needed to maintain and enhance 

understory vegetation. 

Under the no action alternative, canopy closure would continue to increase through time 

and less and less understory vegetation would be present under the forest canopy. 

Currently dense stands would not have their canopy opened up. Existing stands with a

more open canopy would start to close as tree crowns grow together and additional trees 

begin to grow from regeneration.

There would be no adverse cumulative effects to understory vegetation as a result of the 

action alternatives. Both action alternatives would improve understory vegetation by 

opening up the forest canopy. 

Meadows/Grasslands
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

37

The historic meadow sites within the project area have been encroached upon by conifers. 

Pine encroachment would occur in both action alternatives. Removing conifers of all 

sizes would fully restore existing meadows. As a result increased grass and forage 

production would occur. Proposed non-commercial treatments would remove any new 

pine invasion from adjacent forest stands, maintaining the meadows. There would be no 

adverse cumulative effects to meadows in the project area as a result of either action 

alternative. 

The cumulative effect under the no action alternative would be that ponderosa pine would 

remain in meadows and continue to seed into more trees, eventually replacing existing 

meadow sites. Grass and forage production would continue to decrease.

Wildlife

Affected Environment

Vegetative conditions in the project area were described in Tables 12 & 13 in the 

Silviculture section. The project area contains many different habitat types. Some of 

these include: ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa)/common juniper (Juniperus 

communis), ponderosa pine/bearberry (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi), ponderosa 

pine/snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides)/bracken 

fern (Pteridium aquilinum), bebb willow (Salix bebbiana) shrubland, shrubby cinquefoil 

(Potentilla fruticosa) shrubland, western snowberry (Symphoricarpos occidentalis) 

shrubland, and a small acreage of white spruce (Picea glauca)/grouseberry (Vaccinium 

scoparium). The project area is large and therefore consists of many habitat 

classifications (see Marriott & Faber-Langendoen, 2000 for detailed descriptions of each 

habitat type).

Topography is generally gentle rolling hills that support contiguous pine stands broken by 

meadows and/or grasslands with or without aspen. The majority of the 

meadow/grassland acreage is on private lands, mostly unoccupied, within the project 

boundary. This project area contains a mixture of tree species such as aspen and 

ponderosa pine. Spruce is very limited within the project area. There are several 

intermittent/ephemeral drainages within the project area but no measurable perennial 

reaches. Developed and undeveloped springs are present on Forest Service lands. The 

project area has an extensive road system. The road density for all roads within the 

project area is 2.8 miles/square mile. These roads provide access for various forest 

management activities and recreational use, including snowmobile routes. In addition 

there are approximately 13 miles of system OHV trails within the project area.

Refer to the Forest Vegetation section presented earlier in this chapter for more 

information on these habitat components and the effects of the alternatives on each. The 

cumulative effects area for this analysis includes the project area boundary and activities 

that have occurred within the last 10 years and 10 years into the future. Appendix F

provides a summary of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities 

considered in the cumulative effects analysis.

Snags and Down Woody Material
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

38

Stand exam data collected in 2004 and 2005 was used to determine amounts of down 

woody material and snag numbers. Data shows sufficient amounts of down woody debris 

throughout the Briggs Spring project area. Down woody material either meets or exceeds 

Forest Plan Standard 2308. Snags > 9” diameter at breast height (DBH) and > 25 feet in 

height were tallied from the stand exam data tree sheets. Snags per acre ranged from 0.80 

to 9.33 across the project area. The average snag density by location was 2.92

snags/acre. Snag densities in this project area, from data in 2004 and 2005, were below 

Objective 211. Areas where mountain pine beetles (MPB) were evident generally had 

higher snag and down woody material counts and snag clumping was common.

Mountain pine beetle infestations are present within the Briggs Spring project area. 

There are 7,764 acres of pine habitat present in the project area that are considered at 

high risk for MPB infestation. High risk sites are those pine stands that are designated as 

structural stages 3B, 3C, 4B, 4C and 5. Pine beetles and recent fires have created more 

snags and downed wood in the last five years. Wildfires have occurred in the project 

area, one of the most recent was the Jasper Fire. Jasper burned more than 83,000 acres 

on the Forest in 2000, creating many snags. More than 4,500 acres were burned within 

the Briggs Spring project area boundary.

A new policy is in effect allowing cutting of snags, for fuelwood, within 300’ of roads 

where dispersed camping is also permitted. Within the Briggs Spring project area that 

would include the area north of Six Mile Road (FSR 301) to the northern extent of the 

project boundary. Refer to the latest Motorized Vehicle Use Map (MVUM)

(implemented December 1, 2010) for areas allowing snag cutting. For the rest of the 

project area, Standard 2304 would apply and snags would not be cut.

Riparian Habitat

Perennial reaches of water in the Briggs Spring project area are lacking. There are 

intermittent and ephemeral reaches in the project area as well as numerous ponds, 

reservoirs and springs. Numerous reservoirs have been created for livestock watering 

within the project area. Ponds have also been specifically created for wildlife use. 

Northern leopard frogs, a Region 2 (R2) sensitive species, were found at one of these 

riparian areas created for wildlife in 2010 surveys. Currently, some riparian areas within 

the Briggs Spring project boundary are meeting Forest Plan Guidelines 3210 and 3211 

for riparian health. There are riparian areas that could use enhancements.

Management Indicator Species (MIS)

The Phase II Amendment to the 1997 Forest Plan-FEIS (USDA Forest Service, 2005) 

lists MIS to be considered during project-level planning. MIS species were selected from 

that list for analysis if they have habitat or populations present within the Briggs Spring 

project area. Some MIS species have other status (such as R2 sensitive), and additional 

analyses are provided for them in the Briggs Spring Biological Assessment/Biological 

Evaluation (BA/BE). Full analyses and rationale are found in the Briggs Spring project 

record. 

The MIS species carried forward in this document are: 

• White-tailed deer
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

39

• Grasshopper sparrow

• Black-backed woodpecker

• Brown creeper

• Ruffed grouse

Monitoring of MIS is accomplished through coordinated efforts involving US Forest 

Service biologists, research, contracted monitoring surveys and State agencies. Forest 

monitoring of land bird species is accomplished currently by a contract with the Rocky 

Mountain Bird Observatory (RMBO). Game species (e.g., white-tailed deer) are 

monitored by a combination of research by South Dakota State University (SDSU), South 

Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks (SDGFP) biologists and reported observations.

White-tailed Deer (MIS)

The Briggs Spring area is mainly spring, summer and fall range for white-tailed deer

(Odocoileus virginianus); although they may inhabit the area in winter if the season is 

mild. Usually if snow depths exceed 6” deep, deer move to lower elevations. The Briggs 

Spring area is normally snow covered all winter. For white-tailed deer, spring migration 

back to summer range generally takes place from mid-to-late May. Fall migration to 

winter range is normally done during the September to October time frame but is 

primarily dependent on snow accumulation (Griffin et al., 1999). During field surveys in 

2007, 2008, and 2010, white-tailed deer were commonly observed. The area is used for 

white-tailed deer fawning.

Habitat trend at the Forest-level suggests that summer habitat is increasing while winter 

habitat is stable to slightly decreasing. The Forest is meeting Objective 238a, with regard 

to summer habitat, but the Forest may not be maintaining winter habitat, although the 

decline might not be significant (USDA Forest Service, 2009).

Big Game Screening – Screen cover is defined as: being able to hide 90% of an adult 

deer or elk from human view at a distance of 200 feet or less (of the road). There are six 

collector and arterial roads in the Briggs Spring project area where the screening cover 

requirement (Guideline 3203) applies. Currently five of the six roads are in compliance 

(Table 23). Screening cover was determined by driving these six roads and measuring 

distances providing adequate screening cover either from vegetation (generally pine 

regeneration) or topography (slope and landform). These measurements were then 

compared to total distances (through Forest Service lands only) along the roads.

One arterial road, FSR 301, has inadequate hiding cover (less than 20%). Many of the 

sites along this road have been treated (harvested) and have an open canopy. 

Regeneration is not yet adequate to provide 20% hiding cover. Four of the six roads have 

more than adequate screen cover from vegetation and/or topography. Arterial road FSR 

117.1 has just over the recommended 20% hiding cover.

Table 23. Existing screening cover in the Briggs Spring project area 

on Forest lands

Roads Functional Class Percent Screening Cover

117.1 Arterial 21%

284 Arterial 28%

284.5D Collector 27%
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

40

294 Collector 31%

296.1 Collector 42%

301 Arterial 10%

Grasshopper Sparrow (MIS and R2 Sensitive Species)

The grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) is considered a locally common 

migrant and summer resident for South Dakota (Tallman et al., 2002). Monitoring in 

2002 showed that grasshopper sparrows were found almost exclusively in native mixed 

grass prairies in the Black Hills (Panjabi, 2003), however, they have been recently 

recorded in the Jasper Fire burn area (Panjabi, 2005) and the Rogers Shack Fire burn 

areas (White & Giroir, 2009). Observations by the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory 

(RMBO) tripled from 2004 to 2006 (Giroir et al., 2007). Suitable habitat is present in the 

Briggs Spring project area. The Jasper fire of 2000 has created suitable habitat for the 

grasshopper sparrow in the project area.

Black-backed Woodpecker (MIS and R2 Sensitive Species)

The black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) is distributed in low densities 

throughout most of the Black Hills. In the Black Hills, the black-backed woodpecker 

seems to favor late successional pine forests and areas that have been burned over or 

impacted by insects. Research conducted by Mohren (2002) indicated that this species 

prefers dense stands of mature ponderosa pine (SS 4C) and avoids the more open nature 

of SS4A and 4B stands. In 2005-2007, there was almost 2-3 times as much SS4C 

available than is desired by the Forest Plan objectives (USDA Forest Service, 2006; 

2007; 2008). There are currently 7,590 acres of SS4B ponderosa pine and no SS4C 

ponderosa pine acres within the project area.

Throughout the Black Hills National Forest, a total of 7,672 acres of burned forest habitat 

was created and largely retained over the last five years (USDA Forest Service, 2010). 

Where wildfires have recently occurred, the species has been observed much more 

frequently and in higher densities. The “aging” of large burned areas, such as the Jasper 

Fire, into less suitable habitat is likely being offset by the increasing acreage of insectinfested timber stands and the stable acreage of large diameter, older pine trees. Tree 

mortality from insects from 1996-2007 is estimated at 300,000 acres, and insect-infested 

timber stands are increasing. Overall the habitat is relatively abundant and Forest Plan 

Objective 238b is being met on the Forest. 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 (USDA Forest Service, 2010).

Potential suitable habitat is present in the project area. Late succession stands containing 

large diameter dead trees (snags) created by natural events (wind, lightening), areas of 

mountain pine beetle activity, and burned acres are present within or adjacent to the 

Briggs Spring project area. From 2001-2007 the RMBO has observed black-backed 

woodpeckers just south of the project boundary (Panjabi, 2001, 2003-2005; Giroir et al., 

2007). In 2005 one was observed within the project area (Beason et al., 2006).

Brown Creeper (MIS)

The brown creeper (Certhia Americana) is considered an uncommon permanent resident 

of the Black Hills (Tallman et al., 2002), largely tied to late-succession pine and white-
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

41

spruce habitats (Panjabi, 2003, 2005). In 2007 brown creepers were observed during 

RMBO surveys in all forested habitat types and burn habitat (Giroir et al., 2007). In 

2002, 2003 and 2005 brown creepers were observed in the project area (Panjabi, 2003, 

2004; Beason et al., 2006).

Observation data for the brown creeper reveals a short-term downward Forest-wide 

population trend. It appears that Objective 238a is being met, although short-term 

activities to meet the SS4C objective may be affecting the Forest’s ability to provide very 

large trees in SS4C. Continued effort and additional time is needed to increase the acres 

of SS5 (USDA Forest Service, 2008; 2009).

Ruffed Grouse (MIS)

Ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) is considered an uncommon permanent resident in the 

Black Hills (Tallman et al., 2002) with greatest abundance in the northern Hills (Panjabi, 

2003). Ruffed grouse prefer young to medium aged aspen stands (Tallman et al., 2002) 

but have been observed in other habitat types in the Black Hills (Panjabi, 2003). In 2002 

and 2005 ruffed grouse were observed just north of the project area (Panjabi, 2003; 

Beason et al., 2006).

Aspen acreage in the project area totals 331 acres. This does not include scattered 

hardwood clones within conifer dominated sites. The hardwood sites represent many 

structural stages from SS2 up to SS4B (Table 13in the Silviculture section). A good 

portion of the existing aspen acreage is in the northern tip of the project area.

Species of Local Concern (SOLC)

Black Hills Supplement “r2_bh_2600-2005-1” to Forest Service Manual 2600 became

effective November 7, 2005 and provides direction for the management of SOLC (USDA 

Forest Service, 2005a). As defined by this supplement, a species of local concern is a 

plant, fish or wildlife species (including subspecies or varieties) that does not meet the 

criteria for sensitive status. These could include species with declining trends in only a 

portion of R2, or those that are important components of diversity in a local area. The 

local area is defined as Forest Service lands within the Black Hills National Forest. This 

supplement also provides a detailed explanation of the evaluation criteria used to select 

species of local concern and a current list for the Black Hills National Forest (USDA 

Forest Service, 2005a). 

Only SOLC species that occur in the Briggs Spring project area or whose habitat occurs 

in the project area is carried forward in this document. Full analyses and rationale are 

found in the Briggs Spring project record. 

The SOLC species carried forward in this document are: 

• Butterflies: 

o Atlantis fritillary

o Tawny crescent

• Snails: 

o Callused vertigo

o Mystery vertigo

o Frigid ambersnail 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

42

o Striate disc

• Sharp-shinned hawk

• Cooper’s hawk

• Broad-winged hawk

• Northern saw-whet owl

• Pygmy nuthatch

• Bats:

o Northern long-eared myotis

o Small-footed myotis

o Long-eared myotis

o Long-legged myotis

o Northern flying squirrel

o Meadow jumping mouse

Atlantis Fritillary (SOLC)

The Atlantis fritillary (Speyeria atlantis pahasapae) is an endemic butterfly of the Black 

Hills. In general, it occurs in riparian areas adjacent to openings, moist meadows and in 

boreal forests (NatureServe, 2009). In the Black Hills, this subspecies is restricted to 

Custer, Lawrence, and Pennington counties. It prefers wet meadows and moist canyons 

(Marrone, 2002).

Due to the restricted nature of the Atlantic fritillary’s distribution in the Black Hills, 

development or management activities within suitable habitats pose a risk to long-term 

persistence. Much of the fritillary’s habitat is privately owned. There are currently no 

reliable estimates of the Black Hills population (NatureServe, 2009). No records were 

found of this species in the project area.

Tawny Crescent (SOLC)

In South Dakota, the tawny crescent (Phycoides batesii) is restricted in its distribution to 

the Black Hills. The populations inhabiting the Black Hills of South Dakota and 

Wyoming are considered genetically isolated and disjunct from crescents elsewhere 

(Royer & Marrone, 1992). Tawny crescents were observed at two of 20 monitoring sites 

on the Mystic Ranger District in 2002 (USDA Forest Service, 2004). However, there 

continue to be no reliable estimates of local abundance or population estimates for the 

Black Hills (Stefanich, 2001). Stefanich (2001) hypothesized that the only 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. No records were found of this species 

in the project area.

Callused Vertigo (SOLC)

In 2007 and 2008 surveys were conducted by biological technicians. No callused vertigo

(Vertigo arthuri) snails were found in the project area. In 2002, the Forest received the 

final report for a contract to inventory and/or monitor 357 sites for land snails (Frest & 

Johannes, 2002). Callused vertigo was found sparingly in 63 of the 357 sites

inventoried/monitored. Specimens were found at Frest site 73, northeast of the 

decommissioned Moon Campground, within the Briggs Spring project area (refer to Frest 

& Johannes, 2002 for exact location of this site).
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

43

The narrowly restricted geographical range of the callused vertigo includes South Dakota 

(51 sites), Wyoming (12 sites in the Bear Lodge Mountains), North Dakota, Minnesota, 

and Alberta (Frest & Johannes, 2002). The callused vertigo is currently ranked imperiled 

globally and in South Dakota; it has not been ranked in Wyoming (NatureServe, 2009).

The monitoring protocol for snails was not funded in 2005 - 2008 (USDA Forest Service, 

2006a; 2007; 2008; 2009); therefore data to assess the status of SOLC snails is not 

available. Avoidance of known sites is currently the best available option for conserving 

and/or enhancing habitat at known snail colonies.

Mystery Vertigo (SOLC)

In 2002, the Forest received the final report for a contract to inventory and/or monitor 

357 sites for land snails (Frest & Johannes, 2002). Mystery vertigo (Vertigo paradoxa) 

was found in 23 of the 357 sites inventoried/monitored. They were not generally 

abundant at any site. This snail was not found in the Briggs Spring project area by Frest 

or by biological technicians (2007 and 2008). All sites with mystery vertigo were in the 

central or northern Black Hills or the Bear Lodge Mountains in Wyoming. 

The mystery vertigo is rare in the United States and occurs only in South Dakota (21 

sites); Wyoming (2 sites in the Bear Lodge Mountains); Michigan (1 site); Maine (2 

counties); and a few northern Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota sites (Frest & 

Johannes, 2002). The species appears to be more common in adjoining areas of southern 

Canada, generally from the Great Lakes eastward. Mystery vertigo is currently ranked 

vulnerable globally and critically imperiled in South Dakota; it has not been ranked in 

Wyoming (NatureServe, 2009).

Frigid Ambersnail (SOLC)

In 2002, the Forest received the final report for a contract to inventory and/or monitor 

357 sites for land snails (Frest & Johannes, 2002). The frigid ambersnail (Catinella 

gelida) was found in 12 (none of which are in the Briggs Spring project area) of the 357 

sites inventoried/monitored. The frigid ambersnail was rare at all locations, and very few 

live adults were observed during the early 1990’s surveys. Locations are widely 

distributed geographically across the Forest at varying elevations (3,800 to 6,800 feet). 

The frigid ambersnail is currently found only in Iowa (14 sites), South Dakota (12 sites), 

and Wisconsin (Frest & Johannes, 2002). The frigid ambersnail is currently ranked as 

critically imperiled globally and in South Dakota and Iowa; it is ranked 

imperiled/critically imperiled in Wisconsin (NatureServe, 2009). The state of Iowa 

considers the frigid ambersnail an endangered species. At the time of this report, a status 

review is underway to determine if the frigid ambersnail warrants listing under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). This snail was not found in the Briggs Spring project 

area by Frest or by biological technicians (2007 and 2008).

Striate Disc (SOLC)

In 2002, the Forest received the final report for a contract to inventory and/or monitor 

357 sites for land snails (Frest & Johannes, 2002). The striate disc (Discus shimekii) was 

found live in only 18 of the 357 sites inventoried/monitored. Sites where the striate disc 

occurs appear restricted to the higher elevations of the limestone plateau of the westcentral and north-central portions of the Black Hills.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

44

The range of the striate disc includes Wyoming (2 sites), Montana (1), Colorado (perhaps 

26 sites), South Dakota (1), Oregon (1), California (2), Utah (5), Arizona (3), and New 

Mexico (7) (Frest & Johannes, 2002). Hendricks (2003) also lists 5 records in Montana. 

Live sites have also been reported from several Canadian provinces. The striate disc is 

currently ranked globally as G5 (secure), and S2 (imperiled) in South Dakota 

(NatureServe, 2009). No striate disc snails were found during district survey efforts and 

none were located in the four Frest sites within the Briggs Spring project area.

Sharp-shinned Hawk (SOLC)

In South Dakota, the sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus) is considered “uncommon,” 

with the only recorded occurrences in the western part of the state (Peterson, 1995). In 

the Black Hills, they have been observed at all elevations (Peterson, 1995), but estimates 

of local abundance are not available due to their low numbers (Panjabi, 2003). The 

species has been observed an average of three times per year since bird monitoring began 

in 2001 (Giroir et al., 2007). 

On the Black Hills National Forest, sharp-shinned hawk nests occur in white spruce 

(Stephens & Anderson, 2002) and ponderosa pine (district biologists). Sharp-shinned 

hawks have also recently been detected in riparian, aspen, and burned habitats on the 

Forest, but these were not observations of nest sites (Panjabi, 2001; 2003; 2005). Sharpshinned hawks occur in most forest types across their range (Bildstein & Meyer, 2000). 

The amount of potential nesting habitat (SS3B, SS3C, SS4B, SS4C and SS5 ponderosa 

pine) in the project area is 7,764 acres or 32% of the project area. There is no SS4C or 

SS5 in the project area.

A single sharp-shinned hawk has been observed in the project area north and east of 

Redbank Spring Campground in recent years. There are no known nests in the project 

area.

Cooper’s Hawk (SOLC)

In South Dakota, the Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi) is considered “uncommon,” with 

the only recorded occurrences in the western part of the state (Peterson, 1995). The 

Cooper’s hawk has been observed in a variety of habitats in the Black Hills, including 

ponderosa pine, white spruce, riparian, shrublands, and burned areas (Panjabi, 2001; 

2003; 2005; Peterson, 1995). The species appears to be widespread but uncommon on 

the Forest. Bird monitoring over the past three years has yielded an average of five 

sightings per year (Giroir et al., 2007). 

In ponderosa pine, SS4B (mature stands with 40 to 70% canopy closure), SS4C (mature 

stands with >70% canopy closure), and SS5 (late succession) correspond most closely to 

the nesting habitat preferences of the Cooper’s hawk. There are currently 7,590 acres of 

SS4B pine in the project area. There are no acres of SS4C or SS5 in the project area.

There are no known sightings or nests of the Cooper’s hawk in the project area.

Broad-winged Hawk (SOLC)

In the Black Hills, the broad-winged hawk (Buteo platypterus) nests primarily in 

ponderosa pine, in mixed pine and deciduous habitats, occasionally with a white spruce 

component (Powder River Eagle Studies, 2000). It is expected that late-successional pine 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

45

and aspen make-up the majority of desirable habitat for the species in the Black Hills 

(Panjabi, 2005). Although considered rare in South Dakota (Peterson, 1995), the species 

was the second most frequently encountered raptor during surveys in 1996 and 1997 

(Powder River Eagle Studies, 2000). Of the 27 broad-winged hawk nests found on the 

Forest, 25 were in ponderosa pine while one was in an aspen and one was in a paper 

birch. Nest trees had an average DBH of about 16 inches; canopy closure in nest stands 

averaged 66% with a range of 45 to 96% (Stephens & Anderson, 2003). These nest-stand 

characteristics equate to SS4B, SS4C and SS5. Nest sites typically were in areas with 

slopes less than 10%. No association between nest sites and forest openings or wetlands 

was detected on the Forest (Stephens & Anderson, 2003).

There were 24 broad-winged hawks identified along transects in 2004, mainly in the 

northern Black Hills and Bear Lodge mountains. Fourteen of these were located in 

aspen, eight in late-successional pine and two in the Jasper Burn Area (Panjabi, 2005). 

Nineteen were detected in 2005. Only two were detected in 2009 (USDA Forest Service, 

2010). There are no known sightings or nests of the broad-winged hawk in the project 

area.

Northern Saw-whet Owl (SOLC)

In South Dakota, the northern saw-whet owl (Aegolius acadicus) is considered an 

uncommon resident (Tallman et al., 2002). The saw-whet owl was determined to be 

widely distributed and common in the Black Hills (Fauna West Wildlife Consultants, 

2003; Drilling, 2010). In the Black Hills, seasonal migration is likely among high- and 

low-elevation habitat (Johnson & Anderson, 2003). The northern saw-whet owl is 

tracked by the South Dakota Natural Heritage Program (SDNHP) as a rare species and is 

ranked three on a rarity scale of one to five, with one being critically imperiled and five 

being secure (SDNHP, 2006).

Structural stages 4C and SS5 most closely resemble the preferred breeding and nesting 

habitat for the saw-whet owl. The Briggs Spring project area is lacking SS4C and SS5 

acreage, however there may be small suitable pockets of habitat. There are no known 

sightings or nests in the project area. 

Pygmy Nuthatch (SOLC)

The pygmy nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea) subspecies of the Black Hills (Sitta pygmaea 

melanotis) is found from southern interior British Columbia and south throughout the 

forests of the Rocky Mountain West into Mexico and western Texas (DeGraaf et al., 

1991). It is considered an uncommon resident in South Dakota (Peterson, 1995). There 

are no reliable estimates of pygmy nuthatch abundance for the Black Hills (Ghalambor, 

2003). Estimates of local abundance are unavailable due to the scarcity of this species 

and its unpredictable distribution (Panjabi, 2003). From 2001 through 2007 RMBO has 

recorded 19 pygmy nuthatches on the Forest in eight different habitat types (Giroir et al., 

2007). Three pygmy nuthatches were recorded by RMBO in 2009 (USDA Forest 

Service, 2010). 

There are no records of sightings in the project area.

Northern Long-eared Myotis (SOLC)
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

46

At the western edge of its range, the northern long-eared myotis (Myotis septentrionalis)

is found in the wooded riparian zone in badlands and prairies to higher elevation 

coniferous and deciduous woodlands. In the Black Hills region, this species has been 

captured at elevations ranging from 4,000 to 6,500 feet (Schmidt, 2003a). Turner (1974) 

reported northern myotis from Pennington and Custer counties in South Dakota. 

NatureServe (2009) reported records of this species from Meade and Lawrence counties 

as well.

Luce et al. (1999) listed habitat associations as dense ponderosa pine and mixed 

coniferous/deciduous forest. Hibernacula for this species include mines and caves. 

Northern myotis have been documented using ponderosa pine snags as summer/maternity 

roosts in the Black Hills (Cryan et al., 2001) and in other regions (Rabe et al., 1998). 

A northern myotis was observed on private land, southeast of Moon Campground, within 

the project area in August 1993. No caves or mines were found in the Briggs Spring 

project area during field surveys. 

Small-footed Myotis (SOLC)

In the Black Hills region, the small-footed myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum) has been captured 

at elevations ranging from 3,800 to 6,000 feet (Schmidt, 2003b). Hibernacula for this 

species include mines and caves. Maternity and summer roosts are usually associated 

with rock features (e.g., bluffs, ridges, cliffs, boulders, and major outcroppings) within a 

variety of habitats (Schmidt, 2003b). The small-footed myotis is one of the few bat 

species that actually roosts in cavities at ground level.

This species has been reported from all five South Dakota counties of the Black Hills 

(Turner, 1974). Turner (1974) reported this species as widespread but not abundant in 

the Black Hills. No records were found for this species in the project area. No caves or 

mines were found in the Briggs Spring project area during field surveys.

Long-eared Myotis (SOLC)

The only records of long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) in the Black Hills come from 

unpublished reports. It is unknown whether the Black Hills supports a self-sustaining 

population. This species is associated with coniferous montane habitats and has been 

reported foraging among trees and over woodland ponds (Schmidt, 2003c). Limited data 

suggest that the long-eared myotis uses ponderosa pine snags as summer and maternity 

roosts in other regions (Rabe et al., 1998; Vonhof & Barclay, 1997). Although relatively 

little is known about this bat’s specific hibernation needs, hibernation sites include caves 

and mines (Higgins et al., 2000), but there are no known reports of them hibernating in 

the Black Hills (Schmidt, 2003c).

No records were found for this species in the project area. No caves or mines were found 

in the Briggs Spring project area during field surveys.

Long-legged Myotis (SOLC)

The long-legged myotis (Myotis volans) is considered the most common and widely 

distributed member of the genus Myotis in the Black Hills region and has been reported 

from all counties occupied by the Black Hills in both South Dakota and Wyoming 

(Schmidt, 2003d; Luce et al., 1999; Clark & Stromberg, 1987; Turner, 1974).
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

47

In the Black Hills, this species occurs primarily at elevations between 4,500 and 6,500 

feet (Turner, 1974). This species has been documented using ponderosa pine snags as 

summer/maternity roosts in the Black Hills (Cryan et al., 2001) and in other regions 

(Rabe et al., 1998). Cryan et al. (2001) found the long-legged myotis roosting in rock 

crevices in the Black Hills where they may be subject to disturbance by rock climbing 

activities. Snags used for roosting in the Black Hills were larger in diameter, in a greater 

state of decay, and were in higher densities when compared to random snags (Cryan et 

al., 2001). Hibernating individuals are known to use caves in the Black Hills, including 

Bush’s and Jewel Caves (Schmidt, 2003d; Luce et al., 1999; Turner, 1974).

The long-legged myotis forages over meadows, ponds, streams, and open mesic habitats 

of the Black Hills where it feeds on flying insects, particularly moths (Luce et al., 1999; 

Turner, 1974). Although this species is the most common and widely distributed bat in 

the Black Hills (Turner, 1974), general limits to persistence include availability of roost 

sites, hibernacula, and foraging areas. The reported preference of this bat for roosting in 

snags suggests that the availability of mature forests with abundant snags may be a 

limiting factor (Schmidt, 2003d).

No records were found for this species in the project area. No caves or mines were found 

in the Briggs Spring project area during field surveys.

Northern Flying Squirrel (SOLC)

There is a lack of specific data on habitat use by northern flying squirrels (Glaucomys 

sabrinus) in the Black Hills. Turner (1974) noted that the highest densities are likely 

found in white spruce forests in moist canyons of the northern Black Hills. Duckwitz 

(2001) found flying squirrels in Wind Cave National Park in ponderosa pine types that 

had an open canopy allowing understory grasses to prosper. Open pine types may 

provide the “openness” necessary for gliding. Locations where flying squirrels were 

found in Wind Cave National Park did have large pines while stands of dense dog-hair 

pine were avoided (Duckwitz, 2001).

The northern flying squirrel in the Black Hills is an isolated population with the nearest 

population located in the forests of western Wyoming (Clark & Stromberg, 1987; WellsGosling & Heaney, 1984).

Meadow Jumping Mouse (SOLC)

Meadow jumping mice range across Alaska through Canada, the northern and eastern 

United States, and across the Great Plains to the eastern foothills of the Rocky Mountains 

(WYNDD, 2002; Whitaker, 1972). The Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse (Zapus 

hudsonius campestris) is a separate subspecies that occurs in the Black Hills region 

(Beauvais, 2001). There are seven recorded occurrences of this species on the Bearlodge 

Mountains of the Black Hills, including the type specimen collected in 1864 (WYNDD, 

2002). Turner (1974) collected a total of 207 specimens from across the Black Hills and 

Bear Lodge Mountains in South Dakota and Wyoming. He collected the species as far 

south as Wind Cave National Park and characterized it as common throughout the study 

area (Black Hills and Bear Lodge Mountains). 

There are no known observations of this species in the Briggs Spring project area.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

48

Threatened and Endangered Species

A list of federally threatened, endangered and proposed species has been provided by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), South Dakota State Office, and was last 

updated on December 21, 2010 (USFWS, 2011). The South Dakota State Office is the 

primary center for all of the Black Hills, including Wyoming. The USFWS lists the 

following endangered and/or threatened species for Pennington County, South Dakota: 

whooping crane, least tern and black-footed ferret. No known occurrences or suitable 

habitat for these species exists in the Briggs Spring project area. 

Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

The whooping crane and least tern have been removed from the list of species considered 

on the Black Hills National Forest under section 7 consultation (letter of concurrence 

from D. Gober, Field Supervisor, USFWS, Pierre, South Dakota, dated August 8, 2003). 

Although the black-footed ferret is listed for Pennington County, it is an experimental 

population located in eastern Pennington County, where they have been re-introduced 

into Badlands National Park and the Conata Basin of Buffalo Gap National Grassland. 

Habitat for the black-footed ferret is not present in the project area. There are no prairie 

dog colonies present. 

With the determination that there are no federally listed species in the project area, no 

further consultation with the USFWS pursuant to the Endangered Species Act is required. 

As of August 8th, 2007 the bald eagle was removed from the list of threatened and 

endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. The bald eagle continues to be 

protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act. And, in accordance with Regional policy, upon de-listing the bald eagle is 

automatically given sensitive species status for a period of at least 5 years to ensure 

recovery of the species is maintained over that period (R2 Supplement, FSM 2672.11 

(6)).

There are no Threatened or Endangered species which have habitat within the Briggs 

Spring project area. Refer to the wildlife BA/BE in the project record.

Region 2 (R2) Sensitive Species

The current sensitive species list for the Rocky Mountain Region (R2) was renewed on 

June 9, 2009. Sensitive species for the Black Hills National Forest are listed on the R2 

threatened, endangered, and sensitive species home webpage (USDA Forest Service, 

2010a). 

The pre-field review of R2 sensitive species and federally endangered, threatened and 

proposed species was completed using survey results, district records, communication 

with District personnel, literature reviews, on-line databases and the South Dakota 

Natural Heritage Database. Of the 26 R2 sensitive species, six species are present and 

have suitable habitat in the project area, seven species are not present but suitable habitat 

exists in the project area. These 13 species may be impacted by the Briggs Spring 

project. 

Species & Habitat Present:

• Bald eagle
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

49

• Northern goshawk

• Northern harrier

• Black-backed woodpecker

• Northern leopard frog 

• Black Hills redbelly snake

Species Not Present/Habitat Present

• Fringed myotis

• Townsend’s big-eared bat

• Flammulated owl

• Lewis’s woodpecker

• Grasshopper sparrow

• Cooper’s mountain snail

• Regal fritillary butterfly

These sensitive species were analyzed in the Briggs Spring Wildlife BA/BE due to the 

species presence or presence of potential habitat in the project area. Two of the species 

listed, the black-backed woodpecker and grasshopper sparrow, are also designated as 

MIS species. Those species with duel MIS and R2 Sensitive Species designations will be 

discussed under the MIS section. 

Bald Eagle (R2 Sensitive Species)

Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) have been documented in all counties in the 

Black Hills. In South Dakota, approximately 300 bald eagles winter in the Black Hills 

and along the Missouri River (USFWS, 2010). In the Black Hills, this species utilizes 

winter habitat where carrion is available (along highways and in big game winter range) 

and where there are open lakes and streams. In addition, this species population is in an 

upward trend in South Dakota with successful nesting in twenty-two counties (South 

Dakota Game, Fish and Parks [SDGFP], 2010a). South Dakota trends based on midwinter surveys are reported by the SDGFP (2010b). The first nesting attempt in the 

Black Hills was in 2007 at Deerfield Reservoir (USDA Forest Service, 2009).

There have been no reported bald eagle sightings during the breeding season in the 

project area. The project area lacks any suitable nesting habitat for the bald eagle. Bald 

eagles have been sighted in the Briggs Spring project area during winter.

Northern Goshawk (R2 Sensitive Species)

In the Black Hills, the northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) is considered a rare 

permanent resident and has been found nesting in all the counties in the Black Hills 

(Tallman et al., 2002).

In the Black Hills, this species is usually found in ponderosa pine, especially in more 

closed canopy with multiple vegetation structure. Nest stands are typically mature, 

closed canopy (greater than 60%) ponderosa stands with high basal area. Little is known 

about migration of this species (NatureServe, 2009).

There is foraging and nesting habitat in the Briggs Spring project area. The nesting 

habitat is limited. There are two known goshawk territories. One of these territories was 

found due to new survey efforts within the project area in 2007. The other territory is 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

50

historical with success prior to 2007. Both nest territories were active in 2007. Neither 

was successful in 2008. In 2009 both were successful. Neither was successful in 2010. 

These two territories are monitored yearly.

Northern Harrier (R2 Sensitive Species)

The northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) is considered an uncommon migrant and summer 

resident in South Dakota (Tallman et al., 2002). Although the Black Hills is not 

considered within their range, recent large fires in the central and southern Hills may 

have produced desirable habitat. Northern harriers have been seen on a few occasions in 

the Jasper Burn Area, near Elk Mountain and in large grasslands/meadows (personal 

observation).

The open grasslands/meadows within the Briggs Spring project area provide suitable 

foraging and nesting habitat for the northern harrier. The Jasper fire created suitable 

habitat for this species in the Briggs Spring project area. In spring of 2004 a harrier was 

observed approximately two miles north of Moon Campground flying over a meadow.

Black-backed Woodpecker (R2 Sensitive Species and MIS)

The black-backed woodpecker (Picoides articus) is discussed under the MIS section. 

Northern Leopard Frog (R2 Sensitive Species)

In the Black Hills, the northern leopard frogs’ (Rana pipiens) current distribution is 

considered high where suitable habitat is available (USDA Forest Service, 2004). This 

species is vulnerable to habitat alteration/loss, introduced predaceous fish, susceptible to 

overgrazing, low water quality and wetland loss (Smith, 2003). At the time of this report 

the northern leopard frog has been petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA).

This species requires three types of habitat. Winter habitat, usually lakes, streams or 

ponds, is needed for winter torpor. High oxygen saturation is best in the winter waters. 

Summer habitat for this insectivorous frog is considered upland forage ground often near 

the breeding ponds. The third habitat is breeding/tadpole habitat. This is usually shallow 

bodies of water with little to no current, aquatic vegetation, good water quality, and little 

overhead canopy. Warmth from the sun is needed for proper development of the 

tadpoles. Larval development becomes an issue if water is too cold. This could explain 

why frogs are not breeding at springs in the Black Hills (Smith, 2003).

Suitable habitat exists in the Briggs Spring project area. During surveys 2007-2010, 

leopard frogs were only observed in 2010 at one site.

Black Hills Redbelly Snake (R2 Sensitive Species)

The Black Hills subspecies (Storeria occipitomaculata) is an isolated population; the next 

nearest population is located in the eastern part of South Dakota, some 300 miles away. 

Suitable habitat may be broadly distributed or abundant in the Black Hills. The snake is 

not rare in good habitat and is considered quite common in the Black Hills (USDA Forest 

Service, 2000; SDGFP, 2010c).

Suitable habitat for this species exists in the Briggs Spring project area. A Black Hills 

redbelly snake was observed by a district biologist at Redbank Spring in July 2003.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

51

Fringed Myotis (R2 Sensitive Species)

This subspecies (Myotis thysanodes pahasapensis) only occurs in the Black Hills and 

possibly northwest Nebraska. This species is considered a rare to uncommon year-round 

resident. Known locations are found in Lawrence, Meade, Pennington and Custer 

Counties of South Dakota and possibly Crook and Weston Counties in Wyoming (Luce 

et al., 1997; Tigner & Stukel, 2003).

There are no known caves, mines or documented roost sites within the Briggs Spring 

project area. However, there are some exposed rock outcrops and snags within the area 

that have the potential for use as roost sites for bats. There is no evidence to suspect that 

a major hibernaculum (cave) site exists within this project area. There was a fringed 

myotis captured southwest of Moon Campground in August of 1993, outside of the 

Briggs Spring project area.

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (R2 Sensitive Species)

Within the Black Hills, the Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) has 

been recorded in Fall River, Meade, Pennington, Custer and Lawrence counties (Higgens 

et al., 2000). Population trends appear to be declining in the Black Hills as well as 

throughout their range. Loss of habitat is the main contributor to lower numbers, which 

is attributed to the loss of large caves and dilapidation of mines. This species is highly 

sensitive to human disturbance, especially at maternity roost sites (USDA Forest Service, 

2000).

Suitable foraging habitat and potential roosting/hibernating habitat is present in the 

Briggs Spring project area. There are no known caves or abandoned mine adits in the 

project area. However, there are man-made structures, rock outcrops, and cliff-face 

crevices and fissures. There are no records of Townsend’s big-eared bats in the Briggs

Spring project area. There is a known Townsend’s big-eared bat hibernation site about 

one mile from the southwest corner of the project area.

Flammulated Owl (R2 Sensitive Species)

The flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus) has recently been confirmed in the Black Hills. 

An incidental observation (unconfirmed) was reported in the summer of 1994 by a bat 

biologist doing mist netting in the southern Black Hills. He reported a “small, dark-eyed 

owl” becoming entangled in the net and was released. However, in 2002 at least two, 

maybe three, flammulated owls were observed in the northern Black Hills (Panjabi, 

2003). These observations do not prove a flammulated owl population has established 

itself in the Black Hills.

Migration in this species is still poorly understood but recent review of the data suggests 

that this species may be a long distance, north-south, migrant. Experiments have found 

that this owl does not become torpid in cold temperatures. It is likely that prey 

availability also plays a large role in the migratory behavior of this species (McCallum, 

1994).

Based on published information, and the recent Black Hills sightings it is reasonable to 

expect that suitable habitat for flammulated owls is present in the Briggs Spring project 

area.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

52

Lewis’s Woodpecker (R2 Sensitive Species)

In the Black Hills, the Lewis’s woodpecker (melanerpes lewis) is considered an 

uncommon, permanent resident (Tallman et al. 2002). The Rocky Mountain Bird 

Observatory (RMBO) has recorded three to nine occurrences of this species on the Black 

Hills National Forest each year from 2001-2007 (Giroir et al., 2007). Three times as 

many Lewis’s woodpeckers were observed in 2009 compared to 2007 (USDA Forest 

Service, 2010). This species has been documented in all counties in the Black Hills of 

South Dakota (Peterson, 1995). This species’ breeding range is closely related to the 

range of ponderosa pine (Saab & Vierling, 2001). This species is vulnerable to loss of 

large snags, salvage timber harvest and fire suppression.

Potential suitable habitat is presumed present in the project area in respect to large dead 

trees, snags created by MPB activity and late succession pine stands. RMBO has 

recorded Lewis’s woodpeckers just south of the project area (Beason et al., 2006). A 

district biologist has observed this species just outside of the southeast corner of the 

project area.

Grasshopper Sparrow (R2 Sensitive Species and MIS)

The grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) is discussed under the MIS 

section.

Cooper’s Mountain Snail (R2 Sensitive Species)

Distribution data for the United States and Canadian provinces is known to be incomplete

for Cooper’s mountain snail (Oreohelix strigosa cooperi). Current identified distribution 

is in the Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming. Populations are limited in the Black 

Hills to suitable habitat mostly in Spearfish Creek, upper reaches of Rapid Creek, 

Higgins Gulch, Prospect Gulch and Grand Canyon near Deadwood, SD. This species 

could also be found in other drainages in the northwest region of the Black Hills. 

According to Frest and Johannes, 2002, Pilsbry (1939) cited a wider range. 

Frest (1991-2001) surveyed four sites within the Briggs Spring project area: 40701-32

(Frest site #73), 40702-23 (Frest site #356), 40705-148 (Frest site #270) and 40803-101

(Frest site #74) (Frest & Johannes, 2002). No R2 sensitive Oreohelix were found at these 

sites. However, there is limited suitable habitat in the project area. No surveys 

conducted by district biologists and/or technicians in 2007 and 2008 produced any 

Oreohelix snails.

Regal Fritillary Butterfly (R2 Sensitive Species)

The Black Hills is at the western edge of the regal fritillary butterfly’s (Speyeria idalia)

range. Distribution within the Black Hills may be related to moisture gradient (USDA 

Forest Service, 2000). In South Dakota, it is most commonly associated with tall-grass 

prairie near wet areas and mixed-grass sites along the Missouri River breaks and Fort 

Pierre National Grassland (Marrone, 2002). The main component of all habitat types is 

the presence of extensive grassland with a readily available supply of Viola spp. and

nectar (Royer & Marrone, 1992).

There is potential habitat in the Briggs Spring project area within the Jasper Burn acreage 

and large grasslands/meadows. There are no records of the species in the project area.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

53

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. Species of 

concern applicable to project-level conservation are identified by many sources, 

including the Endangered Species Act, the R2 sensitive species list, the Black Hills 

National Forest MIS and Species of Local Concern list, internal and public scoping 

efforts, and the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) (USFWS, 2008). BCC 

2008 publication partitions North America into 37 Bird Conservation Regions (USFWS, 

2008). The Black Hills is included in BCR 17 – Badlands and Prairies. Of the 28 bird 

species found in BCR 17 (USFWS, 2008), fifteen are duplicated on the R2 sensitive 

species list, and are evaluated in the BA/BE if they have potential to occur in the Black 

Hills. Six species are not expected to occur in the Black Hills due to lack of habitat. 

There are seven remaining species that could potentially occur in the Black Hills: golden 

eagle, prairie falcon, upland sandpiper, black-billed cuckoo, red-headed woodpecker, 

pinyon jay and dickcissel. Of these seven species, the golden eagle, prairie falcon, 

upland sandpiper and red-headed woodpecker have the potential to occur within the 

project area. The black-billed cuckoo, pinyon jay and dickcissel will not be analyzed 

because suitable habitat is not present in the Briggs Spring project area.

Golden Eagle (Migratory Bird)

Golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) are considered uncommon permanent residents in 

western South Dakota (Tallman et al., 2002) and only ten have been detected during 

recent bird monitoring efforts (Giroir et al., 2007). Golden eagles were observed in the 

project area in the summers of 2007 and 2008. Golden eagles are commonly seen 

feeding on carrion along roads in the Black Hills during winter (personal observation).

Contiguously forested habitats, such as those found within most of the Briggs Spring 

project area are not preferred by golden eagles, but they may be included in a home range 

if suitable nesting or foraging habitat is nearby. The Briggs Spring project area contains 

limited small areas of rim-rock outcrops, but there are no substantial cliffs or rock faces 

that provide typical nesting substrates. Eagles could forage within the meadows 

(primarily on private land) of the project area, or in nearby grasslands and burned forest 

(e.g., Jasper Burn area).

Prairie Falcon (Migratory Bird)

The prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus) is considered an uncommon permanent resident in 

far western South Dakota (Tallman et al., 2002). Two nest sites were discovered in the 

Black Hills in 2002, one in Spearfish Canyon and one in Redbird Canyon. Redbird 

Canyon is about 6 miles south of the project area. Additionally, a nest site was found in 

Hell Canyon in 2001, but was not active in 2002. Prairie falcons within the Black Hills 

were located primarily at the periphery of the Hills where high cliffs and open grassland 

exist (Panjabi, 2003). Prairie falcons have been observed every year since the RMBO 

study began n 2001 except for the 2007 field season (Giroir et al., 2007).

No prairie falcons were observed in the project area during field visits. A prairie falcon 

was observed, by a wildlife biologist, foraging in an open meadow in August 2003 just 

east of the Briggs Spring project area. This is the closest observation on record. There is 

no nesting habitat in the Briggs Spring project area. Limited foraging habitat is available 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

54

in the north half of the project area and consists of open meadows interspersed with 

forested sites. The Jasper Fire of 2000 created foraging habitat in the south portion of the 

project area.

Upland Sandpiper (Migratory Bird)

The upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda) is considered uncommon and local in the 

Black Hills (Tallman et al., 2002). The 1966 to 2004 BBS population trend data for BCR 

17 indicates that the species has been increasing slightly at a rate of 0.3% per year (Sauer 

et al., 2005). Monitoring data from 2004 found the species restricted entirely to the 

mixed-grass prairie habitat type in the southern Hills (Panjabi, 2005). There is suitable 

habitat in the south portion of the project area that has been burned by the Jasper Fire of 

2000. There are no recorded observations in the project area. However, there was an 

observation of an upland sandpiper just south of the project boundary in the Jasper burn 

in 2007 (Giroir et al., 2007).

Red-headed Woodpecker (Migratory Bird)

The red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus) occurs locally in the Black 

Hills, where they are generally uncommon to rare. At present, they occur in very low 

densities, primarily in burn areas. Red-headed woodpeckers breed in the eastern portion 

of Colorado in riparian habitat and urban parks. They are found throughout Wyoming 

but primarily breed in the eastern and north-central parts of the state.

Monitoring data from 2001 through 2007 showed that this species was detected 

exclusively in burned habitat. The highest density was in 2007 with 1.48 birds/km2. 

RMBO has recorded red-headed woodpeckers in the south end of the project area in 

2001, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2007 (Panjabi, 2001; 2004; 2005; Beason et al., 2006; Giroir 

et al., 2007). The Jasper Fire of 2000 created habitat for this woodpecker within the 

project area.

Demand Species

Demand species are important local game animals which are not included in other 

emphasis groups above. The Rocky Mountain elk (Cercus elaphus nelsoni) and 

Merriam’s wild turkey (Meleagris gallapavo merriami) are two of these demand species 

and each will be analyzed.

Rocky Mountain Elk (Demand Species)

The elk population of the Black Hills is difficult to estimate in part because of interstate 

movements of the species. However, the 2007 estimate placed the population level at 

3,800 elk in the South Dakota Black Hills (Huxoll, 2008). The 2008 estimate decreased 

to 3,600 elk (Huxoll, 2009). The 2009 estimate decreased to 3,300 elk (Huxoll, 2010). 

No population estimates are available for the Wyoming portion of the Black Hills. The

elk herd in Wyoming appears to be growing, but at a slower rate than in the past 

(Sandrini, 2007). The Forest has committed (through Objective 217) to managing habitat 

for a total of 4,350 elk, which was the combined population objective establish by the 

two state game agencies in 1996 (USDA Forest Service, 2005).

Elk are commonly seen in the Briggs Spring project area. The project area is entirely 

within MA 5.1 (resource production emphasis) which includes management for a 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

55

diversity of wildlife species. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (2002) considers the 

majority of the project area as crucial annual range for elk. The southern tip is 

considered crucial annual, summer and winter range. Rumble et al. (2005) found that elk 

generally avoid areas within 1 km of primary and secondary roads during this time 

period. Currently, open system road density within the project area is 2.8 mi/mi2. There 

are also approximately 13 miles of OHV system trail within the project area.

Merriam’s Wild Turkey (Demand Species)

The wild turkey is a non-migratory species. There are six recognized subspecies of wild 

turkey and of these the Merriam’s (wild) turkey is the race introduced in the Black Hills 

in the late 1940s and early 1950s (Flake et al., 2006). The Merriam’s turkey is common 

and widespread on the Forest, with an estimated population of 35,000 birds in the South 

Dakota portion of the Black Hills (Huxoll, 2009). The 2009 population estimate for 

turkeys in the Black Hills was 40,000 (Huxoll, 2010). Turkey populations on the Forest 

have been on a steady increase since 1998 (USDA Forest Service, 2004; 2004a).

Turkeys are common in the Briggs Spring project area throughout the summer. Turkeys 

would remain in the area during mild winters. Adequate roosting habitat is available in 

the project area.

Environmental Consequences

Snags and Down Woody Material

Under all alternatives, no snags would be cut unless deemed a safety hazard during 

operations. As per Standard 2301, if the project area does not meet Objective 211 than all 

snags will be left during treatments unless deemed a safety hazard.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Snags would be expected to increase because of natural mortality. Trees would become 

more dense and over time, competition for water and nutrients would stress the trees, 

which would make them more susceptible to insects and disease agents. Dense trees 

would increase wildfire risk as well. Natural mortality levels would be higher with this 

alternative than any of the action alternatives. As these trees die and fall to the ground 

there would be an increase in down woody debris. Since there would be no project 

activities all snags and down woody debris would be left in place. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2 proposes sanitation treatment on 6,063 acres if needed. This treatment 

would only harvest those trees that have been hit by pine beetles but are still green. 

Proposed fuel treatments on 9,303 acres, including mechanical thinning, broadcast 

burning, and deadfall treatment have the potential to destroy snags and downed wood. 

Vegetation treatments, both commercial and non-commercial have the potential to 

destroy snags and downed wood as well. This alternative would have more potential than 

Alternative 3 to retain future snags. Any protection of standing snags would move snag 

densities toward Forest Plan standards and guidelines. 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

56

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 3 proposes sanitation treatment on 3,678 acres. Fuel treatments are similar to 

those under Alternative 2; however, there are 714 more acres of prescribed burning 

planned under this alternative. Under this alternative, snags and downed wood may be 

destroyed during commercial and non-commercial vegetation treatments as well as fuel 

treatments. Alternative 3 proposes harvesting pine trees from more acres (7,469 more 

acres of group shelterwood) and accomplishing more prescribed burning than Alternative 

2. This may mean that there would be fewer replacement snags in the future and there is 

a higher potential to destroy more snags, if considered safety hazards, under Alternative 

3. 

Cumulative Effects

Past firewood cutting, timber harvest and fuels management activities have contributed to 

the loss of snags and downed woody habitat. Fire, MPB and other causes of tree 

mortality continue to create snag/downed wood habitat. With restrictions on cutting 

standing dead for firewood (except where designated), an increase in MPB outbreaks, 

past and potential future wildfires the outlook for improving snag densities for this area is 

good. The effects of the new Forest Policy (implemented December 01, 2010) of 

allowing cutting of snags within 300’ of roads, where dispersed camping is allowed, are 

not known yet. MPB infestations within the project area are enlarging and infestations 

are showing up in new areas throughout the project area. It is expected that by the time 

project activities would be initiated, snag densities would potentially be higher than 

current numbers due to the numerous “bug” pockets that have started killing trees in the 

area. Proposed activities would add to past management activity impacts. 

Riparian Habitat

Alternative 1 – No Action

Those riparian areas that are fenced to exclude livestock would continue to be maintained 

or re-built where failing. Riparian areas that are not receiving protection from excessive 

use by livestock and/or wildlife may continue to suffer.

Common to Both Action Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects

Both action alternatives propose the same riparian protection/enhancement projects (post 

harvest). These include: planting willows, building more exclosure fencing, constructing 

road closures and installing new stock tanks farther from riparian corridors. Design 

criteria are included in Appendix B for specific riparian sites and protection guidance. 

Cumulative Effects

Past fire suppression, timber harvest, road use, recreation (motorized), livestock grazing, 

and natural events such as drought and flooding have caused impacts to riparian areas 

within the project area. Fire suppression has resulted in an increase of pine trees which 

may lead to a change in water tables. Drought conditions and livestock/wildlife use can 

also negatively impact the water level in the riparian areas. Timber harvest, road use, 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

57

motorized recreation, flooding and livestock grazing can contribute sediment buildup. 

The harvest of trees may also be beneficial for riparian areas by decreasing acreage of 

pine trees and thereby decreasing water use.

Neither the no action alternative nor the action alternatives would cause detrimental 

impacts to riparian areas within the Briggs Spring project area. There are design criteria 

in place to protect/enhance some riparian areas where mechanical and burning treatments

are proposed. Some fence projects and willow plantings are proposed in post-harvest 

activities in the action alternatives, near riparian areas in order to protect/enhance the 

resource. Therefore the action alternatives would move the riparian areas to better

conditions overall in the project area. The action alternatives may help to meet Forest 

Objectives, Standards and Guidelines.

Management Indicator Species (MIS)

Summary of Effects on MIS

The following is a summary of effects to the previously mentioned wildlife MIS. A 

detailed analysis can be found in the Wildlife Report in the project record. 

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3

White-tailed Deer

(Odocoileus 

virginianus)

Direct and Indirect Effects

No immediate 

effects. Potential for 

additional hiding 

cover along roads. 

Potential for pine to 

further encroach in 

meadows and 

hardwoods, reducing 

quality forage. 

Increased potential in 

competition for 

forage between 

livestock and big 

game. 

 

Low impact on screening 

cover along roads where 

vegetation treatments are 

proposed. Increased forage 

production and quality than 

Alt 1. Potential to decrease 

fawning cover due to 

vegetation treatments. 

Increased potential of OHV 

and recreation disturbance to 

deer by creating a second 

campground within the 

project area.

Low impact to screening 

cover along roads where 

vegetation treatments are 

proposed. Increased 

potential of amount & 

quality of forage over Alt 

2. Potential to decrease 

fawning cover more than 

Alt 2 due to increased 

vegetation treatments. 

Redbank Spring 

Campground expansion 

may cause less detrimental 

effects due to existing 

OHV and recreation 

activity.

Cumulative Effects

Would not have 

adverse cumulative 

effects. May 

decrease forage, but 

increase hiding cover

and screening cover.

Would add to positive effects 

of past prescribed burns and 

timber harvests by increasing 

diversity of forage, and 

increasing early successional 

vegetative stages. May 

slightly reduce screening 

cover. Potential to decrease 

winter habitat for big game 

species. Expected to add to 

disturbance by OHV and 

recreation use. 

Would add to positive 

effects of past prescribed 

burns and timber harvests 

by increasing diversity of 

forage, and increasing early 

successional vegetative 

stages more than Alt 2. 

May slightly reduce 

screening cover. Increased 

potential from Alt 2 to 

decrease winter habitat for 

big game species. 

Expected to minimally add 

to disturbance by OHV use.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

58

Summary

None of the alternatives would contribute to a Forest-wide loss of summer habitat or 

decrease in population for white-tailed deer, allowing for attainment of Objective 

238a. 

Both action alternatives would slightly decrease screening cover and Guideline 3203

would be met along five of the six arterial and collector roads. One of these road’s 

existing condition currently does not meet Guideline 3203, this is not a result of any 

action alternatives. Both action alternatives may decrease big game winter habitat, 

however adequate habitat across the forest would allow attainment for Objective 

217.

The proposed action alternatives would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines. 

Therefore, this species is likely to persist on the Forest.

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3

Grasshopper 

Sparrow

(Ammodramus 

savannarum)

Note: Also R2 

Senistive Species

Direct and Indirect Effects

No immediate effects. 

Ponderosa pine would 

continue to encroach into 

meadows/grasslands. 

This would exacerbate the 

utilization of forage on 

remaining 

meadows/grasslands and 

could affect species that 

use meadows/grasslands 

as food, nesting and/or 

cover. 

Rx burning in spring and 

summer may negatively 

impact this species’ 

nesting attempts. Design 

criteria for fall burning 

would improve habitat 

and eliminate nesting 

conflicts with burning. 

Harvest activities are not 

expected to affect this 

species. 

Rx burning in spring and 

summer may negatively 

impact this species’ nesting 

attempts more than Alt 2. 

Design criteria for fall 

burning would improve 

habitat and eliminate 

nesting conflicts with 

burning. Increased burning 

acres may enhance or 

create more habitat for this 

species than Alt 2. Harvest 

activities are not expected 

to affect this species.

Cumulative Effects

Would not have adverse 

cumulative effects. The 

Jasper Fire increased 

grasshopper sparrow 

habitat within the project 

area. Continued grazing 

and chemical herbicide 

treatments may negatively 

impact the grasshopper 

sparrow.

Vegetation treatments, 

such as Rx burning and 

pine encroachment, 

would improve and 

expand habitat, adding to 

previous vegetation 

treatments. Continued 

grazing and chemical 

herbicide treatments may 

negatively impact the 

grasshopper sparrow. 

Vegetation treatments, such 

as Rx burning and pine 

encroachment, would 

improve and expand 

habitat, even more so than 

Alt 2. Continued grazing 

and chemical herbicide 

treatments may negatively 

impact the grasshopper 

sparrow.

Summary

Following design criteria all alternatives would allow the Forest-wide grasshopper 

sparrow population to remain stable and allow for the attainment of Objectives 221

& 238a. The action alternatives in this project would move toward attainment of 

Objective 205. The proposed action alternatives would meet Forest Plan standards 

and guidelines; therefore this species is likely to persist on the Forest. 

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3

Black-backed 

Woodpecker

(Picoides articus)

Note: Also R2 

Senistive Species

Direct and Indirect Effects

Would allow natural 

successional changes to 

occur in vegetation. 

Existing stands would 

become dense and 

stressed and eventually 

Proposed fuel and 

harvest treatments would 

potentially decrease snag 

habitat. May disturb 

nesting woodpeckers if 

harvest occurs during 

Increased acres of proposed 

fuel treatments and harvest 

treatments would 

potentially decrease snag 

habitat, more than Alt 2. 

Potential is greater to 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

59

become susceptible to 

MPB infestations and/or 

wildfire. This alternative 

would provide greatest 

potential for increase in 

woodpecker habitat. 

Snags would increase due 

to natural mortality. 

nesting season, expected 

to be a short-term 

impact. 

disturb nesting 

woodpeckers, but still 

expected to be a short-term 

impact. 

Cumulative Effects

Past wildfires and past 

and existing MPB 

infestations have created 

habitat throughout the 

Forest and project area. 

No additive effects on 

existing snag densities. 

Proposed pine treatments 

would add to the loss of 

larger diameter trees 

from past harvest 

activities. May result in 

decreased preferred or 

potential habitat. 

No additive effects on

existing snag densities. 

Proposed pine treatments 

would add to the loss of 

larger diameter trees from 

past harvest activities. 

Increased potential to result 

in decreased preferred or 

potential habitat. 

Summary

Alternative 1 has the greatest potential for increasing woodpecker habitat. Both 

action alternatives may decrease preferred and/or potential habitat, but they would 

not affect the habitat or population trend Forest wide because of providing for 

Objective 211 (snags). Snags are not allowed to be cut unless deemed a safety 

hazard or within designated firewood cutting areas. The project area is only a small 

portion of the currently available habitat, new habitat acres are currently being 

created across the Forest. Objectives 221 (sensitive species) and 238b are currently 

being met and would be met under either action alternative. The proposed action 

alternatives would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines; therefore this species 

is likely to persist on the Forest. 

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3

Brown Creeper

(Certhia Americana)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Existing mature stands 

would eventually become 

SS5, a more desirable 

habitat. The MPB and 

wildfire risk would not be 

decreased, leaving mature 

stands susceptible to MPB 

infestation and/or 

catastrophic wildfire. 

Would reduce acres of 

SS4B (more preferred 

habitat) to SS4A, 

impacting brown creeper 

habitat. May cause 

displacement of 

individuals; however 

creepers may return to 

the affected area. 

Harvest activities may 

disturb nesting, but is 

expected to be a short 

term impact. Risk of 

MPB infestation and 

wildfire would be 

reduced. 

Would reduce acres of 

SS4B to SS4A, even more 

so than Alt 2, increasing 

potential impact on brown 

creeper habitat. May cause 

displacement of 

individuals; however 

creepers may return to the 

affected area. Harvest 

activities may disturb 

nesting, but is expected to 

be a short term impact. 

Risk of MPB infestation 

and wildfire would be 

reduced.

Cumulative Effects

Would not have adverse 

cumulative effects.

Would add to preferred 

habitat reduction within 

the project area, however 

with lack of treatment 

habitat may be lost to 

fire or MPB. Would add 

to positive impacts of 

Would add to preferred 

habitat reduction within the 

project area. Would add to 

positive impacts of 

previous vegetation 

treatments by reducing 

MPB and fire risk. 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

60

previous vegetation 

treatments by reducing 

MPB and fire risk. 

Summary

Alternative 1 results in the most potential for preferred habitat for the brown creeper. 

Both action alternatives would reduce SS4B from the existing condition, however 

with treatment risk of MPB infestation and wildfire would be reduced. Habitat 

would be maintained and the project meets Objective 238a. 

The proposed action alternatives would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines; 

therefore this species is likely to persist on the Forest. 

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3

Ruffed Grouse

(Bonasa umbellus)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Habitat quality & quantity 

may decrease due to pine 

continuing to encroach 

into hardwood stands. 

Could result in a decrease

of aspen clones or groups 

of clones. Would not 

benefit habitat. 

Treatments would 

increase and/or enhance 

habitat. 

Treatments would increase 

and/or enhance habitat. Rx 

burning of aspen sites 

could enhance stands by 

stimulating growth or cause 

mortality within aspen sits. 

Cumulative Effects

Would not have adverse 

cumulative effects. 

Would help offset 

negative impacts from 

past activities. Would 

enhance species habitat 

over the next 10 years. 

Future hardwood 

treatments would 

continue to improve 

habitat. 

Would help offset negative 

impacts from past 

activities. Would have 

slightly more potential to 

enhance species habitat 

over the next 10 years. 

Future hardwood 

treatments would continue 

to improve habitat.

Summary

Alternative 1 would allow pine encroachment to continue within the hardwood 

stands, eventually reducing ruffed grouse habitat. Both action alternatives would 

increase and/or re-establish hardwoods (aspen), enhancing the health of hardwoods 

within the project area. Alternative 3 would potentially release more aspen 

compared to Alternative 2, due to harvesting more pine acres. 

The action alternatives would not contribute to a loss of habitat or decrease in 

population Forest-wide for the ruffed grouse. The action alternatives would enhance 

habitat by increasing acres of hardwoods. Therefore Forest Plan Objective 238a

would be met. The proposed action alternatives would meet Forest Plan standards 

and guidelines; therefore this species is likely to persist on the Forest.

Species of Local Concern (SOLC)

Summary of Effects on SOLC

The following is a summary of effects to the previously mentioned wildlife SOLC. A 

detailed analysis can be found in the Wildlife Report in the project record.

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

61

Atlantis Fritillary

(Speyeria atlantis 

pahasapae)

Tawny Crescent

(Phycoides batesii)

Conifers would continue 

to encroach into 

meadows/grasslands and 

riparian hardwood 

communities, resulting 

in a decrease in foraging 

plants for butterflies. 

MPB risk & wildfire risk 

would not be decreased, 

however this would 

increase potential habitat 

that benefits these 

species.

Riparian fencing projects would 

enhance habitat. Noxious weed 

treatments would positively 

impact these species by aiding in 

native plant restoration, however 

there is potential to harm the 

species by treating nectar or 

larval host plants. Rx burning & 

vegetative treatments have 

potential for direct mortality to 

individuals; however positive 

impacts would be created 

through pine encroachment by 

opening up meadows/grasslands. 

MPB & wildfire risk would be 

reduced. 

Same as Alt 2, but 

slightly increased in 

potential negative 

impacts due to more 

acres treated with 

Rx burning & 

vegetative 

treatments. 

Cumulative Effects

Would not have adverse 

cumulative effects. 

Would not enhance 

butterfly habitat. 

Would improve current habitat 

conditions, would offset 

negative effects from livestock 

grazing. Would benefit species 

due to habitat enhancement. 

Same as Alt 2, but 

slightly increase 

potential for positive 

habitat enhancement 

due to more acres of 

vegetation 

treatments. 

Summary

Alternative 1 would not enhance or increase butterfly habitat and conifer 

encroachment would continue. Both action alternatives would benefit these species 

by creating more hardwood communities, meadows/grasslands, and by enhancing 

riparian areas. 

The proposed action alternatives would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines. 

Therefore the alternatives would contribute toward meeting Objective 221. These 

species are likely to persist on the Forest. 

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3

Callused Vertigo

(Vertigo arthuri)

Mystery Veritgo

(Vertigo paradoxa)

Frigid Ambersnail

(Catinella gelida)

Striate Disc

(Discus shimekii)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Existing forested stands 

would be expected to 

become denser. MPB 

risk and wildfire risk 

would not be decreased. 

Conifer would continue 

to encroach into 

hardwood stands. 

Rx burning and vegetation 

treatments would have 

potential to cause direct 

mortality to individual snails 

& potential to impact habitat, 

negatively. However, 

opening up forested sites 

would create more potential 

habitat. Hardwood 

treatments would enhance 

sites, enhancing snail habitat. 

MPB & wildfire risk would 

be reduced.

Same as Alt 2, but 

would increase Rx 

burning in hardwood 

sites more than Alt 2 

allowing the increased 

potential of negative 

impacts to snails and 

habitat, in the shortterm. Long-term effects 

would include increased 

potential habitat. 

Would reduce MPB & 

wildfire risk more than 

Alt 2. 

Cumulative Effects

Would not have adverse 

cumulative effects. 

Would not enhance snail 

habitat.

Would add to past positive & 

negative impacts to snail 

habitat from management 

activities. Would increase 

more open pine forest 

conditions.

Same as Alt 2, but 

increased potential to 

negatively impact snails 

& habitat, as well as 

more positive effects to 

habitat. 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

62

Summary

Alternative 1 would allow dense forest conditions to be maintained or become 

denser. Both action alternatives would create a more open pine forest condition. 

These actions would have potential for both positive and negative impacts on 

individual snails and habitat. Alt 3 would have the most potential for negatively 

impacting individual snails, but positively impacting more habitat. Rx burning 

would follow Forest Plan Standard 3103, and would not result in cumulative 

impacts to known snail colonies. 

The proposed action alternatives would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines. 

Therefore the alternatives would contribute toward meeting Objective 221. These 

species are likely to persist on the Forest.

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3

Sharp-shinned 

Hawk

(Accipiter striatus)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Would not reduce 

existing MPB risk and 

wildfire risk. Dense 

forested stands would 

remain and become 

denser, enhancing 

nesting habitat. Conifer 

encroachment would 

continue. 

Would reduce nesting habitat 

which may cause 

displacement and unknown 

nests would be disturbed; 

these would be short-term 

effects. Would decrease 

existing MPB and wildfire 

risk. 

Same as Alt 2, effects 

would be slightly 

increased due to the 

increased treatment 

acres. 

Cumulative Effects

Would not have shortterm adverse cumulative 

effects. Potential for 

long-term adverse 

cumulative effects due to 

stand replacing events.

Would add to effects of past 

timber harvest by creating

more open density forest, 

increasing hardwoods and 

shrubs, and reducing MPB 

and wildfire risk. Would 

reduce nesting habitat in 

short-term, but create a more 

diverse habitat long-term. 

Same as Alt 2.

Summary

Alternative 1 would provide the most diverse habitat and the most potential nesting 

habitat. Both action alternatives would result in the same potential nesting habitat 

acres, as well as increasing shrubs and tree species diversity by increasing hardwood 

and meadow acres. Known nests would be protected through Standard 3204. 

The proposed action alternatives would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines. 

The alternatives would contribute toward meeting Objective 221. Therefore this 

species is likely to persist on the Forest.

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3

Cooper’s Hawk

(Accipiter cooperi)

Direct and Indirect Effects

MPB risk and wildfire 

risk would not decrease. 

Conifers would continue 

to encroach. Forested 

stands would continue to 

become denser, 

providing for the most 

nesting habitat from 

other alternatives. 

Preferred nesting habitat (SS4B) 

would decrease. Potential to 

cause present Cooper’s hawks to 

move or avoid the area. 

Unknown nests would be 

disturbed. These impacts would 

be short-term. Would reduce the 

MPB risk and wildfire risk. 

Would enhance hardwood sites, 

adding diversity. 

Same as Alt 2, but 

effects slightly 

increased due to 

increase in 

treatment acres. 

Cumulative Effects
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

63

Would not have shortterm adverse cumulative 

effects. Potential for 

long-term adverse 

cumulative effects due to 

stand replacing events.

Would offset past negative effects 

to hardwood stands by enhancing 

and increasing these sites, 

including future activities. 

Same as Alt 2. 

Summary

Alternative 1 would provide the most acres of preferred nesting habitat; however the 

risk of a stand replacing wildfire or MPB infestation would remain high. Both 

action alternatives would reduce preferred nesting habitat, but lower the MPB and 

wildfire risk. Known nests would be protected through Standard 3204. The 

proposed alternatives would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines and would 

contribute toward meeting Objective 221. Therefore this species is likely to persist 

on the Forest. 

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3

Broad-winged 

Hawk

(Buteo platypterus)

Direct and Indirect Effects

MPB risk and wildfire 

risk would not decrease. 

Conifers would continue 

to encroach. Forested 

stands would continue to 

become denser, 

providing for the most 

nesting habitat from 

other alternatives. 

Preferred nesting habitat (SS4B) 

would decrease. Potential to 

cause present Broad-winged

hawks to move or avoid the area. 

Unknown nests would be 

disturbed. These impacts would 

be short-term. Would reduce the 

MPB risk and wildfire risk. 

Would enhance hardwood sites, 

adding diversity. Fuel treatments 

may help maintain mature and 

late successional stage stands. 

Same as Alt 2, but 

effects slightly 

increased due to 

increase in 

treatment acres. 

Cumulative Effects

Would not have shortterm adverse cumulative 

effects. Potential for 

long-term adverse 

cumulative effects due to 

stand replacing events.

Would offset past negative effects 

to hardwood stands by enhancing 

and increasing these sites, 

including future activities. This 

would result in enhanced nesting 

habitat within hardwood 

communities. 

Same as Alt 2. 

Summary

Alternative 1 would provide the most acres of preferred nesting habitat; however the 

risk of a stand replacing wildfire or MPB infestation would remain high. Both 

action alternatives would reduce preferred nesting habitat, but lower the MPB and 

wildfire risk. Known nests would be protected through Standard 3204. The 

proposed alternatives would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines. The 

alternatives would contribute toward meeting Objective 221. Therefore this species 

is likely to persist on the Forest. 

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

64

Northern Sawwhet Owl

(Aegolius acadicus)

MPB risk and wildfire 

risk would not decrease. 

Conifers would continue 

to encroach. Forested 

stands would continue to 

become denser having 

potential for more future 

snags. 

Preferred nesting habitat (SS3B) 

would increase slightly. Potential 

to cause present northern sawwhet owls to move or avoid the 

area. Unknown nests would be 

disturbed. These impacts would 

be short-term. Would reduce the 

MPB risk and wildfire risk. 

Potential loss of snags, however 

snags may be created through Rx 

burning. Would enhance 

hardwood sites, adding diversity. 

Same as Alt 2. 

Effects slightly 

increased due to 

increase in 

treatment acres, 

except preferred 

nesting habitat 

acres would remain 

the same between 

Alt 2 and 3. 

Cumulative Effects

Would not have shortterm adverse cumulative 

effects. Potential for 

long-term adverse 

cumulative effects due to 

stand replacing events.

Would add to past harvest and 

firewood cutting activities by the 

potential to reduce more snags. 

Same as Alt 2. 

Summary

Alternative 1 would provide the most acres of dense habitat; however the risk of a 

stand replacing wildfire or MPB infestation would remain high. Both action 

alternatives would slightly increase preferred nesting habitat (SS3B) and lower the 

MPB and wildfire risk. Potential for the loss of snags is greatest in action 

alternatives due to harvest activities. However snags would not be cut during 

harvest activities unless deemed safety hazards. Known nests would be protected 

through Standard 3204. The proposed alternatives would meet Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines. The alternatives would contribute toward meeting 

Objective 221. Therefore this species is likely to persist on the Forest. 

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3

Pygmy Nuthatch

(Sitta pygmaea 

melanotis)

Direct and Indirect Effects

MPB risk and wildfire 

risk would not decrease. 

Conifers would continue 

to encroach. Forested 

stands would continue to 

become denser having 

potential for more future 

snags. 

Preferred nesting habitat would 

decrease. Potential to cause 

present pygmy nuthatches to 

move or avoid the area, nesting 

may be disturbed; these impacts 

would be short-term. Would 

reduce the MPB risk and wildfire 

risk. Potential loss of large trees 

snags, however snags may be 

created through Rx burning. 

Same as Alt 2. 

Effects slightly 

increased due to 

increase in 

treatment acres. 

Increased potential 

for loss of large 

diameter trees and 

snags, more than 

Alt 2. 

Cumulative Effects

Would not have shortterm adverse cumulative 

effects. Potential for 

long-term adverse 

cumulative effects due to 

stand replacing events. 

Would add to past harvest and 

firewood cutting activities by the 

potential to reduce and create 

more snags. The MPB has and 

continues to create snags. 

Proposed fuels treatments would 

add to past treatments to have 

potential to maintain mature and 

late successional stage stands. 

Same as Alt 2. 

Effects slightly 

increased due to 

increase in 

treatment acres. 

Summary

Alternative 1 would provide the most acres of nesting habitat; however the risk of a 

stand replacing wildfire or MPB infestation would remain high. Both action 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

65

alternatives would decrease preferred nesting habitat and lower the MPB and 

wildfire risk. Potential for the loss of snags is greatest in action alternatives due to 

harvest activities. However MPB mortality and Rx burning would have the potential 

to create snags. Snags would not be cut during harvest activities unless deemed 

safety hazards. The proposed alternatives would meet Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines and would contribute toward meeting Objective 221. Therefore this 

species is likely to persist on the Forest. 

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3

Northern Longeared Myotis

(Myotis septentrionalis)

Small-footed 

Myotis

(Myotis ciliolabrum)

Long-eared 

Myotis

(Myotis evotis)

Long-legged 

Myotis

(Myotis volans)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Forested stands would 

become denser. MPB 

risk and wildfire risk 

would not decrease. 

Conifers would 

continue to encroach. 

Potential to reduce future replacement 

and existing snags. Would decrease 

potential snag roosting habitat (SS4B). 

Rx burning may create snags. MPB 

infestation would create snags. Would 

reduce large diameter trees. May 

disturb roosting/nesting sites, present 

bats may be displaced or avoid area; 

these would be short term effects. 

Would benefit grasses, shrubs, and 

forbs, increasing prey species and 

foraging habitat for these species of 

bats. Would reduce MPB and wildfire 

risk. 

Same as Alt 2, 

with increased 

potential for 

snag loss and 

large diameter

tree loss. 

Cumulative Effects

Would not have shortterm adverse 

cumulative effects. 

Potential for long-term 

adverse cumulative 

effects due to stand 

replacing events.

Would add to past wildfires & burning, 

harvest and firewood cutting activities

creating and losing snags. The MPB 

has and continues to create snags. 

Future riparian area projects would 

benefit bat foraging habitat. Proposed 

fuels treatments would add to past 

treatments to have potential to maintain 

mature and late successional stage 

stands. 

Same as Alt 2.

Summary

Alternative 1 would allow for the most suitable roosting snags for these species. 

Both action alternatives would enhance forage habitat and suitable roosting snags 

would be available. Alternative 2 would provide more future snags than Alternative 

3. The proposed alternatives would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines. The 

alternatives would contribute toward meeting Objective 221. Therefore these 

species are likely to persist on the Forest.

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3

Northern Flying 

Squirrel

(Glaucomys sabrinus)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Forested stands would 

become denser. MPB 

risk and wildfire risk 

would not decrease. 

Conifers would 

continue to encroach, 

possibly increasing 

spruce habitat. 

Potential to reduce future replacement 

and existing snags. Would decrease 

potential snag roosting habitat (SS4B). 

Rx burning may create snags. MPB 

infestation would create snags. Would 

reduce large diameter trees. May

disturb nesting sites and potential to 

directly harm individuals; these would 

be short term effects. Would increase 

Same as Alt 2, 

with increased 

potential for 

snag loss and 

large diameter 

tree loss. 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

66

and enhance hardwood stands. Would 

reduce MPB and wildfire risk. 

Cumulative Effects

Would not have shortterm adverse 

cumulative effects. 

Potential for long-term 

adverse cumulative 

effects due to stand 

replacing events.

Would add to past wildfires & burning, 

harvest and firewood cutting activities 

creating and losing snags. The MPB 

has and continues to create snags. 

Proposed fuels treatments would add to 

past treatments to have potential to 

maintain mature and late successional 

stage stands. 

Same as Alt 2.

Summary

Alternative 1 would allow for the most potential of large snags for this species. 

However hardwoods would suffer due to encroachment by conifers. Alternative 2 

would retain more large trees, have less potential for snag loss, and more potential 

for snag replacement than Alternative 3. The proposed alternatives would meet 

Forest Plan standards and guidelines and would contribute toward meeting 

Objective 221. Therefore these species are likely to persist on the Forest.

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3

Meadow Jumping 

Mouse

(Zapus hudsonius 

campestris)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Riparian areas would 

continue to receive 

high seasonal use. 

Many exclosure fences 

would remain to 

protect riparian areas. 

MPB risk and wildfire 

risk would not 

decrease. Conifers 

would continue to 

encroach into 

meadows/grasslands. 

Would enhance meadows/grasslands 

through pine encroachment treatments. 

Riparian areas would be enhanced 

through post sale activities (fencing, 

willow planting, etc.). Rx burning in 

meadows would have potential to 

negatively impact this species in the 

short-term. Long term Rx burning 

impacts would enhance meadow 

vegetation. Would reduce MPB and 

wildfire risk. 

Same as Alt 2. 

Cumulative Effects

Would not have 

adverse cumulative

effects. 

Past activity impacts would be offset by 

proposed actions. No adverse 

cumulative effects are expected from 

action alternatives. Enhancing riparian 

areas (meadow jumping mouse habitat) 

would move them, overall, into a better 

condition. Post-sale activities would 

have potential to enhance habitat. 

Same as Alt 2.

Summary

All alternatives, including the no action, would not cause detrimental impacts to 

riparian areas within the project area. Both action alternatives would increase 

protection of this habitat through post-sale projects, such as exclosure fencing. Both 

action alternatives would move riparian areas toward a better overall condition. The 

proposed alternatives would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines and would 

contribute toward meeting Objective 221. Therefore these species are likely to 

persist on the Forest.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

67

Threatened and Endangered Species 

It was determined that management activities on the Forest would have ‘no effect’ on any 

Threatened and Endangered species since the Black Hills National Forest lacks suitable 

habitat.

There are no Threatened or Endangered species which have habitat within the Briggs 

Spring project area. Therefore, no effects to Threatened or Endangered species would 

occur. Refer to the Wildlife BA/BE in the project record. 

Region 2 (R2) Sensitive Species

Summary of Effects on R2 Sensitive Species

The following is a summary of effects to the previously mentioned wildlife R2 sensitive 

species. A detailed analysis can be found in the Wildlife Report and BA/BE in the 

project record.

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3

Bald Eagle

(Haliaeetus

leucocephalus)

Direct and Indirect Effects

None expected. Would remove large trees that 

provide winter roost and perch

sites. 

Same as Alt 2, but with 

an increased potential 

for large tree loss due to 

increase in treatments. 

Cumulative Effects

Would not have any 

cumulative effects 

expected.

Would not have any cumulative 

effects expected. 

Same as Alt 2. 

Determination

All alternatives would have ‘no impact’ on the bald eagle. Therefore the 

alternatives would contribute toward meeting Objective 221.

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3

Fringed Myotis

(Myotis thysanodes 

pahasapensis)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Potential for increased 

MPB infestation and 

wildfire would create 

more roosting 

habitat/snags and 

increased grass/forbs 

structural stages would 

increase prey base.

Would affect roosting individuals 

during harvest activities and Rx 

burning. Would have potential 

for snag loss and replacement 

snag loss, resulting in less 

potential roosting habitat. May 

decrease prey species habitat. 

Noxious weed treatments would 

have potential to decrease prey 

base. Would have potential for 

loss of small water catchments 

due to sedimentation. 

Same as Alt 2, but 

with an increased 

potential for loss and 

habitat disturbance 

due to increase in 

treatments. 

Cumulative Effects
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

68

Would not have any 

short-term cumulative 

effects expected. 

Potential for long-term 

cumulative effects due 

to stand replacing 

events, resulting in 

enhanced habitat.

 Would add to past wildfires & 

burning, harvest and firewood 

cutting activities creating and 

losing snags (roosting habitat). 

The MPB has and continues to 

create snags. Prey species may 

increase due to increased 

grass/forbs SS. 

Same as Alt 2. 

Determination

Both action alternatives ‘may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to 

result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward 

federal listing’. The determination would be the same under the No Action 

Alternative due to the new Forest Policy of cutting standing dead trees within 300 

feet of some roads. Therefore the alternatives would contribute toward meeting 

Objective 221.

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3

Townsend’s Bigeared Bat

(Corynorhinus 

townsendii)

Direct and Indirect Effects

None expected. Harvest activity may disturb 

roosting bats or may cause 

individual mortality. Vegetation 

treatments may change 

microhabitats of roosting habitat. 

Would result in loss of large 

diameter trees and a more open 

forest condition, which may affect 

prey species short-term. Would 

increase hardwoods, benefiting 

prey species. Noxious weed 

treatments may prey species. 

May result in loss of small water 

catchments, which would 

negatively impact this species. 

Same as Alt 2, but 

with increased 

potential due to 

increased treatments. 

Cumulative Effects

Would not have any 

adverse cumulative 

effects expected.

Would add to past harvest 

impacts to roosting habitats, but 

would not contribute to adverse 

cumulative effects. 

Same as Alt 2. 

Determination

Alternative 1 would have ‘no impact’ on the Townsend’s big-eared bat. 

Both action alternatives ‘may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to 

result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward 

federal listing’. Therefore the alternatives would contribute toward meeting 

Objective 221.

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3

Northern 

Goshawk

(Accipiter gentalis)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Forested stands would 

continue to become 

denser. MPB risk and 

wildfire risk would not 

decrease. In the longterm, would provide 

the most nesting 

Preferred nesting habitat would 

decrease. Would treat deferred 

goshawk sites with sanitation, 

which may prevent habitat loss in 

the event of MPB infestation. 

Harvest activities have timing 

restrictions minimizing 

Same as Alt 2, but 

with increased 

potential due to 

increased treatments. 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

69

habitat of all 

alternatives. 

disturbance to goshawk 

territories. May cause direct 

mortality to individuals in 

unknown nests. This impact 

would be short-term. Potential 

loss of cover habitat would 

increase susceptibility of young to 

predators. Would affect prey 

species through opening of forest 

canopy, loss of snags, loss of 

down woody material, and ground 

cover. 

Cumulative Effects

Would not have any 

short-term cumulative 

effects expected. 

Potential for long-term 

cumulative effects due 

to stand replacing 

events, resulting in 

enhanced habitat.

Would add to past harvest, MPB 

mortality, and wildfire impacts to

nesting habitats, however the 

action alternatives would provide 

two nest protection areas as well 

as other areas of suitable nesting 

habitat. Activities proposed in 

the action alternatives may cause 

adverse effects to northern 

goshawks in the project area 

within the next 10 years.

Same as Alt 2. 

Determination

Forest Plan Objective 221 is currently being met in the project area. Either action 

alternative would meet Objective 221. 

Alternative 1 would have ‘no impact’ on the northern goshawk. 

Both action alternatives ‘may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to 

result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward 

federal listing’. 

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3

Northern Harrier

(Circus cyaneus)

Direct and Indirect Effects

None expected. Rx burning may displace 

present harriers, but nearby 

habitat exists. Rx burning 

would enhance grassland 

habitat. Noxious weed 

treatment may affect 

grass/forbs growth and prey 

base. 

Same as Alt 2, but with 

increased potential due to 

increase treatments. 

Would benefit habitat 

more than Alt 2 due to 

increased Rx burning. 

Cumulative Effects

Would not have any 

adverse cumulative 

effects expected.

May add to past burning, 

grazing, and noxious weed 

treatment impacts. Rx burning 

and potential wildfires may 

displace individuals and may 

interfere with nesting 

attempts. Would overall 

enhance habitat. 

Same as Alt 2. 

Determination

Alternative 1 would have ‘no impact’ on the northern harrier. 

Both action alternatives ‘may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to 

result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

70

federal listing’. Therefore the alternatives would contribute toward meeting 

Objective 221.

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3

Flammulated Owl

(Otus flammeolus)

Direct and Indirect Effects

None expected. May directly impact 

individuals in unknown 

occupied cavities. Potential to 

reduce preferred habitat. 

Would remove large diameter 

trees. Potential loss of snags. 

Would enhance and increase 

hardwoods. Would enhance 

prey species habitat. 

Same as Alt 2, but with 

increased potential due to 

increase treatments. 

Cumulative Effects

Would not have any 

adverse cumulative 

effects expected.

Would add to past fire, insect 

mortality, and harvest impacts 

to snags and replacement 

snags. Prey species habitat 

may improve on a general 

scale. 

Same as Alt 2. 

Determination

Both action alternatives ‘may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to 

result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward 

federal listing’. Therefore the alternatives would contribute toward meeting 

Objective 221. The determination would be the same under the No Action 

Alternative due to the new Forest Policy of cutting standing dead trees within 300 

feet of some roads.

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3

Lewis’s 

Woodpecker

(Melanerpes lewis)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Existing snags would 

fall, adding to down, 

woody material and 

new snags would be 

created (MPB, disease, 

wildfire).

Potential to loss of 

snags/cavities. Would, 

overall, decrease habitat. 

Future nesting habitat would 

be decreased. Potential to 

decrease prey species habitat

through burning. Rx burning 

may create snags and 

replacement snags. Noxious 

weed treatments may impact 

prey species.

Same as Alt 2, but with 

increased potential due to 

increase treatments. 

Cumulative Effects

Would not have any 

adverse cumulative 

effects expected.

Past wildfires created a large 

area of suitable habitat, the 

increase in potential loss of 

suitable habitat and potential 

creation of snags would add to 

these impacts. 

Same as Alt 2. 

Determination

Both action alternatives ‘may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to 

result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward 

federal listing’. Therefore the alternatives would contribute toward meeting 

Objective 221. The determination would be the same under the No Action 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

71

Alternative due to the new Forest Policy of cutting standing dead trees within 300 

feet of some roads.

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3

Black-backed 

Woodpecker

(Picoides articus)

Note: Also MIS

Direct and Indirect Effects

See effects under the 

MIS section.

See effects under the MIS 

section.

See effects under the 

MIS section.

Cumulative Effects

See effects under the 

MIS section.

See effects under the MIS 

section.

See effects under the 

MIS section.

Determination

Both action alternatives ‘may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to 

result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward 

federal listing’. Therefore the alternatives would contribute toward meeting 

Objective 221. The determination would be the same under the No Action 

Alternative due to the new Forest Policy of cutting standing dead trees within 300 

feet of some roads.

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3

Grasshopper 

Sparrow

(Ammodramus 

savannarum)

Note: Also MIS

Direct and Indirect Effects

See effects under the 

MIS section.

See effects under the MIS 

section.

See effects under the 

MIS section.

Cumulative Effects

See effects under the 

MIS section.

See effects under the MIS 

section.

See effects under the 

MIS section.

Determination

Alternative 1 would have ‘no impact’ on the grasshopper sparrow. 

Both action alternatives ‘may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to 

result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward 

federal listing’. Therefore the alternatives would contribute toward meeting 

Objective 221.

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3

Northern Leopard 

Frog

(Rana pipiens)

Direct and Indirect Effects

None expected. Harvest and post-harvest 

activities near riparian sites 

may have direct adverse 

effects. Potential for habitat 

disturbance or loss. Noxious 

weed treatments may affect 

water quality and plant species 

diversity. Would enhance 

habitat for this species by 

protecting riparian areas. 

Same as Alt 2. 

Cumulative Effects

Would not have any 

adverse cumulative 

effects expected.

Would add to past activities 

impacts on habitat. Would 

supplement habitat, overall. 

Past fires have removed 

canopy, increasing ground 

temperatures, which may limit 

distribution. Past and 

potential future OHV use can 

Same as Alt 2.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

72

impact this species. 

Determination

Alternative 1 would have ‘no impact’ on the northern leopard frog. 

Both action alternatives ‘may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to 

result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward 

federal listing’. Therefore the alternatives would contribute toward meeting 

Objective 221.

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3

Black Hills 

Redbelly Snake

(Storeria 

occipitomaculata)

Direct and Indirect Effects

None expected. Potential for direct individual 

impact by harvest and Rx 

burning activities. Potential 

for habitat disturbance and/or 

loss due to harvest, burning, 

and OHV use. Potential for 

loss of down woody material. 

Noxious weed treatments have 

potential to affect habitat. 

Potential for enhanced habitat 

due to post-sale riparian 

enhancement projects. 

Same as Alt 2 with 

increased potential for 

impacts due to increased 

treatment acres. 

Cumulative Effects

Would not have any 

short-term cumulative 

effects expected. 

Potential for long-term 

cumulative effects due 

to stand replacing 

events, resulting in 

loss of habitat.

Would add to past harvest, 

wildfire, and livestock grazing 

impacts. Burning and wildfire 

would impact the redbelly 

snake and its habitat. 

Continued OHV use and 

potential increase in use would 

impact this species if present. 

Same as Alt 2.

Determination

Alternative 1 would have ‘no impact’ on the Black Hills redbelly snake. 

Both action alternatives ‘may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to 

result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward 

federal listing’. Therefore the alternatives would contribute toward meeting 

Objective 221.

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3

Cooper’s 

Mountain Snail

(Oreohelix strigosa 

cooperi)

Direct and Indirect Effects

None expected. Potential for direct individual 

impact by harvest and Rx 

burning activities. Potential 

for habitat disturbance and/or 

loss due to harvest, burning, 

and OHV use. Potential for 

loss of down woody material. 

Noxious weed treatments have 

potential to affect habitat. 

Same as Alt 2 with 

increased potential for 

impacts due to increased 

treatment acres. 

Cumulative Effects

Would not have any 

short-term cumulative 

effects expected. 

Would add to past harvest, 

wildfire, and livestock grazing 

impacts where this species is 

Same as Alt 2.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

73

Potential for long-term 

cumulative effects due 

to stand replacing 

events, resulting in 

loss of habitat.

present. Continued OHV use 

and potential increase in use 

would impact this species if 

present. 

Determination

Alternative 1 would have ‘no impact’ on the Cooper’s mountain snail. 

Both action alternatives ‘may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to 

result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward 

federal listing’. Therefore the alternatives would contribute toward meeting 

Objective 221.

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3

Regal Fritillary 

Butterfly

(Speyeria idalia)

Direct and Indirect Effects

None expected. Potential for direct individual 

mortality from Rx burning. 

Would have temporary habitat 

loss, short term. Would 

enhance habitat, including 

riparian habitat, long term. 

Noxious weed treatments may 

affect habitat. 

Same as Alt 2 with 

increased potential for 

impacts due to increased 

treatment acres. 

Cumulative Effects

Would not have any 

short-term cumulative 

effects expected. 

Potential for long-term 

cumulative effects due 

to stand replacing 

events, resulting in 

loss of habitat.

Would add to past harvest, 

wildfire, and livestock grazing 

impacts where this species is 

present. Past and continued

livestock grazing would 

impact this species. Would 

impact species in the short 

term, but would enhance 

habitat in the long term. 

Same as Alt 2.

Determination

Alternative 1 would have ‘no impact’ on the regal fritillary butterfly. 

Both action alternatives ‘may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to 

result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward 

federal listing’. Therefore the alternatives would contribute toward meeting 

Objective 221.

Migratory Birds

Summary of Effects on Migratory Birds

The following is a summary of effects to the previously mentioned migratory birds 

species. A detailed analysis can be found in the Wildlife Report and BA/BE in the 

project record.

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3

Golden Eagle

(Aquila chrysaetos)

Prairie Falcon

(Falco mexicanus)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Conifers would 

continue to encroach 

into 

meadows/grasslands. 

MPB risk and wildfire 

Would maintain and enhance 

existing habitat through 

harvest and burning. Harvest 

activities may benefit foraging 

habitat by opening up the 

Same as Alt 2 with 

increased potential for 

impacts due to increased 

treatment acres. 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

74

risk would not 

decrease.

canopy. 

Cumulative Effects

Would not have any 

short-term cumulative 

effects expected. 

Potential for long-term 

cumulative effects due 

to stand replacing 

events, resulting in 

potential for more 

foraging habitat.

Would add to past harvest and 

burning impacts to habitat. 

Existing and potential increase 

of OHV use may disturb 

nesting birds. 

Same as Alt 2.

Summary

Golden eagle and prairie falcon habitat would be expected to be maintained. All 

alternatives would meet Forest Plan standards, therefore populations of both species 

would remain stable. 

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3

Upland Sandpiper

(Bartramia longicauda)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Conifers would 

continue to encroach 

into 

meadows/grasslands. 

MPB risk and wildfire 

risk would not 

decrease.

Rx burning would have 

potential to impact nesting 

attempts, but expected to 

improve habitat overall. 

Harvest activities are not 

expected to impact this 

species. Would improve 

habitat overall. Noxious 

weed treatments have potential 

to impact habitat. 

Same as Alt 2 with 

increased potential for 

impacts due to increased 

treatment acres. 

Cumulative Effects

Would not have any 

short-term cumulative 

effects expected. 

Potential for long-term 

cumulative effects due 

to stand replacing 

events, resulting in 

potential for more 

habitat.

Would add to past harvest and 

burning impacts to habitat. 

Past and continued grazing 

and weed treatments may 

impact the habitat. Overall 

improvement to habitat for 

this species. Habitat would be 

maintained or enhanced. 

Same as Alt 2.

Summary

Upland sandpiper habitat would be expected to be maintained or enhanced. All 

alternatives would meet Forest Plan standards; therefore the Forest-wide population 

of upland sandpipers would remain stable. 

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3

Red-headed 

Woodpecker

(Melanerpes 

erythrocephalus)

Direct and Indirect Effects

None expected. Would have impacts 

benefiting habitat for this 

species. Rx burning may 

create snags and replacement 

snags. Would improve 

riparian habitats. 

Same as Alt 2 with 

increased potential for 

impacts due to increased 

treatment acres. 

Cumulative Effects
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

75

Would not have any 

short-term cumulative 

effects expected. 

Potential for long-term 

cumulative effects due

to stand replacing 

events.

Would add to past harvest, 

burning, and MPB impacts. 

Overall habitat would benefit 

from project activities. 

Same as Alt 2.

Summary

Red-headed woodpecker habitat would be expected to be maintained or enhanced. 

All alternatives would meet Forest Plan standards; therefore the Forest-wide 

population of red-headed woodpeckers would remain stable. 

Demand Species

Summary of Effects on Demand Species

The following is a summary of effects to the previously mentioned Demand Species. A 

detailed analysis can be found in the Wildlife Report in the project record.

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3

Rocky Mountain 

Elk

(Cercus elaphus 

nelsoni)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Forested stand would 

become denser, 

providing more cover. 

MPB risk and wildfire 

risk would not 

decrease. Conifers 

would continue to 

encroach into 

meadows and 

hardwoods, reducing 

forage. Potential to 

increase forage 

competition between 

livestock and big 

game.

Potential to displace 

individuals in the short term. 

Would enhance forage habitat. 

Potential to loss of cover in 

areas. Rx burning would have 

potential to cause decrease in 

calving cover. Potential of 

increased OHV use may 

increase disturbance to this 

species. 

Same as Alt 2 with 

increased potential for 

impacts due to increased 

treatment acres. 

Cumulative Effects

Would not have any 

short-term cumulative 

effects expected. 

Potential for long-term 

cumulative effects due 

to stand replacing 

events.

Would add to past harvest and

burning impacts. Overall 

habitat would benefit from 

project activities. 

Same as Alt 2.

Summary

Rocky Mountain elk habitat would be expected to be maintained or enhanced. All 

alternatives would meet Forest Plan standards and would allow attainment for 

Objective 217; therefore the Forest-wide population of Rocky Mountain elk would 

remain stable. 

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3

Merriam’s Wild 

Turkey

Direct and Indirect Effects

Forested stand would 

become denser, 

Potential to displace 

individuals in the short term. 

Same as Alt 2 with 

increased potential for 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

76

(Meleagris gallapavo 

merriami) providing more 

roosting habitat. MPB 

risk and wildfire risk 

would not decrease. 

Conifers would 

continue to encroach 

into meadows and 

hardwoods. Existing 

down woody material 

and regenerating pine 

would provide cover 

and foraging habitat.

Potential to disturb nesting 

turkeys. Potential for direct 

individual mortality or nest 

mortality due to harvest and 

burning activities. Would 

enhance forage habitat. 

Would increase summer 

habitat and decrease winter & 

roosting habitat. Rx burning 

would have potential in loss of 

down woody material and 

microhabitats. Potential 

increase in OHV use may 

impact turkeys. 

impacts due to increased 

treatment acres. 

Cumulative Effects

Would not have any 

short-term cumulative 

effects expected. 

Potential for long-term 

cumulative effects due 

to stand replacing 

events. Would provide 

the most roosting 

habitat throughout the 

project area. 

Would add to past harvest, 

wildfire, livestock grazing, 

recreation and drought 

impacts. Overall habitat 

would benefit while including 

the potential decrease of 

roosting and winter habitat. 

Same as Alt 2.

Summary

Merriam’s wild turkey habitat would be expected to be maintained or enhanced. All 

alternatives would meet Forest Plan standards and would allow attainment for 

Objective 217; therefore the Forest-wide population of Rocky Mountain elk would 

remain stable. 

Fire and Fuels

Affected Environment

From historic conditions, much more of the landscape is now forested and we are losing 

our open meadows and hardwood stringers which serve as natural fuel breaks (USDA 

Forest Service, 2005). Estimates show that 40% of the forest was non-stocked or

meadow in 1875 compared to less than 6% in 2000. As a result of this increased fuel 

loading, more of the Black Hills is available for, and affected by, large, intense forest 

fires. The ponderosa pine cover type dominates the landscape and as a result of fire 

exclusion, ponderosa pine has encroached on the non-forested communities, contributing 

to the reduction in size of the hardwood cover type, creating dense, closed canopy 

ponderosa pine stands. Surface fuels include duff, small woody debris, dead down logs 

and long needle litter. Isolated areas of storm damage and slash from past management 

activities exist within the project area.

Fire Regime and Condition Class

Historically, fires were more frequent and less severe. Fire suppression activities have 

trended the forest outside historic ranges. Currently, there are three general types of fire 

regimes in the Black Hills (USDA Forest Service, 2005). Fire regimes characterize the 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

77

role fire plays in an ecosystem. Table 24 describes each of the three fire regimes. The 

Condition Class rating can be used to describe the degree of departure from the historic 

fire regime (Hann et al., 2003). Table 25 describes each followed by a typical stand 

structure for each Conditions Class.

Table 24. Fire regimes in the Black Hills (USDA Forest Service, 2005) 

General 

Characteristics

Major Controlling 

Variables Distribution

Frequent, 

Low-Severity 

Fire Regimes

Fires recur within any 

stand at relatively 

short intervals (10-50 

years), burning at low 

severity in the canopy 

and soil, and variable 

severity in the 

understory.

Weather (fires occur during 

dry periods), Climate

(extensive fires tend to 

occur in dry years that 

follow 1-3 wet years), and 

Fuels (fuels gradually 

accumulate during the 

intervals between successive 

fires).

Evidence of surface fire in 

ponderosa pine forests 

throughout the Black Hills, 

most frequent at the PrairieForest ecotone and less 

frequent in interior forests at 

mid to high evlevations 

(Fisher et al. 1987, Brown 

and Sieg 1999, Brown et al. 

2000, Wienk 2001, Brown 

2003, Wienk et al. 2004).

Infrequent, 

High-Severity 

Fire Regimes

Fires recur within any 

stand at long intervals 

(100-500+ years), 

burning at high 

severity in the canopy 

and understory, and at 

variable severity to the 

soil.

Weather and Climate are 

the primary controllers 

(most ignitions extinguish 

by themselves because of 

wet conditions; extensive 

fires occur only in very dry 

summers; variability in fuels 

usually has little influence 

on fire frequency, extent, or 

severity).

Large areas of even-aged and 

dense forest and of closed 

canopy, mature or old-growth 

forest at the time of 

settlement are evidence of 

stand-replacing disturbance 

(Graves 1899, Shinneman 

and Baker 1997).

Mixed 

Severity Fire 

Regimes

These fire regimes are 

intermediate between 

the Frequent, LowSeverity and the 

Infrequent, HighSeverity Fire Regimes. 

Fires occur at variable 

intervals (10- >100 

years), and burn at 

variable severity 

(patches of high 

severity intermingled 

with patches of low or 

intermediate severity).

Weather, Climate, and 

Fuels all influence fire 

frequency, extent, and 

severity, in complex ways 

that are not well understood, 

with enormous variability 

over time and space.

Proposed as the dominant 

model for fire regimes in 

ponderosa pine forests of the

Black Hills. Under this 

model, surface fire forms the 

background process creating 

forest structure and landscape 

pattern. However, fires 

sometimes burn with mixed 

severity, with both a surface 

fire and a stand-replacing fire 

component, and may 

sometimes create large areas 

of high severity burns. Forest 

patches are variable in size 

and within patch structure 

(Lentile et al. in press)
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

78

Table 25. Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) rating descriptions (Hann et al., 

2003)

Fire Regime 

Condition Class Description

FRCC1

Low Departure from the 

central tendency* of the 

historic fire regime.

Fire regimes are within the historical range.

Risk of losing key ecosystem components is low.

Vegetative attributes are intact and functioning within the 

historical range.

FRCC2

Moderate Departure 

from the central 

tendency* of the 

historic fire regime.

Fire regimes are moderately altered from their historical 

range.

Risk of losing key ecosystem components is moderate.

Vegetation attributes have been moderately altered from 

their historical range.

Fire frequencies have departed from natural frequencies by 

one or more return intervals, resulting in changes to fire 

size, intensity, severity, and landscape patterns.

FRCC3

High Departure from 

the central tendency* of 

the historic fire regime.

Fire regimes are significantly altered from their historical 

range. 

The risk of losing key ecosystem components is high. 

Vegetation attributes have been significantly altered from 

their historical range.

Fire frequencies have departed from historical frequencies 

by multiple return intervals, resulting in dramatic changes 

to fire size, intensity, severity, and landscape patterns. 

*Central tendency refers to a composite estimate of vegetation characteristics including: species 

composition, structural stages, stand age, canopy closure, and mosaic pattern; fuel composition; fire 

frequency, severity, and pattern; and other associated natural disturbances.

The coarse scale national data characterizes the Black Hills as primarily Condition Class 

III, high relative risk of significantly altering or losing key components of the ponderosa 

pine forest system (USDA Forest Service, 2005). These conditions significantly increase 

the probability of a surface fire transitioning to a crown fire with increased burn severity 

and tree mortality. See Figure 4 for differences of FRCC stand structure. Evidence of 

past fires shows the potential for large, high intensity surface fires, and, given the right 

conditions, stand-replacing fires. Recent examples include the Jasper, Elk Mountain II, 

Battle Creek, Rico and Alabaugh fires.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

79

Figure 4. Typical stand structure for each Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC).

Fire Risk

Risks are defined as those uses or human activities which have the potential to result in a 

wildfire ignition. Fire history occurrence of both large and point fires were analyzed 

using the project perimeter. The fire history data includes fires occurring from 1950 to 

present. Table 26 displays known fire history within the Briggs Spring project area. Of 

the fires identified, 46 are known lightning-caused, 11 human caused, two miscellaneous, 

and two unknown. Both fire history occurrence data as well as large fire history, those 

fires exceeding 20 acres, in and around the project area are depicted in Figure 5. In 

addition, the percent of the project area impacted was analyzed. Table 27 displays large 

fire history within the project boundary.

Table 26. Known fire history in the Briggs Spring project area 

from 1950 to present

Fire Size Class Fire Size (acres) Number of Fires

A 0 – 1⁄4 61

B 1⁄4 to 9 17

C 10-99 1

D 100 – 299 0

E 300-999 0

F 1000-4999 0

G 5000 + 0

U Unknown 0
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

80

Table 27. Area of each large fire falling within the project perimeter

Fire 

Name

Fire 

Year Total Acres Acres Within Project Area

Percent of 

Project Area

Jasper 2000 83,511 4,739 6%

The number of fires on the entire Black Hills National Forest system lands has remained 

fairly constant at 65-130 starts per year. The number of fires that have escaped initial 

attack has also remained constant. However, these escaped fires have become larger and 

are more difficult to control with an average large fire size increasing from under 1,000 

acres per fire in the early 1900’s to over 8,000 acres in recent years, having burned 

approximately 239,000 acres since 1980.

Figure 5. Large fire history in and around the project area and the point fire history 

within the project boundary.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

81

Values at Risk

Values are defined in the forest plan environmental impact statement (EIS) (USDA 

Forest Service, 2005, Appendix E-80) as any or all natural resource improvements, or 

other values that may be jeopardized if a fire occurs. There are no At-Risk Communities 

(ARC) located within the Briggs Spring project area however, five ARC are located less 

than six miles from the project boundary with one being within one mile of the project 

boundary (Figure 6). To further assess the level of wildfire risk for each community 

buffer zones were created at distances of one half, one, two, and three miles around each 

community (Figure 6). Based on the Pennington County RapidMap, it was determined 

there are approximately 11 residences contained within the project area, and an additional 

15 more within a three mile radius of the project boundary.

Additional values at risk include commercial timber stands, power lines, range 

improvements, such as fences and spring developments, investments in timber stand 

improvement and reforestation, wildlife habitat, including snags, forage, riparian areas, 

security cover, and mid to late seral ponderosa pine stands, sensitive species, recreation 

sites, as well as water, air and visual quality.

Figure 6. At-Risk Communities (ARC) adjacent to the project boundary

and structures located within the project area.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

82

Fire Hazard

Fire hazard is defined as a fuel complex that determines the ease of ignition and the 

resistance to control. Hazard is an expression of what kind of fire may potentially occur 

and how it affects human values. The fire hazard rating increases as the amount and 

continuity of surface and canopy fuels increases. As the amount of fuel on a given 

landscape increases and fuel profiles become more horizontally and vertically 

continuous, the intensity of a wildfire in that landscape is expected to increase. Areas 

with high fire hazard rating have the potential to exhibit more extreme fire behavior with 

more severe effects than those with a low hazard rating.

A detailed examination of the Hazard Rating is best accomplished by reviewing known 

data regarding the arrangement of the vegetation, or structural stage. The structural stage 

gives an indication of the current fire hazard and is a stand level rating of crown fire 

susceptibility. Table 28 gives an approximate area of each structural stage and indicates 

the existing fire hazard.

Table 28. Current acres of each structural stage and existing Fire Hazard 

Rating

Structural Stage Approximate 

Acres Fire Hazard

Non-structured 2,697 Low

1 – Grass/Forb 497 Low

2 – Shrubs/Seedlings 550 Moderate

3A – Sapling/Pole (<40%) 179 Moderate

3B – Sapling/Pole (40-70%) 179 High

3C – Sapling/Pole (>70%) 42 Very High

4A – Mature >9” (<40%) 7,366 Moderate

4A – Mature <9” (<40%) 5,401 Very High

4B – Mature >9” (10-70%) 5,031 High

4B – Mature <9” (10-70%) 2,606 Very High

4C – Mature <9” (>70%) 0 Very High

5 – Old Growth 0 Very High

In assessing hazard, an overall Hazard Rating of high to very high exists in 

approximately 54% of the project area (Table 29). It is suspected that much of the nonforest land also follows this trend resulting in a higher percentage of high to very high 

Hazard Rating, however to what extent is unknown. The high to very high fire hazard 

rating is determined on the availability of fuels to sustain a fire. The high fire hazard that 

exists in the Briggs Spring project area is a result of the disruption of the historic fire 

regime, creating a landscape dominated by large contiguous stands of dense ponderosa 

pine with a high loading of surface and ladder fuels. In addition, recent pockets of tree 

mortality caused by insect and disease will increase fuel concentrations on the ground 

resulting in an overall increase of fire hazard. In an area such as Briggs Spring, where 

high risk coincides with high hazard, the probability of fire with undesirable conditions is 

more likely and could be very detrimental to many of the values existing in and around 

this project area.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

83

Table 29. Total acres and percentage of project area for the existing Fire 

Hazard Rating

Approximate Total Acres Fire Hazard Approximate Percentage 

of Project Area

3,194 Low 13%

9,260 Moderate 33%

4,227 High 21%

7,725 Very High 33%

Air Quality

Air quality in the Black Hills is considered to be excellent, having pollution concentration 

lower than both State and Federal standards (USDA Forest Service, 2005). Maintaining 

and improving air quality in the Black Hills and western South Dakota is desired. 

Although usually short in duration, smoke from wildfires and prescribed fires has the 

potential to affect air quality. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) addresses 

smoke from wildland fire under their natural events policy at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/nepol.pdf (USDA Forest Service, 2005).

The Briggs Spring project area is in the vicinity of two Class 1 Airsheds; Badlands 

National Park and Wind Cave National Park and five communities; Deerfield, Buckhorn, 

Breakneck, Newcastle and Ferguson Canyon. The project area is designated as a Class II 

area allowing higher concentrations of pollutants than the Class I Airsheds. Smoke 

generated by wildfire is usually greater and cannot be mitigated; however, smoke 

generated under controlled conditions can be mitigated using the following means:

• Limit treatment area size

• Specify wind directions and speed

• Specify minimum mixing heights 

• Stagger ignitions

These mitigation techniques in addition to other control methods for smoke management 

minimize the impacts of smoke to visibility and human health.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – No Action

The no action alternative assumes that no change in management would occur within the 

project area. Management actions currently being practiced, including suppression would 

continue to be practiced. The only other changes that would occur on the landscape 

would be those that occur as a result of natural occurrences, wildfire suppression or those 

resulting from other project decisions.

Direct and Indirect Effects

A no action alternative would continue the trend of the current FRCC 3 resulting in 

increasing fire hazards. In the absence of vegetation treatments, tree densities would 

continue to increase, as would crown cover and ladder fuels. As a result, there would be 

higher resistance to control and increased likelihood of wildfire escape with increased 

risk of losses. This trend would continue until interrupted by a natural disturbance such 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

84

as a catastrophic fire. Recent fires in the Black Hills area provide examples of what type 

of fire behavior can be expected and its effects on the landscape.

This alternative would not alter human activities or usage in the area therefore fire risk is 

not expected to change because the probability of an ignition occurring is not expected to 

change. 

The value rating would also remain unchanged unless a wildfire occurred and destroyed 

values in the project area.

In the next 10-20 years, as regeneration develops and fills in openings across the 

landscape, fire behavior would favor large scale stand replacing events. High flamelengths, fireline intensities, spread rates, and probabilities of ignition can be expected. 

The closely spaced regeneration would have a ladder effect in the remaining stands of 

trees, enabling fire to transition to the crowns. This fire behavior would make heavy 

equipment necessary for fire suppression. Firefighters could not use direct attack tactics.

Fire behavior in both the moderate and high severity areas of the project area would 

result in an increase in resistance to control and a greater likelihood of wildfire escape 

leading to an increased risk of loss of natural forest resources as well as private property, 

and decreased firefighter and public safety. The high intensity would also cause 

consumption of the remaining duff layer and soil heating as well as other resource 

damage. Without treatment, the fire hazard would continue to move toward very high. 

The greatest potential for wildland fire growth exists with this alternative.

Qualitatively, in the absence of treatments or the use of prescribed fire, the fire hazard is 

expected to worsen across the project area. The only action that could improve the fire 

hazard under the no action alternative is a wildfire and the longevity and improvement of 

fire hazard would be directly associated to the intensity of that fire.

Although air quality would not be directly impacted under the no action alternative, there 

would not be any control over the timing or amount of emissions released into adjacent 

airsheds in the event of a wildfire. A large wildfire has the potential to make a much 

greater impact on adjacent communities and Class 1 Airsheds, possibly exceeding 

National Air Quality Standards. The EPA addresses smoke from wildland fire under 

their natural events policy at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/nepol.pdf . 

(USDA Forest Service, 2005)

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Alternative 2 focuses on the management of vegetation to maintain forest health, provide 

for a sustainable supply of commercial timber, and reduce the risk of large-scale, high 

intensity wildfire.

This alternative would treat 18,307 acres commercially, 16,010 acres non-commercially 

and 6,295 acres with prescribed fire. Of the non-commercial treatments 1,693 acres 

would be treated by deadfall treatments and 1,252 acres designed specifically for 

mechanical fuels treatments. Many follow-up treatments or consecutive treatments 

including both mechanical and prescribed fire are planned, resulting in more than one 

treatment in some sites.

The commercial treatments would reduce basal area (BA) to 50 ft2

/ac. or 60 ft2/ac., which 

would reduce the susceptibility to mountain pine beetles as well as the possibility of 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

85

crown fire spread. Pre-commercial thinning would also decrease crown fire potential. 

Prescription burning would reduce the current fuel loadings changing fire behavior of 

future wildfires, reducing risk to life and property. Mechanical fuels treatments would 

treat slash to within 18 inches of the ground to break up fuel continuity, reducing fire 

hazard and providing greater tactical opportunities during fire suppression.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Treatments outlined in Alternative 2 would decrease the risk for large-scale, high 

intensity fires, allowing for characteristic low to mixed severity fires to occur. The 

treatments proposed in Alternative 2 would also have a substantial effect on fire behavior. 

The chances for successful initial attack under this alternative are much greater than 

Alternative 1, and the risk to residential areas, the general public, and firefighters is also 

greatly reduced. This is a result of treated stands generally burning in a surface fire 

configuration with isolated and small group torching. In addition, an improvement of 

FRCC can be expected as conditions move towards a more natural condition.

The actions associated with this alternative are not substantial enough to significantly 

alter human activities or usage in the area therefore fire risk is not expected to change 

because the probability of an ignition occurring is not expected to change.

The value rating would also remain unchanged unless a wildfire occurred and destroyed 

values in the project area.

This alternative would move 9,916 acres from the high to very high fire hazard rating to 

the low and moderate fire hazard rating. The timber treatments, fuels treatments, and 

prescribed burning would decrease ladder fuels, reduce the surface fuel loading, and 

break up the continuity of the fuels. Prescribed burning would also enhance the mosaic 

of burned and unburned fuels that resulted from past wildfires. The result of these 

treatments would be a decrease in flame length, intensity, duration, spotting, probability 

of ignition, and crown fire potential. This would create more strategic and tactical 

firefighting opportunities resulting in greater success during initial attack due to the fact 

that fireline construction rates would be enhanced, line placement opportunities would 

increase, and resistance to control would decrease. Suppression costs would also 

decrease due to the improved initial attack success rate. The reduction in fire behavior 

would create a safer environment for firefighters as well as the public. The break up in 

fuel continuity would also lead to more opportunities for locating safety zones. The risk 

of MPB outbreaks and the resulting accumulation of surface fuels would also be reduced 

by thinning.

Accomplishing prescribed broadcast burning objectives is estimated to require 

approximately 10-15 ignition days per year for 3 to 10 years. Although usually short in 

duration, smoke from prescribed fires has the potential to affect air quality. Smoke 

generated by wildfire is usually greater and cannot be mitigated; however, smoke 

generated under controlled conditions can be mitigated using the following means:

• Limit treatment area size

• Specify wind directions and speed

• Specify minimum mixing heights 

• Stagger ignitions
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

86

These mitigation techniques in addition to other control methods for smoke management 

minimize the impacts of smoke to visibility and human health.

This alternative would meet Forest Plan Goal 10 of establishing and maintaining a 

mosaic of vegetative conditions to reduce occurrences of large-scale, high intensity fire, 

insect, and disease events, and facilitate insect and disease management and firefighting 

capabilities, and Standard 4103, utilizing prescribed fire to achieve management 

objectives. This alternative would also meet Guideline 4110. 

Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 was designed to further reduce the susceptibility to MPB by including more 

thinning and sanitation as well as additional acres of prescribed fire.

This alternative would treat 23,400 acres commercially, 16,443 acres non-commercially 

and 7,009 acres with prescribed fire. Of the non-commercial treatments 1,693 acres 

would be treated by deadfall treatments and 1,274 acres designed specifically for 

mechanical fuels treatments. Many follow-up treatments or consecutive treatments 

including both mechanical and prescribed fire are planned, resulting in more than one 

treatment in some sites.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Reduction in crown fire hazard should result from the creation of a mosaic pattern, 

breaking vegetative continuity both vertically and horizontally across the landscape. An 

improvement of FRCC can be expected as in Alternative 2, however more acres would be 

moving towards a more natural condition as a result of additional acres being treated with 

this alternative.

As with alternative 2, the actions associated with this alternative are not substantial 

enough to significantly alter human activities or usage in the area therefore fire risk is not 

expected to change because the probability of an ignition occurring is not expected to 

change.

As with Alternative 2, the value rating would also remain unchanged unless a wildfire 

occurred and destroyed values in the project area.

Treatments outlined in Alternative 3 would have a greater effect to reducing fire hazard 

than Alternative 2. This alternative would move 15,935 acres (6,019 acres more than 

Alternative 2) from the high to very high fire hazard rating to the low to moderate fire 

hazard rating. 

Accomplishing prescribed broadcast burning objectives is estimated to require 

approximately 10-15 ignition days per year for 3 to 10 years. Although usually short in 

duration, smoke from prescribed fires has the potential to affect air quality. Smoke 

generated by wildfire is usually greater and cannot be mitigated; however, smoke 

generated under controlled conditions can be mitigated using the same means as in 

Alternative 2.

This alternative would meet Forest Plan Goal 10 of establishing and maintaining a 

mosaic of vegetative conditions to reduce occurrences of large-scale, high intensity fire, 

insect, and disease events, and facilitate insect and disease management and firefighting 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

87

capabilities, and Standard 4103, utilizing prescribed fire to achieve management 

objectives. This alternative would also meet Guideline 4110.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects in the Briggs Spring project were analyzed using those activities 

occurring within the project boundary. Those effects were analyzed from 2000, the year 

that Jasper Fire occurred, through 2026, which allows for MPB activity, mechanical and 

prescribed fire activities to be complete. The cumulative effects would occur on all types 

of ownerships that fall within the designated area.

In the Briggs Spring project area, past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

contribute to changes in fuel conditions. Past management activities may have created 

situations that could have increased as well as decreased the risk of large scale, high 

intensity wildfires. For example, wildfire suppression leads to a buildup in down woody 

material, increased stocking, and increased ladder fuels, which all increase fire hazard. 

The previous lack of thinning in dense stands has also contributed to an increase in 

wildland fire behavior, tree densities, the presence of ladder fuels, and dense crown 

closures, again all contributing to higher fire hazard. In addition, these dense stands have 

also contributed to the growth of MPB. If fires had been allowed to burn instead of 

pursuing an aggressive fire suppression program over the last 75-100 years, a 

considerable increase in the amount of acreage in stands would have burned at a more 

frequent interval and a lower intensity. However, today’s conditions favor wildfires of 

increased fire intensity at longer fire return intervals.

Management activities which have reduced fire hazard in the project area include the past 

timber sales, Redbank, Dumbuk and Thumb, as well as some private timber sales which 

occurred on private land. Reductions in fire hazard occurred on most, but not all of the 

sites treated in these activities, depending upon the amount of biomass removed. In 

addition, prescribed fire projects, including the Stateline and Thumb prescribed burns, 

have occurred in the project area and have reduced fire hazard in those areas. Vegetation 

treatments identified on adjacent lands within the cumulative effects area would enhance 

the cumulative value of both FRCC and fire hazard. In areas not being treated, the 

potential for sustained crown-fires, as well as fireline intensity would increase. With this 

type of fire behavior, forest suppression objectives would not be met.

Fire occurring several miles outside of the project boundary may affect the project area 

under the right conditions. On the Black Hills National Forest, fires in adjacent areas 

have previously had the ability to make large runs of up to 12 miles. Although this event 

is rare and requires extreme conditions, a large scale high intensity fire is more probable 

if no treatment is implemented. A fire start in the Briggs Spring project area (under the 

right conditions) would not only threaten or damage/destroy improvements in the 

immediate area, but also has the potential to burn into or affect surrounding communities 

such as Newcastle, Deerfield, Ferguson Canyon, Buckhorn, or Breakneck within one 

burning period (12 hours). A large scale, high intensity wildfire brings with it numerous 

risks and effects. Homes in the path of a wildfire are perhaps the most immediately 

recognized value at risk, however severe wildfires put numerous other important values 

at risk including: critical infrastructure, critical fish and wildlife habitat, firefighter and 

public health and safety, soil productivity, clean air, and functional fire-adapted 

ecosystems (Graham et al., 2004). Some of these values are also threatened by the 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

88

secondary effects of wildfire, such as landslides, soil erosion, and the spread of exotic 

species (Graham et al., 2004).

The action alternatives are expected to have positive long term cumulative effects. The 

proposed treatment combined with monitoring and foreseeable future projects would 

decrease the risk of large scale, high intensity damage of wildfire as well as decrease fuel 

loading, moving the project area to a more desirable condition. The proposed treatments 

would reduce stand density and canopy closure bringing the forest back to a more 

historical type condition. Projects in adjacent areas would also have an impact. These 

projects combined with the treatments proposed in the Briggs Spring project would 

decrease the hazardous fuels much more efficiently for longer periods of time.

Summary of Effects

Analysis has demonstrated that all action alternatives would have a change on fire 

behavior within treated areas. This change is expected to be mixed severity in nature,

opposed to those areas not treated which will experience more high severity to stand 

replacement fire behavior. The chances for successful initial attack would also increase 

in all action alternatives and the risk to the identified values at risk would decrease. In 

addition, an improvement of FRCC can be expected as conditions move towards a more 

natural condition. Under the no action alternative, there would be no change in fire 

behavior therefore no improvement in existing FRCC.

The fire risk is not expected to change in any of the alternatives because the actions 

associated with this alternative are not substantial enough to considerably alter human 

activities or usage in the area therefore fire risk is not expected to change because the 

probability of an ignition occurring is not expected to change.

Fire hazard is expected to improve in all action alternatives. Alternatives 2 and 3 are 

very comparable with only 667 acres separating these alternatives. Treatments identified 

in Alternative 2 will shift 9,916 acres, or 40% of the project area, from a high to very 

high rating to a low to moderate rating. Treatments identified in Alternative 3 will shift 

10,583 acres, or 43% of the area, from a high to very high rating to a low to moderate 

rating (Table 30 and Figure 7). Under the no action alternative, there would be an 

increase in fuel loading resulting in increased fire behavior, which also has the potential 

to further impact wildlife, soils, visual qualities, and timber. The no action alternative 

would not improve fire hazard.

Table 30. Fire Hazard Rating by alternative

Fire Hazard 

Rating

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Acres % Acres % Acres %

Low 3,194 13 17,236 70 17,384 71

Moderate 8,095 33 3,969 16 4,488 18

High 5,211 21 2,054 8 1,834 7

Very High 8,048 33 1,289 5 842 3

Total 24,548 100 24,548 100 24,548 100
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

89

Figure 7. Fire Hazard Rating by alternative.

Air quality would be affected by all action alternatives. More smoke would be generated 

by Alternative 3 then Alternative 2. Smoke generated by prescribed burning can be 

mitigated while smoke generated by wildfire is usually greater and cannot be mitigated; 

however, smoke generated under controlled conditions can be mitigated using the same 

means as stated in Alternative 2.

All action alternatives would meet the Forest Plan Goal 10 of establishing and 

maintaining a mosaic of vegetative conditions to reduce occurrences of catastrophic fire, 

insect, and disease events, and facilitate insect and disease management and firefighting 

capabilities, and Standard 4103, utilizing prescribed fire to achieve management 

objectives.

It is important to understand that fuel treatments would not prevent wildland fires from 

occurring. However, with fuel treatments, the risk of an extreme wildfire event would be 

greatly decreased. Fuel treatments would also need to occur in adjacent planning areas in 

order for treatments to be most effective at a landscape scale.

Botany, Rangeland, and Noxious Weeds

Affected Environment

A large portion of the project area contains the community type Black Hills Montane 

Grasslands (Marriot & Faber-Langendoen, 2000). While most grasslands/meadows 

within the project area would fit into this community type, the majority of areas have a 

considerable proportion of exotic grasses such as Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), 

common timothy (Phleum pratense), and smooth brome (Bromus inermis). Many of 

these areas also have a major proportion of non-native clovers (Trifolium spp.). These 

exotic invaders greatly reduce the botanical potential in these grasslands. However, a 

few large grasslands, and several isolated meadows, do exist within the project area that 

are not completely dominated by exotics and contain a rich diversity of native plants. 

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Acres

Fire Hazard Rating

Very High

High

Moderate

Low
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

90

The areas that are not dominated by exotic grasses or clovers are especially important to 

the area because of their limited acreage. Many of these areas are being affected by pine 

encroachment. Total acres dominated by grasslands and/or meadows total approximately 

2,697 acres.

Several small springs/seeps occur throughout the project area. Many of these have been 

developed in the past to be used as livestock water facilities and have small reservoirs 

built around them.

Botany

A comprehensive botanical survey was completed in 2007 exclusively for the Briggs 

Spring project area to collect information related to plant communities, assess sensitive 

species habitat, and identify locations of target plant species (sensitive species, statelisted species, and species of local concern). Subsequent surveys were completed in 2010 

as a result of long-term rangeland monitoring for the livestock grazing program and 

general plant surveys of the area. Surveys will be ongoing in the project area.

South Dakota state listed species are plant species that have been identified as rare in 

the state of South Dakota. The state has identified these plants for tracking by the South 

Dakota Natural Heritage Program. There are occurrences of four of these species located 

within the Briggs Spring analysis area. These four species will be carried forward in this 

analysis:

• Moonwort grapefern (Botrychium lunaria) 

• Least grapefern (Botrychium simplex) 

• Fendler’s whitethorn (Ceanothus fendleri) 

• Giant lousewort (Pedicularis procera)

A pre-field review was conducted of available information to assemble occurrence 

records, describe habitat needs and ecological requirements, and determine whether field 

reconnaissance is needed to complete the analysis. Sources of information included 

botanical surveys, Forest Service records and files, local professional judgment, and 

published research.

Species of Local Concern (SOLC) – Based on known conditions of this project area, 

pleated gentian (Gentiana affinis) is the only SOLC which is present and there may be 

suitable habitat and will be carried forward in this analysis. There were numerous 

occurrences of this species found during the survey of this project area.

Region 2 (R2) Sensitive Species – No R2 sensitive plant species have been located 

within the project area, but suitable habitat is present for two species: Iowa moonwort 

(Botrychium campestre) and narrowleaf grapefern (Botrychium lineare). Since no R2 

sensitive species have been identified in the project area, only suitable habitat will be 

analyzed. A pre-field review was conducted of available information to assemble 

occurrence records, describe habitat needs and ecological requirements, and determine 

whether field reconnaissance is needed to complete the analysis. Sources of information 

included botanical surveys, Forest Service records and files, local professional judgment, 

and published research.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

91

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. Table 31 documents the two 

species that will be carried forward in this analysis.

Table 31. Forest Service R2 Sensitive Species in Briggs Spring project area

Scientific Name/

Common Name/

Plant Code

Distribution and Habitat

Known To 

Occur in 

Project 

Area?

Suitable 

Habitat 

Present?

Botrychium 

campestre/Iowa 

moonwort/BOCA5

Rangewide the species occurs primarily on welldrained soils in non-forested habitats, 

occasionally under shrubs in or at the margins of 

these habitats. Black Hills occurrences are 

known from BKF lands, private land and Wind 

Cave National Park. Botrychium campestre is 

extremely inconspicuous. Rangewide, it is 

considered a grassland species associated with 

sandy grassland habitats in prairies, dunes, 

railroad sidings, and fields over limestone. Black 

Hills sites occur on limestone substrates and are 

primarily in open grassland dominated habitats 

usually with high to moderate forb diversity. 

Little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) 

occurs at several of the sites. Black Hills 

occurrences range in elevation from 

approximately 3,850 to 6,700 ft.

No Yes

Botrychium 

lineare/narrowleaf 

grapefern/BOLI7

Western populations of the species occur 

primarily on limestone substrates in a variety of 

habitats including heavily forested sites and 

grassy meadows, fen-like seeps and gravelly 

roadsides. Black Hills sites occur on limestone 

substrates in open grassland habitats (both high 

elevation montane grasslands and lower 

elevation little bluestem dominated habitats), on 

old (estimated 15-25 years) native surface 

roadbeds and in openings along perennial 

streams. Elsewhere in its range, this species has 

often been documented in areas of road 

disturbances and other human and natural 

disturbances. Black Hills occurrences range in 

elevation from approximately 4,200 (in Wind 

Cave national Park) to 6,700 ft.

No Yes

Rangeland

Range condition, trend and inventory for the analysis area were measured on the various 

allotments many times during the 1960’s, 1970’s and 1980’s in addition to more recent 

studies conducted in 2002 and 2010.

The Briggs Spring project area includes portions of three grazing allotments as follows: 

Central Allotment, the entire allotment except a small portion of the Estes Springs 

pasture; Crow’s Nest Upper Beaver Allotment, Unit D, Antelope Unit, and portions of 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

92

Units 5, 4, B, C, 4, 3, and 1; and, Lower Beaver Allotment, Units Moon, Summit Ridge, 

and Wilson. Table 32 shows historical grazing use by allotment.

There are currently a total of 24 grazing permits, (4 private land permits and 20 term 

permits) within the analysis area. Cattle are present in the allotments from June 1st –

October 15th annually.

Table 32. Historical use by allotment in the Briggs Spring project area

Central 

Grazing 

Allotment

The first recorded actual use on this allotment dates back to 1930, use was 

primarily by cattle with five to 43 horses permitted in the 1940’s. The grazing 

system was season-long continuous grazing. The allotment was first cross 

fenced in 1964. Today seven permittees graze the allotment under a deferred 

rotation grazing system.

Crow’s Nest 

Upper Beaver 

Grazing 

Allotment

Past grazing management of the allotment was season-long use, with water 

being the only distributing factor. In the late 1940’s the first division fence was 

constructed, dividing the allotment into two units. In the early 1950’s voluntary 

reductions and partial stocking occurred, and in 1956 permittees were offered a 

choice of taking massive reductions or implementing a range improvement 

program and intensive management system. This program led first to 

development of rest rotation and increased numbers, and later to the deferred 

rotation systems that are currently in use. Because of overstocking disclosed in 

the production-utilization study done in the late 1980’s, livestock numbers were 

reduced by 120 head in the analysis area in 1991.

Lower Beaver 

Grazing 

Allotment

Grazed by cattle season-long until it was first cross-fenced in 1966. Prior to 

1966 distribution was a concern on the allotment, with the north end receiving 

heavy use while the southern end received very light use. The cross fence 

allowed for a season-long unit in the southern end of the allotment and a twounit deferred grazing system on the northern portion. In 1973 the season-long 

use of the southern portion was changed to a two-unit deferred rotation system.

Noxious Weeds

The Briggs Spring project area contains the past analysis areas of Dumbuk, Redbank and 

Thumb. Those areas were surveyed during noxious weed treatment in 2005-2010. 

Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) and hound’s tongue (Cynoglossum officinale) are the 

main invaders in this analysis area. Smaller infestations of common tansy (Tanacetum 

vulgare), yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris), and oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare)

also exist. In 2010 leafy spurge was found and treated. The Redbank Campground is 

surveyed and treated for weeds annually.

In the project area it is known that there is at least 440 acres of noxious weed infestations. 

Previous disturbances within the project area and current infestations put this area at high 

risk for continued invasion.

Documented noxious weed species found in the area include:

• leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula)

• Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense)

• hound’s tongue (Cynoglossum officinale)

• yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris)

• common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare)
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

93

• oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare)

• sulfur cinquefoil (Potentilla recta)

• common mullein (Verbascum thapsus)

• bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare)

• musk thistle (Carduus nutans)

Environmental Consequences

Botany

State Listed Species and SOLC 

Effects to the following species are similar and are analyzed together. State listed species 

include: moonwort grapefern, least grapefern, Fendler’s whitethorn, and giant lousewort. 

SOLC include: pleated gentian. 

Alternative 1 – No Action

No new proposed activities would occur in the project area.

Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no direct effects, since no activities would occur. There would be no 

damage to any unknown individuals from forestry treatments, prescribed fire, or 

campground developments. Conifers would continue to encroach into 

meadows/grasslands and forest stands would continue to become denser, which may 

result in loss of habitat for these species. Risk of MPB infestations and wildfire would 

not be decreased; there would likely be an increase in risk for both, resulting in potential

negative affects to state listed and SOLC plant species.

Noxious weed infestations are a risk for these plant species, as exotics are often able to 

out-compete native vegetation for available nutrients. In addition, the treatment of such 

infestations with herbicides might present a risk to these plants if unknown occurrences 

are inadvertently sprayed. The lack of additional disturbance associated with the no 

action alternative would reduce the possibility of noxious weed infestations in state listed 

and SOLC species habitat.

Common to Both Action Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct effects of the disturbances associated with the vegetation treatments would be the 

loss of individual plants from heavy equipment operations, locations of burn piles, skid 

trails, or any activity in suitable habitat. However the overall effect of treatments would 

be neutral to beneficial. The proposed pine encroachment treatment in both alternatives 

would likely enhance habitat for these species. Both action alternatives would reduce the 

overall risk of MPB infestation and large-scale, high intensity wildfire.

Indirect effects would be the increased potential for noxious weed infestations in 

disturbed areas. This can be detrimental to state listed and SOLC plant species, as 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

94

noxious weeds and invasive species have the ability to out-compete desired native plant 

species. The herbicides used in noxious weed control can also be detrimental to these

species if the individuals are inadvertently exposed to the herbicides.

Prescribed burning and tree thinning appear to have the potential to increase the growth 

and reproduction of Fendler’s whitethorn according to Huffman and Moore (2004). Thus 

the management activities proposed in the action alternatives would be expected to have 

a beneficial effect on these species.

Giant lousewort would potentially be affected. The stand it occurs in is proposed for a 

group shelterwood treatment under both action alternatives. No available sources 

indicate known effects to giant lousewort from disturbances such as forestry treatments. 

While adverse effects may occur to this species in the project area it would not affect the 

overall population in the Black Hills.

The proposed campground sites occur in areas that do not contain any known populations 

of any state listed or SOLC plants, or suitable habitat. 

The alternatives would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines, therefore it is 

determined pleated gentian is likely to persist on the forest. 

R2 Sensitive Species 

Effects to the following species are similar and are analyzed together. R2 sensitive 

species include: Iowa moonwort and narrowleaf grapefern.

Alternative 1 – No Action

No new proposed activities would occur in the project area.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under the no action alternative, there would be no direct effects, since no activities would 

occur. There would be no damage to any unknown individuals from forestry treatments, 

prescribed fire, or campground developments.

By not treating stands infested with mountain pine beetle and reducing hazardous fuels, 

there would likely be an increased risk for a large-scale, high intensity wildfire. This 

type of fire often times has effects such as deep soil heating and intensities that could 

negatively affect both the belowground and aboveground portions of Iowa moonwort and 

narrowleaf grapefern individuals (USDA Forest Service, 2005, Appendix C).

A decrease of suitable habitat (grass dominated communities) would likely result with

implementation of the no action alternative. With the current absence of a natural fire 

regime and without treatment, it is expected that forested stands will become denser and 

ponderosa pine will continue to encroach upon suitable habitat. Allowing pine

encroachment to continue may result in a loss of suitable habitat for these species.

The lack of additional disturbance associated with the no action alternative would reduce 

the possibility of noxious weed infestations in the sensitive plant habitat. Noxious weed 

infestations are a risk for R2 sensitive plants, as exotics are often able to out-compete 

native vegetation for available nutrients and moisture. In addition, the treatment of such 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

95

infestations with herbicides might present a risk to sensitive plants if unknown 

occurrences are inadvertently sprayed.

This alternative would result in both positive and negative impacts to these two species. 

There would not be any disturbance to unknown individuals nor would the potential to 

increase noxious weed infestations exist through the no action alternative. The negative 

impacts could result in an increased risk of a large-scale, high intensity wildfire damaging 

species habitat and a loss of habitat from conifer encroachment. Since both species 

occupy similar habitat the following determination is valid for both: “May adversely 

impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, 

nor cause a trend for federal listing.”

Common to Both Action Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects

Both action alternatives would potentially benefit suitable habitat for these species. The 

earlier successional conditions that occur with opening the overstory canopy could 

produce conditions that would be beneficial to site colonization by wind-dispersed, sporeproducing Botrychium species (Iowa moonwort and narrowleaf grapefern), if the 

associated mycorrhizal species and other microsite conditions are present (Farrar, 2004). 

Reducing canopy cover, amount of biomass, and hazardous fuels would reduce the 

likelihood of a severe, high intensity wildfire that could degrade habitat for sensitive 

species. Hardwood stands are typically not considered suitable habitat for Iowa 

moonwort and narrowleaf grapefern. Removing conifers would likely have a neutral to 

beneficial effect on any unknown Iowa moonwort and narrowleaf grapefern populations. 

Treatment of the sites that are proposed for pine encroachment would likely enhance 

habitat for Iowa moonwort and narrowleaf grapefern. There is potential for treatments to 

have short-term impacts to any unknown individual plants during the treatments; but 

long-term, the proposed pine encroachment treatments would likely have a beneficial 

impact for these species by enhancing or conserving the habitat conditions.

Prescribed fire would unlock nutrients bound in un-decomposed organic matter above the 

soil and release them to be available for plants. Decreasing the ponderosa pine density 

and the proposed prescribed burning would be expected to reduce the risk of wildfire, 

which would help protect sensitive plant species habitat. Prescribed burning would not 

be expected to have negative impacts to these species. 

The proposed campground sites occur in areas that do not contain any known populations 

of Iowa moonwort or of narrowleaf grapefern, nor does it contain suitable habitat. The 

sites are dominated by ponderosa pine and the soils that occur on the sites are typically 

not conducive for these two species in the Black Hills.

Negative direct effects of any of the proposed treatments would be the loss of any 

unknown individuals from heavy equipment operations, locations of burn piles, skid 

trails, or any activity in suitable habitat.

Indirect effects from any of the proposed treatments would be the increased potential for 

noxious weed infestations in disturbed areas. The herbicides used in noxious weed 

control can also be detrimental to sensitive species if the individuals are inadvertently 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

96

exposed to the herbicides. While unknown individuals may exist on these sites and may 

be damaged during operations, the overall effect would be neutral to beneficial.

Both Alternative 2 and 3 would likely result in positive and negative impacts. Any 

negative impacts to unknown individuals are expected to be short-term, while long-term 

impacts should be beneficial. Since both species occupy similar habitat the following 

determination is valid for both: “May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to 

result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend for federal 

listing.”

Rangeland

Alternative 1 – No Action

No new proposed activities would occur in the project area.

Direct and Indirect Effects

The no action alternative would eventually result in a decrease of grassland communities 

in the project area as forested stands become denser and ponderosa pine continues to 

encroach upon grassland and meadow areas. As a result, the amount of available forage 

would decrease as grassland communities decline and ponderosa pine becomes denser. 

Also, access to available forage would eventually decrease as forested stands become 

denser and livestock travel within forested areas becomes difficult. Having less forage 

available in forested areas, grazing animals would increase the grazing pressure on nonforested areas. This may result in a possible decrease in the condition of those 

rangelands. A decrease in condition of the rangelands would eventually lead to an 

additional decrease in the amount and quality of forage available. With all of the above, 

this would make it more difficult to meet the Forest Plan Guideline 2505, Proper Use or 

Residual Levels-Riparian/Uplands, with the current grazing permits.

This alternative would not increase the potential for livestock-recreational user conflicts 

with the addition or expansion of an OHV campground as proposed in either of the action 

alternatives. An increase in OHV traffic leads to the potential of conflicts with livestock 

as OHV oftentimes lead to the disruption of livestock behavior.

Common to Both Action Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects

Both action alternatives would increase the overall amount of forage available by 

decreasing ponderosa pine density in the grasslands/meadows, uplands, and aspen stands. 

Decreasing pine density may also open areas up that were previously inaccessible to 

livestock. The treatments may allow for more even-distribution of livestock throughout 

the pastures and reduce utilization in more critical areas such as meadows and grasslands.

Cattle are permitted and present in allotments within the project area as follows: Crow’s 

Nest/Upper Beaver and Lower Beaver Allotments from June 11th – September 30th; and, 

Central Allotment from June 11th - October 10th. Conflict with permitted uses may occur 

if fences are left down or gates are left open.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

97

The proposed campground in either action alternative would have the potential to 

increase livestock-recreational user conflicts. The number of recreation user days would 

be expected to increase with the implementation of either campground site. This would 

lead to an increased potential for gates to be left open and livestock to be harassed by 

OHV’s. Within the developed recreational area conflict would be minimal as these areas 

would be fenced out from livestock grazing.

Noxious Weeds

Alternative 1 – No Action

No new proposed activities would occur in the project area.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Noxious weed populations would be limited to current infestations unless disturbance 

occurs from natural events, or large-scale fire. The lack of additional disturbance 

associated with the no action alternative would reduce the possibility of noxious weed 

infestations.

Noxious weed infestations are known to increase with large fire events. The lack of 

treatment of hazardous fuels would lead to the potential increase of a large-scale high 

intensity wildfire, thus increasing the potential for a large-scale outbreak of noxious 

weeds.

Common to Both Action Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects

There is a potential for 21,866 acres (under Alternative 2) or 23,917 acres (under 

Alternative 3) being disturbed from timber harvest, fuels treatments, and prescribed fire. 

Skid trails, landings, burn piles and areas where machinery is working would create 

conditions in favor of seedbeds for noxious weeds. The actual amount of disturbance is 

dependent on the scope and amount of acres infested with MPB, type of equipment used, 

and the time of year the disturbance occurs.

Because parts of this project area are within areas that burned under intense wildfire 

conditions (Jasper Fire) and were heavily infested with Canada thistle, there is a very 

high risk that the existing seedbank would result in a marked increase in Canada thistle 

infestation. Past experience indicates that populations of plants with pappiferous fruit, 

such as Canada thistle, have the potential to spread 30% a year with disturbance. The 

potential in this project area could be much greater due to the existing seedbank that 

might have resulted from recent infestations. However there are design criteria set in 

place to help minimize this effect.

Prescribed burning temporarily reduces the grassland vegetation for one or two growing 

seasons thus reducing the competition of noxious weeds. Existing fuel loads (wood 

currently on the ground) would naturally burn with higher temperatures in relation to fuel 

loads associated with grassland vegetation increasing the heat of the soil beneath these 

heavy fuels allowing noxious weeds to germinate with no competition of native grasses. 

Anytime activities remove the protective herbaceous cover and soil is exposed, (such as 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

98

severe fire, skid trails resulting from timber harvest, road creation, etc.) there is an 

increase in the likelihood of exotic plants being introduced into an area. Proposed 

thinning treatments would also include ground disturbance with similar results of existing 

and new infestations of noxious weeds. Previous disturbances within the project area and 

current infestations put this area at high risk for continued invasion. The infestations can 

be expected to spread at least 30% per year when there is disturbance. At highest risk 

will be areas containing larger fuel loads and downed timber which create a place for past 

seed accumulation and will burn with much higher intensities.

It is critical that the proposed post harvest activity of using herbicides for noxious weed 

control be implemented to mitigate the spread of invasive plant species. Monitoring of 

the effectiveness of treatment, and retreatment as needed, is essential.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative impact area for this analysis is the identified project area within the 

Briggs Spring project area. Activities beyond the project area have a diminished effect on 

the botany, rangeland, and noxious weeds within the project area. The timing limit for 

the cumulative effects analysis is estimated at 20 years, ten years prior to present and ten 

years in to the future, which allows for an adequate length of time to record vegetative 

changes.

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities within the Briggs Spring project area 

include timber harvest, timber thinning, limited mining, wildfire, prescribed burning, 

grazing, road construction and maintenance, noxious weed control, wildlife habitat 

improvement projects, and dispersed recreational use on both the public land and private 

land in the area. A list documenting known past and planned future activities for this area 

is included in Appendix F.

Noxious weed infestations are expected to increase under both action alternatives. Any 

past, present or foreseeable future activity that causes soil disturbance has the potential to 

introduce and increase the rate of spread of noxious weeds and other exotic plants. This 

can be detrimental to rangeland resources and SOLC and state listed plant species, as 

invasive species have the ability to out-compete desired native plants. The potential for 

noxious weed establishment is even greater in disturbed areas adjacent to existing weed 

populations. The movement of equipment in and out of these areas also facilitates weed 

establishment. Roads create a network of corridors through which seed dispersal can 

occur.

The herbicides used in noxious weed control can also be detrimental to SOLC and state 

listed species if the individuals are inadvertently exposed to the herbicides.

The grazing in the Briggs Spring project area will continue as identified in the Allotment 

Management Plans for the grazing allotments within the project area. Under both action 

alternatives, creation of transitory range would have a positive cumulative effect on those 

allotments by reducing the time livestock spend in riparian areas. Broadcast burning 

proposed under the action alternative would work against the cumulative effect of fire 

suppression by killing small trees and setting back succession, though it is expected to 

have limited effects on overstory canopy. All of the effects to rangeland resources 

presented here would be limited in intensity and duration. Any negative impacts would 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

99

be minimal and are directly related to livestock management in the short term as they are 

impacted by treatment activities.

All of the above uses are limited in intensity and duration and therefore when combined 

with the alternatives analyzed, including the no action alternative, do not result in adverse 

cumulative impacts to the state listed species, SOLC, R2 sensitive species or their habitat.

Minerals

Affected Environment

The regional geology and mineral resource potential of the Briggs Spring project area is 

described in U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1580 (Dewitt et al., 1986). Geologic 

mapping is available for the Briggs Spring project area in the Geologic Map of the Black 

Hills Area, South Dakota and Wyoming: Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations 

Series Map I-1910, scale 1:250,000 (DeWitt et al., 1989).

Mineral resources on National Forest System lands can be divided into three categories. 

These categories are Locatable Mineral Resources, Salable Mineral Resources, and 

Leasable Mineral Resources.

Locatable minerals are minerals or mineral materials 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 Briggs Spring project are open to 

location, discovery and mining. The Forest Service has only limited authority to restrict 

and regulate locatable mineral activities on public domain lands (USDA Forest Service, 

2006c). High-calcium limestone is a potential locatable mineral resource that could be 

present within the Briggs Spring project area.

Salable minerals are a group of mineral commodities such as common variety sand, 

gravel, and 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, 2006c).

Oil and gas are leasable minerals under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. This act 

provides authority to the Bureau of Land Management to lease oil and gas deposits on 

public domain National Forest system lands. Significant oil and gas production is 

occurring along the western and southwestern margins of the Black Hills, although no oil 

and gas production or exploration activities are known in the direct vicinity of the Briggs 

Spring project area. Dewitt et al. (1986) does classify a majority of the Briggs Spring 

project area with a low potential for discovery of small oil and gas deposits. The very 

western edge of the project area may be in the moderate potential area for discovery of 

large oil and gas deposits (stratigraphic traps) as described by Dewitt et al. (1986).

No current mineral exploration or production activities are known within the Briggs 

Spring project area. No notice of intents for mineral activities have been filed with Black 

Hills National Forest and a search of the Bureau of Land Management Geographic Claim 

Index shows that there are no active mining claims in the area.

There are no known abandoned mines in the Briggs Spring project area (Webb et al., 

1998; DeWitt et al., 1986). This concurs with the identification of a limited potential for 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

100

mineral resource development as discussed above. The closest abandoned mine is 

approximately three-miles east of the project area (Davis et al., 1998).

The Pahasapa Limestone hosts the vast majority of caves within the Black Hills including 

Jewel and Wind Caves, the second and fourth longest caves in the world respectively. 

Currently, there are no known caves in the project area. The Pahasapa Limestone does 

have the potential to host cave systems. This potential is indicated by the occurrence of 

caves along the outcrop of the Pahasapa Limestone south of the Briggs Spring project 

area which contains at least ten (10) caves three-miles or less from the project area. The 

closest known caves are less than one-mile from the project area.

The rocks within the Briggs Spring project area host Paleozoic invertebrate fossils. In 

addition, in very rare occasions, deposits of Pleistocene vertebrate fossils such as camels 

and mammoths are found within sediment-filled sinkholes in the Pahasapa Limestone. 

Examples of Pleistocene vertebrate fossil deposits include the Hot Springs mammoth site 

in the southern Black Hills and the Richmond Hill site in the northern Black Hills. The 

Pleistocene deposits are very difficult to identify and are often only discovered by chance 

in some type of excavation.

Potential mineral recreational opportunities include fossil collecting and exploration for 

undiscovered caves. No permits have been issued for the collection of rocks or fossils in 

the project area.

Environmental Consequences

Direct, Indirect Effects and Cumulative Effects for All Alternatives

Current transportation conditions within the project area are adequate to facilitate 

activities related to exploration and development for either locatable minerals or oil and 

gas. However, it is not considered likely that these activities will occur in the near future.

The Briggs Spring project would not cause direct or indirect effects to mineral resources 

under any alternative, therefore there would not be any cumulative effects to mineral 

resources under either Alternatives 1, 2, or 3. Cumulative effects to cave resources are 

also unlikely under the three alternatives.

Lands and Special Uses

Affected Environment

There are 4,368 acres of private land within the Briggs Spring project area. The private 

in-holdings are mostly large Homestead Entry Surveys that are surrounded by federal 

land administered by the Forest Service. Most of the private parcels are raw land 

primarily used for grazing or recreation with only a few year round residents. Access to 

private land is provided through system and/or non-system, NU-new unauthorized forest 

roads and private roads. Lands special uses are very minimal within the project area and 

therefore do not pose any concerns or issues. Black Hills Power has submitted an 

application and project proposal for a very extensive new 230kV Transmission overhead 

power line that would cross both private and National Forest System (NFS) land within 

the Briggs Spring project area.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

101

There are no special use permits and only one issued easement within the Briggs Spring 

project area. Easements have not been issued to landowners in this part of the district due 

to the fact that the private in-holdings are predominantly raw land and landowners have 

not historically performed any road maintenance, reconstruction or snow removal to 

access the parcels. As private land increasingly becomes subdivided for either year 

around residential, single family homes or seasonal cabins, we may see an influx of 

applications for easements to obtain perpetual legal access.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – No Action

There would be no project activities implemented under this alternative. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

This alternative would not have any short-term effect on the lands resource. There is a 

potential for untreated NFS lands to have an increased threat of wildfires due to higher 

stocking densities. This could pose a risk of fire spread to private property. This would 

also eliminate the ability to reduce potential mountain pine beetle spread onto private 

land and subsequent tree mortality by not thinning dense timber stands on NFS lands. 

Any land use proposals, including the 230 kV overhead transmission line corridor 

application, would continue to be considered through the Lands and Special Uses 

programs. Other uses such as Small Tracts Act applications, special use permit 

applications, other utility requests, easement applications and opportunities to acquire 

right-of-ways would continue within the project area.

Common to All Action Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects

These alternatives would not have any long term effects on the lands resource. The 

minimal special uses and right-of-ways within the project area would not conflict with 

any action alternative provided roads are kept open for access to the public. Short term 

effects of proposed activities would include dust and noise from increased traffic during 

harvest operations. Increased log hauling traffic could impact roads that the public 

utilizes to access their private property. Smoke from prescribed burning and slash pile 

disposal operations may impact some adjacent landowners. Reduction in stand density 

could reduce fire intensities, should a fire start on forest and endanger private property. 

Social impacts include private landowners’ receptivity to more aggressive silvicultural 

prescriptions and its relationship to land values. No needs have been identified for 

acquiring right-of-ways for implementation of either action alternative.

Cumulative Effects

The Briggs Spring project area boundary, land exchanges within the last 30 years and 

special uses within the last 10 years were used to evaluate cumulative effects. Activities 

proposed under the action alternatives would not have any effect on the current lands and 

special uses, nor would they affect any foreseeable future lands and/or special uses 

proposals.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

102

Heritage Resources

Affected Environment

Prehistoric Context

The Black Hills are part of the greater culture area of the Northwestern Plains with 

human occupation of dating to 11,000 B.P. (Frison, 1991:7,13). Over this vast period of 

human occupation, the ecology, subsistence patterns, technology, and the cultures of 

Black Hills inhabitants have witnessed notable changes (Frison, 1991:24). These 

changes are grouped into phases of occupation, which are held in the archaeological 

record. The Black Hills National Forest Cultural Resources Overview identifies cultural 

sites that represent all of these prehistoric phases of occupation in the Black Hills (Rom, 

et al. eds., 1996). Identifiable tribal groups living within the Black Hills area during the 

Protohistoric period include the Kiowa, Crow, Arapaho, Cheyenne, and Sioux.

Many Native Americans consider the entire Black Hills sacred land. Their belief system 

links specific locations in and around the Black Hills to star constellations (Rom, et.al. 

eds., 1996). These spiritually significant locations include but are not limited to: Devil’s 

Tower, Old Baldy Mountain, Hot Springs, Buffalo Gap, Reynolds Prairie, the spearfish 

formation “race track” that surrounds the Black Hills, and Harney Peak (Goodman, 

1992). Ceremonies are performed at these sacred locations during specific periods on the 

celestial calendar or weather events (Goodman, 1992: 12).

Historic Context

Although influenced by Euro-American culture through the introduction of horses, guns, 

and disease as early as the 17th century, sporadic use of the Black Hills by EuroAmericans largely began in the early 1800’s and consisted mainly of fur trappers and 

traders (Sundstrom, 1989). The western half of South Dakota, including the Black Hills, 

portions of southern North Dakota, and nearly the entire area of the Powder River Basin 

in Wyoming and Montana was recognized as unceded Indian Territory by the 1868 treaty 

between the United States and the Sioux and Arapaho. More intense Euro-American 

occupation in the Black Hills began shortly after gold was discovered in the Black Hills 

in 1874. It was this discovery that brought a full scale influx of Euro-American 

prospectors and miners to the Black Hills.

Historic settlement in the Black Hills by Euro-Americans is generally auxiliary to this 

history of the mining industry. Homestead patents are common from the late 1800’s 

through the 1920’s. Industries such as the ranching and logging industry became 

common in the early 1900’s. However, much of the land was not patented and remains 

public land. During the Great Depression/New Deal Period (1920-1941), public works 

projects became common across the Black Hills landscape. The Civilian Conservation 

Corp (CCC) and the Works Progress Administration (WPA) organized groups of men in 

camps to construct lookouts, roads, trails, dams, and wells throughout the area.

Within the Briggs Spring project area there are 25 known cultural resources determined 

eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The majority of 

sites are considered prehistoric and range in age from 7,000 to 250 years before present. 

They include rock shelters, lithic procurement sites, quarries, and village sites. The 

historic sites include remnants of various CCC developments linked to the Great 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

103

Depression and New Deal time period in addition to past remnants of logging and 

homesteading.

Field Surveys

Sections of the Level III cultural resource inventory were first contracted to Niwot 

Archaeological Consultants in 2006 and 2008. A Level III Heritage Resource Inventory, 

Monitoring, and Evaluation: Redbank Unit of the Briggs Analysis Area by Brad Noisat 

(BKF # R2006020300133) resulted in the survey of 5,141 acres. Level III Heritage 

Resource Inventory: Moon Unit of the Briggs Analysis Area by Brad Noisat (BKF # 

R2008020300104) resulted in the survey of 1,197 acres in 2008. The two contract 

inventories consisted of new survey and the evaluation of newly discovered sites.

The Forest Service conducted an in-house cultural resource survey of the remaining 

2,626 acres distributed across the 24,548 acre Heritage area to protect (APE). Newly 

recorded and previously recorded unevaluated sites were evaluated for eligibility to the 

NRHP. All eligible sites were monitored and evaluated for effects from all project 

alternatives.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – No Action

There would be no project activities implemented under this alternative. 

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 U.S.C. 470f). 

However, no action may result in the destruction of cultural resources due to the 

increased fuel loading and tree mortality from overgrowth--both of which increase the 

risk of fire and subsequent ground disturbance and erosion. Many of the eligible sites in 

the Briggs Spring analysis area are eligible for listing on the NRHP due to the presence of 

intact subsurface cultural deposits or standing architectural features. As such, any 

processes that disturb the soil/sediment matrices of an archaeological site (including 

erosion) or increase the intensity and probability of catastrophic wildfire, adversely 

impact the site’s eligibility.

Common to All Action Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects

Within the Briggs Spring project area there are 25 known cultural resources determined 

eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The Forest Service 

developed site specific recommendations for these eligible cultural resources to avoid 

adverse effects from all action alternatives. These recommendations were submitted 

within the Section 106 report for the Briggs Spring project. The South Dakota SHPO 

concurs with these determinations. Furthermore, SHPO concurs with a finding of No 

Adverse Effect, provided that these cultural resources are avoided by all ground 

disturbing activities during project implementation. If during the course of any ground 

disturbance related to this project, any bones, artifacts, foundations, or other indications 

of past human occupation of the area are uncovered, all operations will cease within a 

100-meter radius of the site location and a district archaeologist notified immediately. 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

104

The SHPO and regional Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs) will be notified of 

the discovery and provided an opportunity to comment. Any cultural resources located 

during project implementation will be protected based on the recommendations of the 

district archaeologist and the SHPO.

Adherence to the design criteria would result in no direct or indirect effects to cultural 

resources from Alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects

The nature of the cultural resources and the foreseeable actions in the project area dictate 

that the cumulative effects area should match the physical site boundaries. Therefore, the 

cumulative effects area is defined as the known archaeological sites in the identified burn, 

thinning units, and access roads to and from the project area. The timing limit for the 

cumulative effects analysis is 20 years; ten years prior to present and ten years in the 

future.

No adverse effects are expected to occur as a result of any alternative provided that the 

design criteria are followed and the site specific recommendations are implemented. 

Because there will be no direct or indirect effect to cultural resources, there will be no 

cumulative effects associated with the Briggs Spring project.

Scenery

Affected Environment

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 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 Briggs Spring project 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 can be found in most streams and wet areas. 

Water features are limited to 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 (small trees removed), noncommercial thinning, 

commercial thinning, seed tree cuts, and overstory removals are scattered, and only 

readily apparent when adjacent to a main road. Pine and spruce stands are expanding into 

meadows and hardwood stands.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

105

There are isolated foreground views along Sensitivity Level 2 Roads (County and Major 

Forest Development Roads & Trails) where past vegetative treatments are evident; 

however in the middleground views (away from the main roads) vegetative treatments are 

not readily apparent due to the relatively flat terrain. Mountain pine beetle activity is 

evident in this area in the form of red-needle trees that were recently killed; however it is 

generally isolated in small pockets. Trees that are under attack have clumps of pitch that 

are evident 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. Unless an individual walks through 

the forest looking at each tree, the scope of the mountain pine beetle spread is not 

apparent.

In the surrounding landscape, outside this planning area, past vegetation treatments are 

evident in the foreground and middleground views. Areas to the west are generally 

natural appearing. Vegetation management has been very active in the north & east, and 

these areas tend to have a more managed appearance. The Jasper Fire occurred in the 

summer of 2000 (approximately 83,510 acres), burning through the landscape south of 

the planning area and killing the majority of trees. Today the Jasper Fire area is a large 

open grass area. As a result of wildfire and vegetation management, the areas 

surrounding the planning area have a variety of appearances – resulting in a Moderate 

Existing Scenic Integrity condition.

Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) are management objectives for forest scenic resources. 

Within the Briggs Spring project area there is 0% High SIO, 31% Moderate SIO, and 

69% Low SIO.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – No Action

There would be no project activities implemented under this alternative. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Existing conditions and natural processes of trees growing and regenerating would

continue. The existing MPB activity would be expected to continue for several years, 

pockets of MPB killed trees could expand in size and spread. 

Common to All Action Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects

Vegetative treatments would result in the removal of trees within a stand. How well 

these treatments blend into the characteristic landscape, and meet the SIO, is based upon 

the slope, aspect, and vegetation remaining on the site. Thinning trees to an even spacing 

can result in a managed, un-natural appearance.

This project maintains a large tree component across the majority of the planning area, 

with only a few units removing the entire overstory. The result would be a multi-storied, 

or multi-aged, forest – although with a reduced density of trees. This lower population of 

trees would reduce the susceptibility to mortality from wildfire and MPB, and a forested 

appearance in the long term. By treating these areas through the action alternatives the 

visually desirable large tree characteristics (SS 4A) - though widely spaced, would have a 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

106

greater potential to remain as a feature in the planning area, more so than the no action 

alternative. In addition, the vegetation treatments would enhance the large tree 

component, when present, by reducing competition for nutrients around them. A variety 

of vegetation structure would be maintained – both large & small trees (Form, Line & 

Texture), and an increase in hardwoods, grasses and shrubs (Color, Texture, Seasonal 

Variety) within the planning area would result. Overall, the variety of vegetation that 

would be enhanced at the stand level would be a very positive feature from a scenery 

standpoint.

Impacts to the scenery resource would also occur from or be influenced by related actions 

such as roads, prescribed burning, slash treatments, logging systems, and landing 

locations. These elements can impact the overall scenery quality by changing the form, 

color, and texture of landscapes as viewed from foreground, middleground, and 

background views.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Alternative

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2 would modify the vegetation across the landscape - this management 

activity would occur quickly over the span of a few years. 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 SIO. However, due to the limited size and scattered location of these units in 

this landscape, the rolling hills and ridges would reduce the visibility of these types of 

treatments, so they would be less evident in this landscape. Restoration treatments to 

increase hardwood sprouting, and thinning treatments to decrease potential for MPB to 

attack forest stands, would 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 would be more evident and provide seasonal color and textural variety in the 

landscape, than currently exists. The reduction in trees, slash, and small trees, would 

open views into the forest, and returning to an appearance that could be similar to a 15 to 

30 year fire interval that created the ‘natural appearance’ for this ecosystem. This 

alternative would meet the assigned SIOs for this planning area.

“New Moon” OHV Recreation Campground Facility – The proposed campground 

location is in an area with a Low SIO assigned under the Forest Plan. Views toward the 

campground from private land (0.1 miles southwest) would be partially-screened by 

vegetation immediately surrounding the campground. Campground facilities would be 

visible, though color and size of the buildings should help them blend into the landscape 

and vegetation. Other facility features such as tables, bulletin board, and fire rings would 

be visible from the surrounding area, though less evident due to size, distance, color, and 

the position of the campground on higher flat terrain. Recreation vehicles in the 

campground would be the most visible elements in the landscape. The trailhead would 

be closest to the private land. A bulletin board in this location would be evident, though 

vehicles parked here would be the most visible. Construction of a limited capacity, and 

lower Development Level, campground, and a trailhead, in this location would meet the 

assigned LOW SIO.

Alternative 3
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

107

Direct and Indirect Effects

The effects of this alternative are similar to Alternative 2 except in two ways. 

First, the group shelterwood treatment would occur on essentially double the acres as in 

Alternative 2. This increase in areas treated with this prescription would reduce the acres 

of dense vegetation, moving the vegetation toward more open forest stands. Hardwoods 

would be more evident across the landscape, providing a contrast in color throughout the 

year, particularly adjacent to meadows and in drainages. Rock formations will be readily 

apparent as well. The diversity of vegetation structure, created for wildlife, will be 

visible in all distance zones. This change in treatment prescriptions would result in less 

areas of dense vegetation.

Expansion of the existing Redbank Campground Facility –This proposed campground 

expansion is in an area with a Moderate SIO assigned under the Forest Plan. Views 

toward the campground from private land (0.2 miles north) are screened by topography, 

and vegetation on the north side of the campground. Forms (restrooms, bulletin boards, 

tables, fire rings, etc.) would be similar to those currently at the site. Although the 

quantity would increase, the visibility would be at the same level. The dark brown color 

of most features would blend into the landscape in this location. Facilities and recreation 

vehicles in the campground would not be readily visible in the landscape. Expanding 

capacity, at a similar low Development Level, of the campground in this location would 

meet the assigned Moderate SIO.

Alternative 3 would modify the vegetation across the landscape - this management 

activity would occur at a similar pace as Alternative 2, though over a wider area. Aside 

from the decrease in sanitation and increase in group shelterwood treatments, the effects 

would be the same as Alternative 2. The reduction in trees, slash, and small trees, would 

open views into the forest, and returning to an appearance that could be similar to a 15 to 

30 year fire interval that created the ‘natural appearance’ for this ecosystem, but on a 

larger area than Alternative 2. This alternative would meet the assigned SIOs for this 

planning area.

Cumulative Effects

The boundary on the ground for analyzing cumulative effects is primarily that of the 

planning area. This identified area is the landscape that is evident in the foreground and 

middle ground from the main travel routes, with particular attention to recreation 

facilities.

The time boundary for this analysis extends from 1980 (when the start of recent 

vegetation management activities took place) to 2050 [completion of management 

activities (2020), followed by 5 years for pine seedlings to become established, and 

approximately 25 years for trees to grow up and visually ‘fill’ open areas]. This time 

period includes 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 pre-commercially thinned by 

the Civilian Conservation Corp in the 1930’s and 1940s, however we do not know if that 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

108

effort included any or all of this planning area. The areas were these treatments occurred 

do not standout, but blend in with the surrounding vegetation.

Although the planning area is relatively free of fire scars, a large wildfire occurred along 

the southern boundary of the planning area. The Jasper Fire (2000) burned intensely, 

killing the majority of all trees within the fire perimeter. As a result, ten years later, the 

area is a large grass covered area, approximately 85,000 acres in size. The large size has 

limited seed dispersion from ponderosa pine trees around the perimeter of the fire.

Past vegetation treatments are not readily apparent on the ground, as trees have grown up, 

the topography is gently rolling, and treatments areas did not form ‘hard edges’ between 

treated and non-treated locations. The action alternatives would treat the vegetation in a 

manner that would be apparent to most observers; however those treatments should not 

dominate the landscape. In areas that are treated, it will take approximately 5-15 years to 

get new trees and shrubs established in the understory and move these treated areas to the 

point where they start to appear different – moving toward a more natural appearance.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Under this alternative, trees of all sizes would be selected for harvest. The resulting 

appearance of vegetation treatments would change little for the first 10 years after the 

treatments are completed. Any treatments would result in fewer trees across the 

landscape, reducing the risk of MPB infestation and reducing fire hazard.

Effects of MPB activity are most evident when trees have been killed and the green 

needles have turned red in color. As the trees decay and fall, openings would be created. 

These openings would change the character from a uniform appearing landscape 

‘carpeted’ with pine trees to a complex matrix of openings, decaying dead trees, residual 

pine trees, and expanding areas of hardwood trees.

Hardwoods would be more evident as well. Panoramic views are limited within this 

planning area due to the gently rolling nature of the topography. Roads accessing 

landings would be evident until the road template no longer exists. The greatest visual 

effects in the immediate foreground would be from roads and landings, as they will take 

the longest time to heal.

The variety of treatments would produce a natural appearing forest, but one that has 

fewer trees, as if fire had continued to play its natural room all along. Due to the insect 

activity and fuel treatments adjacent to private land, the current view of the forest from 

these locations would likely change from their current condition. Views of these 

treatments would be limited from Sensitivity Level 1 or 2 roads outside the planning area, 

due to the topography surrounding the planning area.

Alternative 2 would modify the vegetation across the landscape. Management activities 

would be more evident. The variety of treatments would create a variety of vegetation 

patterns, colors, and improve opportunities to view hardwoods and wildlife. Restoration 

treatments to increase hardwoods and meadows may take time to appear natural, but long 

term they would improve the visual diversity in the landscape. Prescribed burning, piling 

and burning, would reduce fuel levels to natural levels, which is a positive ecological & 

scenic characteristic of frequent fires in a pine ecosystem. Prescribed burning treatments 

would meet a Moderate to High Scenic Integrity one year after being completed.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

109

Alternative 3

Under this alternative, cumulative effects are similar to Alternative 2, with the differences 

noted below.

Alternative 3 management activities would modify the vegetation across the landscape on 

a larger area as noted in the effects section. Treatments should meet a Moderate to High 

Scenic Integrity one year after being completed.

Transportation

Affected Environment

The existing transportation system was inventoried in the summer of 2007 and 2008, and 

reviewed in 2010. During the 2010 review additional road condition surveys were 

conducted to capture any change in road conditions. The existing transportation system 

was assessed for maintenance needs and for roads that could be needed in order to 

support commercial timber harvest and other resource needs in the project area. 

Approximately 12.8 miles of National Forest System Road within the Briggs Spring 

project area were designated for Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) trail system as indicated in 

the March 22, 2010 Record of Decision and later depicted on the December 1, 2010 

Motor Vehicle Use Map.

To summarize, the transportation system within the Briggs Spring project area is 

comprised of approximately 121.7 miles of existing roads and OHV trails. The 

breakdown of the existing transportation system is listed below in Table 33.

Table 33. Existing roads and OHV trails within the Briggs Spring project area

Roads and Trails by System

System Classification Length in Miles Road Density 

(Miles/Square Mile)

National Forest System Roads 108.9 2.8

OHV Trail System 12.8 0.1

 Total 121.7 2.9

*Unauthorized roads are not part of the Forest transportation system and are not open to 

motorized recreation.

The Briggs Spring planning area is located in a snowmobile use area which affects the 

seasonal availability of some roads. Additionally, past management decisions have closed 

roads on a yearlong basis for resource protection. The travel management designation of 

the National Forest System Roads (FSRs) within the project area and road density (miles 

of road per square mile) is depicted in Table 34. Likewise, Table 35 indicates OHV trail 

miles and trail density. Maps 9-11 in Appendix A show transportation for Alternatives 1-

3. 

Table 34. Travel Management – NFSRs in miles and road density

Travel Management Designation Length in 

Miles

Road Density 

(Miles/Square 

Mile)

Roads Closed to All, Yearlong 7.9 0.2

Roads Open to All, Seasonal (May 15 to Dec. 15) 11.2 0.3
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

110

Roads Open to All, Yearlong 14.3 0.4

Roads Open to Highway Legal Vehicles Only, 

Seasonal (May 15 to Dec 15) 5 0.1

Roads Open to Highway Legal Vehicles Only, 

Yearlong 70.4 1.9

Total 108.9 2.9

There may be further change in the travel management of roads in the next few years as 

the Forest implements the Travel Management Plan for the Black Hills National Forest.

Table 35. Travel Management – National Forest System (NFS) OHV trails in miles 

and trail density 

Travel Management Designation Length 

in Miles

OHV Trail Density 

(Miles/Square Mile)

Trails Open to All Vehicles, Yearlong 4.6 0.1

Trails Open to All Vehicles, Seasonal 

(May 15 to Dec. 15) 8.2 0.2

Total 12.8 0.3

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – No Action

There would be no project activities implemented under this alternative. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under Alternative 1 there would be no effects from a proposed action. There would be no 

change in the transportation system due to a proposed action. Scheduled annual and grid 

maintenance would continue as it has in the past. Road densities would remain the same 

under this alternative.

Common to All Action Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects

The action alternatives propose additional maintenance, reconstruction, route conversion 

(reconstruction of 0.9 miles of unauthorized roads). Potential direct adverse effects from 

these proposed activities would be 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.

Within the Briggs Spring project area the majority of the NFSRs would require minimum 

maintenance or reconstruction to facilitate the extraction of timber and other resource 

access.

Project implementation would be accomplished by utilizing a majority of the existing 

NFSRs, reconstructing selected existing NFSRs to the standard in which they were 

designed, and reclassifying selected unauthorized roads for conversion to system roads. 

Road reconstruction may include but is not limited to structural improvements, such as 

rolling dips or culverts, surface reconditioning or realignment. Select system roads 

would be closed to protect and prevent damage to resources. Conversion of unauthorized 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

111

roads to NFSRs may require the reconstruction the existing road template include but not 

limited to structural improvements, such as, rolling dips and culverts, aggregate 

placement or centerline adjustments. Temporary roads would be closed after use as part 

of the timber operations unless identified as motorized routes in the Black Hills National 

Forest (BHNF) Travel Management Plan.

Use of the transportation system would vary somewhat between the action alternatives. 

Reconstruction activity would bring road standards up to the minimum necessary to 

accommodate commercial timber hauling, while protecting soil and water resources. In a 

similar manner, reconstruction of existing unauthorized roads (NFSR conversion) would 

also bring roads up to minimum road standards necessary for commercial haul while 

protecting soil and water resources. All temporary roads may also be used to access 

portions of proposed treatments units. All temporary roads would be closed or 

decommissioned during post resource management activities. 

Roads utilized under the action alternatives would be reconstructed, constructed and 

maintained in accordance to the Engineering Design Guidelines and Best Management 

Practices Compliance. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

The transportation system under Alternative 2 proposes to maintain 75.9 miles, 

reconstruct 31.9 miles and add 0.9 miles of existing unauthorized road to National Forest 

System Roads (NFSR). The 0.9 miles of converted road would be closed to public use 

after treatment activities, no change to open road density would occur. All unneeded 

unauthorized roads, approximately 35.3 miles, have been administratively closed to 

public traffic under the Black Hills National Forest Travel Management decision, as 

shown on the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). It should be noted that many of these 

unauthorized roads may be used for temporary access during timber harvest operations. 

No new road construction would occur under this alternative.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

The transportation system under Alternative 3 proposes to maintain 77.3 miles and to 

reconstruct 35.3 miles of National Forest System Road. This alternative would also 

include new construction (approximately 0.8 miles) of an OHV trail to connect the 

proposed expanded Redbank Spring Campground to the existing OHV trail system. Like 

Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would convert 0.9 miles of unauthorized road to National 

Forest System Road which would be closed following treatment activities, no change to 

open road density would occur. All unneeded unauthorized roads, approximately 35.3 

miles, have been administratively closed to public traffic under the Black Hills National 

Forest Travel Management decision, as shown on the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). 

It should be noted that many of these unauthorized roads may be used for temporary 

access during timber harvest operations. No new road construction would occur under 

this alternative.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

112

Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects, therefore no cumulative effects 

would occur. 

Common to All Action Alternatives

The action alternatives would not increase open road density for the project area. 

Therefore, no negative cumulative effects to open road density would occur.

These activities along with the Briggs Spring project have the potential for the following 

cumulative effects on the transportation system:

• Annual maintenance on Maintenance Level 3 and 4 roads would have a positive 

effect on the transportation system. These routes would only require minimal 

maintenance to support timber harvest activities barring no significant or 

catastrophic weather events occur. Grid maintenance activities in 2008-2009 

would have most roads in a state that would require minimal maintenance to 

support timber harvest activities.

Road maintenance, reconstruction, and construction within the Briggs Spring project, 

combined with annual and grid maintenance activities, would have cumulative effects on 

ground disturbance, vegetation loss, dust/noise increases and sediment movement for 

short durations and in scattered areas within the analysis area.

Recreation

Affected Environment

Recreation is an approved use in this management area and this area is designated as a 

Roaded Natural area in the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). Numerous open 

roads provide commercial access and roaded recreation opportunities, while closed roads 

provide non-motorized recreation opportunities. Activities such as hunting, hiking, and 

biking occur on roads closed to motorized vehicle traffic. Some roads are open yearround while others are open seasonally; some motorized vehicle use restrictions may be 

for management area purposes.

The Briggs Spring project area is ideal for recreational activities on the Black Hills 

National Forest. It provides mostly un-fragmented and undeveloped public lands for 

recreating in a forested setting. There are no paved roads, no commanding new custom 

homes or sub-divisions, and very limited commercial services. Terrain in the interior of 

the project area is a limestone plateau, which is flat or rolling and park-like with broad 

open meadows interspersed with aspen and pine stands. There are few inspiring rock 

formations but the outer edges of the area are steep and mountainous mainly to the north 

and east with steep limestone canyons that drop off to the drier south. The northern twothirds of the project area experiences heavy winter snowfall. This makes it excellent for 

winter recreation but limits passenger vehicle access and may limit timber harvest 

activities during the winter season. This area offers the best consistent conditions for a 

groomed snowmobile trail system on the district. It is relatively easy to experience a 

sense of solitude in this primarily motorized area. There is evidence of historic and 

continuing management actions, mainly timber harvesting and cattle grazing, which 

blend with the natural setting.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

113

Primary recreational use of this area is dispersed in nature and includes hunting, 

horseback riding, OHV (off highway vehicle) use (mainly ATV riding and 

snowmobiling) and camping, primarily associated with a vehicle.

Developed Recreation

There is one developed recreation campground in the project area, Redbank Spring 

Campground. Redbank Spring Campground is a fee-required Forest Service operated 

campground. It consists of four campsites and offers two vault toilets, campfire rings and 

picnic tables. There is no potable water at the Redbank Spring Campground. The 

campground is considered to be in a quality location being at the end of the campground 

service road, FSR 294.2A, and surrounded by open native grass fields with scattered 

timber stands.

The Forest Service operated Moon Campground, which was located on the western 

boundary of the project area, was decommissioned in October 2008 and the area 

rehabilitated back to a forested setting. This campground had three campsites with picnic 

tables, campfire rings, and a vault toilet. It was decommissioned as part of a Forest 

Service Recreation Facility Analysis (RFA) planning effort. The RFA determined which 

recreation facilities on a forest wide basis were most important to maintain or improve to 

meet the needs of current and future users of the National Forest as well as which ones to 

decommission or modify. Moon Campground was in need of replacement of all 

improvements due to their poor condition. Considering its size at three sites, low volume 

and occupancy, its proximity adjacent to a private residence, and a busy timber haul road 

(FSR 117), it was decided to decommission the campground.

The RFA also recommended that Redbank Spring Campground be modified to provide 

increased camping capacity to accommodate campers from the closed Moon 

Campground. Recommended improvements are to be designed for OHV users who 

would be overnight camping. Design of an OHV specialized campground includes group 

camping sites, roads, pull-throughs, and camping spurs designed for large radius turn 

vehicles with trailers, information kiosk(s) for posting maps and tread lightly OHV 

education information, and a day use equipment trailer parking area.

From fee receipts it has been determined that Redbank Spring Campground has a 40% 

occupancy rate, considered moderate, during the main Memorial Day-Labor Day season 

of operation. Fall season of use from Labor Day to the end of October primarily serves 

hunters and is more minimal. The majority of use is from Wyoming residents. This 

campground is “off the beaten path” compared to most Black Hills National Forest 

campgrounds and is accessed only by many miles of gravel roads. It provides more of a 

roaded-natural setting for camping due to its remoteness. From Forest Service personnel 

observations, many campers are also hauling OHV’s on trailers to ride on the Forest. A 

two or three person size group of OHV campers is common and they rent most of the 

campsites typically on weekends. The Forest Service added a two trailer overflow 

parking area in the campground in 2007 to help accommodate this use. Deep winter 

snows typically preclude any early spring or late fall campground use and the access 

roads are closed to wheeled vehicle travel (insert dates closed) for use as groomed 

snowmobile trails.

Dispersed Recreation Use and Trails
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

114

The project area is popular with fall big game hunters and fall/spring turkey hunters. On 

the weekends, hunters typically camp overnight at Redbank Spring Campground or along 

roadsides. Approximately 50% of the time spring turkey hunting is not possible in the 

project area due to late season deep snows. From personal observations of the project 

area there are usually 2-3 weekend horse camp outings each summer. These are small 2 

to 4 person horse riding groups, camping beside the road, who ride the roads during the 

daytime. Mountain bike riders have been observed riding during the day on the multitude 

of roads within the Jasper Fire burn area, in the project area, 2-3 times per year. It 

appears they are using one car to begin their day ride to travel in one direction and then 

use another car at the end of the ride to travel back to the first car. Open fires are banned 

year-round throughout the Black Hills National Forest, unless in an approved and 

permitted campfire ring. Dispersed camping sites should not include campfires and 

associated fire scars, trash and impacted soils and vegetation.

The project area includes OHV trails and snowmobile trails. Table 36 shows 

approximate mileages and type of system trails in the project area. The snowmobile trail 

system is operational and closed by regulation to wheeled traffic from December 15th to 

March 30th annually. The OHV trails in the project area are either open to vehicles less 

than 62 inches in width or open to full size vehicle widths. There are no non-motorized 

system trails in the project area.

Table 36. Approximate mileages of system trails in the 

project area

OHV >62” Width OHV Full Size Snowmobile Trail

6.2 mi. 5.0 mi. 13.7 mi.

Overall, the Briggs Spring project area is part of an important dispersed recreation area in 

all seasons, whether it is summer OHV use, fall big game hunting, winter snowmobiling, 

or spring turkey hunting. Some developed recreation camping occurs at the Redbank 

Spring Campground to a moderate level of use. The well-roaded nature of the area lends 

itself to recreation in a motorized setting. The limestone canyons, located in the southern 

section of the project area, offer a higher degree of solitude and quality for non-motorized 

recreational pursuits not found in the rest of the Briggs Spring project area.

Recreation Special Uses

According to the Forest Service Special Use Data System (SUDS) there are no outfitter 

guiding permits issued for the project area. There was a group recreation event permit 

issued in 2006 within the project area for a weekend-long dispersed group camping and 

horse riding event.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

The No Action alternative would have no effect on recreation resources in the project 

area. No changes to existing developed sites or dispersed recreation activities would 

occur.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

115

Common to All Action Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects

Short term direct effects (3-5 year time period) would be attributable to increased noise, 

smoke, dust and logging traffic from nearby harvest and post-harvest activities. These 

effects would occur to motorized and snowmobile trail users, dispersed recreation users, 

and developed campground users. Prescribed burning and winter slash pile burning 

would create smoke in the project area which may cause temporary adverse effects to 

system trail and campground users. Increased noise, smoke and dust from project 

activities may temporarily decrease the quality of a recreational users’ experience.

Redbank Spring Campground would not be open to the public when vegetation activities 

would be occurring within the site itself. Design criteria would be in place to restrict 

harvest activities during the full operation period of the facility, which is May 15th

through October 15th annually. Short duration smoke and noise from post-sale activities 

such as pile burning and prescribed fire burning may decrease the quality of a camping 

experience. However burning activities normally would occur outside of the full 

operation period of the campground.

The dispersed activity of driving for pleasure on forest roads would be affected 

particularly by increased dust and traffic from logging traffic.

Sections of motorized trails and snowmobile trails may be temporarily closed to the 

public during timber harvesting and hauling for safety reasons. It would be possible that 

some trails may be closed temporarily with no alternative trail routes except by utilizing 

system roads which would require OHV drivers to have a state driver license and 

registration. Snowmobile trail users may have some disruption to system trails. This 

could include increased safety signing due to harvest and post-harvest vegetation 

activities that would occur in the winter. Affected trails would need to be closed and 

brought back to trail standards during proposed post-harvest operations.

These short term effects could occur during all seasons of the year with the likelihood of 

effecting the highest dispersed recreation use period and activity of fall big game hunting.

Long term (beyond a five year time period) direct effects concern visual changes of 

recreation sites and adjoining areas to campground users (see Scenery section). The 

appearance of the area would be from a denser forested setting to a more open one until 

the vegetation regenerates. This more open forested appearance would create more 

opportunities for recreational wildlife viewing.

The Redbank Spring Campground would be expected to have less hazardous tree 

maintenance work in the long term as thinning would remove high risk trees and reduce 

the chance of beetle infestation of the stand.

Both action alternatives propose an OHV campground facility. Either alternative would 

be designed for day use OHV riding on designated OHV system trails and overnight 

camping.

Snowmobile system trails may experience more drifting of snow from a more open forest 

in windy areas; however the trails may also experience increased snow depth from a more 

open forest canopy. Trails, overall, would benefit from harvest activities because 

typically harvested stands would result in healthier trees and less high-risk trees, resulting 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

116

in fewer dead trees falling across trails, ultimately requiring less maintenance and 

increased user safety in the long term.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Short term direct effects to action Alternative 2 would include short duration dust, noise 

and other disturbances to the public and adjacent private land owners of the area 

identified for new construction of the “New Moon” OHV campground.

Long term indirect effects to this alternative would be increased recreation traffic and 

noise to adjacent private landowners and forest visitors caused by the presence of a 

developed recreation campground at the identified location. Other effects would include 

an enhanced campground experience by visitors due to the modernized and disabled 

person accessible facilities. This would include a training lot and new furnishings such 

as picnic tables, fire rings, and new vault toilets designed for wheelchair access. Traffic 

flow and parking would be designed for safety and ease of visitors with features such as 

pull-through design camp spurs and larger turning radius corner turns.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Short term direct effects to action Alternative 3 would include increased traffic, noise and 

other disturbance caused by the constructed expansion of the Redbank Spring 

Campground and the construction of approximately 0.8 miles of new OHV trail 

connecting Redbank Spring Campground to the existing OHV trail system. The design 

of the expansion of Redbank Spring Campground would include fencing along the edge 

of the open fields adjacent to the campground, preventing OHV users from riding offroad into the open fields. Illegal off road OHV use would be minimized or eliminated 

through public education, traffic control barriers, sign posting and the presence of Forest 

Service personnel on a regular basis at the recreation sites. The level of disturbance from 

construction activities would be mostly apparent to users of Redbank Spring 

Campground which may be temporarily closed to the public during expansion 

construction.

Long term indirect effects to this alternative are from increased recreation use of 

Redbank Spring Campground due to an increased size from 4 to approximately 19 

camping units. The size of the campground would increase by approximately 17 acres. In 

addition there would be an associated trailhead parking lot and approximately 0.8 mile 

connector trail to the OHV trail system. Effects would include increased recreation 

vehicle traffic and noise from campers and OHV day riders.

Positive effects would include an enhanced campground experience by visitors due to the 

modernized and disabled person accessible facilities. This would include new 

furnishings such as picnic tables, fire rings, and new vault toilets designed for wheelchair 

access. Traffic flow and parking would be designed for safety and ease of visitors with 

features such as pull-through design camp spurs and larger turning radius corner turns. 

There are no adjacent landowners to the Redbank Spring Campground, therefore the 

expansion of the existing campground would not impact adjacent private landowners as 

in Alternative 2.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

117

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative impact area for this analysis is the Briggs Spring project area. The time 

boundary for the cumulative effects analysis is 10 years in the past, present, and 10 years 

to the future. Past, present and future activities within the Briggs Spring project area 

boundary include timber harvests, grazing, road maintenance, OHV trail maintenance, 

noxious weed control, wildlife habitat improvement projects, and recreation use.

The No Action alternative would have no cumulative effect on recreation because it does 

not have direct or indirect effects.

Either action alternative would represent a small developed recreation program for the 

project area with negligible negative effects of increased noise from recreation connected 

traffic. Alternative 3 would contribute less cumulative effects of noise and increased 

recreation connected to traffic disturbances to private landowners. Both action 

alternatives would have minimal direct and indirect effects on recreation, some positive, 

some negative, depending upon the specific use being considered. There would be no 

adverse long-term cumulative effects to the recreation resource as a result of 

implementing any of the alternatives, including the no action.

Soils and Hydrology

Affected Environment

Soils

The objective of soil resource management is to improve or maintain long-term soil 

productivity. Soil productivity is the inherent capacity of a soil to support the growth of 

specified plants, plant communities, or a sequence of plant communities. In order to 

improve or maintain long-term soil productivity, soil disturbance should be minimal and 

adequate measures taken to protect the surface soil, keep the soil in place, reduce 

compaction, and maintain nutrient and organic matter levels (USDA Forest Service, 

1996). 

There are 12 soil map units within the Briggs Spring project area. Five soil map units 

(with symbols, JhD, ReC, SybC, SycE, and VcE) comprise 95% of the project area and 

the other seven soil map units occupy 5% or less (see Table 37 below and Map 8 in 

Appendix A). 

Table 37. Soil Map Units in the Briggs Spring project area and respective percentage of the 

project area 

Map Unit 

Symbol(s) Map Unit Name

Acres 

in 

Project

Percent 

of 

Project

BsB Bullflat-Cordeston silt loams, 2 to 9 percent slopes 491 2%

CkC Citadel-Vanocker complex, 2 to 12 percent slopes 179 0.6%

JhD Judy-Heath-Paunsaugunt variant complex, 2 to 25 percent 

l

2,531 9%

PbD Paunsaugunt-Gurney complex, 2 to 15 percent slopes 89 0.3%
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

118

ReC Redbird-Heath silt loams, 2 to 9 percent slopes 1,666 6%

SyaC Stovho silt loam, 2 to 15 percent slopes 306 1%

SybC Stovho-Lail-Trebor complex, 2 to 12 percent slopes 11,725 41%

SycE Stovho-Trebor complex, 10 to 40 percent slopes 9,587 33%

TuG Trebor-Rock outcrop complex, 40 to 80 percent slopes 112 0.4%

VcE Vanocker-Citadel complex, 10 to 40 percent slopes 1,840 6%

VkE Vanocker-Lakoa complex, 10 to 40 percent slopes 174 0.6%

VoG Vanocker-Sawdust-Rock outcrop complex, 40 to 80 percent 

l

225 1%

Soil Health Assessment

Results of field inspections conducted within the Briggs Spring project area during 2007-

2008 indicate that in some cases there were residual impacts from past logging activities 

in the form of landings, compression tracks, and some minor compaction in highlytraveled areas (skid trails and landing 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. However, no previously disturbed sites within the 

Briggs Spring project area were found to be degraded and existing soil conditions 

indicate overall soil health, productivity, and function.

Soil Erosion

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 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. Soil erosion is discussed in terms of rutting and 

displacement, erosion hazard for activities occurring off roads and trails, soil suitability 

for natural surface roads and trails, erosion hazard associated with natural surface roads 

and trails, and windthrow potential.

Soil Rutting Hazard and Displacement
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

119

Concentration of runoff, accelerated erosion, sediment delivery to surface waters, and 

damage to roads and trails can result from soil rutting. Soil rutting hazard ratings are an 

indication of how easily surface ruts can form through the operation of forestland 

equipment (USDA NRCS, 2009). Nearly all of the soils within the Briggs Spring project 

area are rated as “severe” for rutting potential and thus are very easily rutted.

Soil displacement and puddling (soil deformation and compaction) may occur 

simultaneously with rutting. 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 Hazard (Off-Road, Off-Trail)

Erosion hazard is an indication of the risk of soil loss in a managed forest stand. The 

ratings in this interpretation indicate the hazard of soil loss from off-road and off-trail 

disturbance activities that remove most or all of the protective ground cover and expose 

the soil surface (USDA NRCS, 2009). Approximately 9,900 acres (34%) have soils rated 

as “severe” for erosion potential from off-road and off-trail disturbances and indicates 

that intensive management or special equipment and methods are needed to prevent 

excessive soil loss (Table 38). These areas correspond to hill side slopes throughout the 

project area. Approximately 2,000 acres (7%) are rated as “moderate” for erosion 

potential from off-road and off-trail disturbances. This indicates that the expected soil 

loss is small and generally, no special measures are needed. These areas correspond to 

the Virkula soils found in the southern portion of the project. The remaining area (16,990 

acres or 59%) is rated as “slight” and corresponds to stringer drainage bottoms and broad, 

flat ridgetops.

Table 38. Soil Map Units in the Briggs Spring project with elevated risk of 

erosion

Erosion 

Rating Soil Map Units included in rating

Acres 

in 

Project

Percent 

of 

Project

Very 

Severe None None None

Severe*

SycE – Stovo-Trebor complex

TuG – Trebor-Rock outcrop complex

VoG – Vanocker-Sawdust-Rock outcrop

9,920 34%

Moderate VcE – Vanocker-Citadel complex

VkE – Vanocker-Lakoa complex 2,015 7%

Slight

BsB – Bullflat-Cordeston

CkC – Citadel-Vanocker

JhD – Judy-Heath-Paunsaugunt variant complex

PbD – Paunsaugunt-Gurney complex

ReC – Redbird-Heath

SyaC – Stovho

SybC – Stovho-Lail-Trebor

16,990 59%
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

120

*The severe erosion rating in three soil map units, as noted above, is due to the steep slopes within 

these sites. 

Three soil map units within the Briggs Spring project area are prone to wind throw. 

These include the Stovho-Lail-Trebor (SybC), Stovho-Trebor (SycE), and Trebor-Rock 

outcrop (TuG) map units, which total 21,424 acres or 74% of the project area. These 

units are located throughout the project area, especially on exposed ridgelines.

Soil Heating

Most soils within the Briggs Spring Project Area are rated low for potential for damage 

by fire with the exception of some isolated segments in the vicinity of White Spring and 

the upper end of Redbird Canyon, and the Virkula soils found in the southern portion of 

the project.

Only 408 acres of the 4,740 acres of previously burned soils from the Jasper Fire within 

the Briggs Spring project were mapped as high soil burn severity; 2,529 as moderate; and 

1,802 as low within the previously burned portions of the project.

Current fire research points to the fact that soils tend to recover within 3-5 years 

following wildfires as vegetation is established (Neary et al., 2005). These particular 

areas have had approximately 10 years to recover, thus any fire-induced water repellency 

has long-since dissipated with the annual freeze-thaw cycles and effective ground cover 

has increased significantly.

Soil Compaction

“Soil compaction is caused by excess weight of vehicles and animals. It impairs 

infiltration, root growth, and soil biota,” (USDA Forest Service, 1996). There are six soil 

map units in the project area which are more susceptible to compaction that the other soil 

map units. These six soil map units (with symbols CkC, SyaC, SybC, SycE, VcE, and 

Vke) comprise approximately 82% of the project area. Forest Plan monitoring of soil 

compaction has occurred across the Black Hills since 1999 (USDA Forest Service, 

2007a). There is evidence that Black Hills soils can compact when timber harvest occurs 

on moist or wet soils, and that harvesting when soils are dry can prevent or limit 

compaction. 

Organic Matter and Nutrients

In the Briggs Spring project area there are three soil map units (with symbols JhD, SybC, 

and VkE) which may contain soil organic matter of less than 2% (Forest Plan Standard 

1102). The three map units comprise approximately 50% of the project area. These soil 

groups contain two to three different soils that are lumped into one overall unit and it is 

usually only one soil that exhibits low organic matter. Within the area occupied by these 

soil map units, it is estimated that approximately 3,800-5,400 acres or 13-19% of the 

Briggs Spring project area truly contains areas limited by low amounts of topsoil organic 

matter.

Forest Plan Objective 212 prescribes an average of 5-10 tons per acre of coarse, woody 

debris (CWD) for conifer stands, to be provided at least once during stand rotation 

(approximately 100 years), and provided that a conflict with fire or pest management 

objectives does not exist (USDA Forest Service, 2006). Distribution of CWD throughout 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

121

a treated area is also more desirable than isolated concentrations. Current CWD levels of 

sites surveyed during field investigations appear to meet or exceed 5-10 tons per acre. 

Geologic Hazards

The Limestone Plateau is generally considered to be stable, five soil map units in the 

Briggs Spring project area are rated as having mass movement potential. These soil map 

units occupy a total of approximately 11,940 acres (41%) and include the Stovho-Trebor 

(SycE), Trebor-Rock outcrop (TuG), Vanocker-Citadel (VcE), Vanocker-Lakoa (VkE), 

and Vanocker-Sawdust-Rock outcrop (VoG) soil map units (USDA SCS, 1990). 

However since most of the Briggs Spring project area has slopes that are less than 40%, 

the actual risk of mass movement is relatively low. Only 83 acres (0.3%) within the 

project boundary have slopes that exceed 40%. These steep areas coincide with canyon 

walls associated with the southern portion of Redbird Canyon. In fact, most of the area 

(92%) has slopes of 20% or less, thus making the area very well-suited to ground-based, 

mechanical operations. There are no roads or trails currently located on hill slopes with 

slope or soil stability concerns within the Briggs Spring project area, regardless of 

ownership. No slope failures were identified during field reviews, with the exception of 

small, isolated talus and rock slide areas on canyon side walls.

Environmental Consequences

Effects to geologic resources were analyzed for the time period beginning in the year 

2000 and extending through the year 2026. The year 2000 was chosen as a starting point 

for effects analysis because the Jasper Fire occurred in this year within part of the Briggs 

Spring Project Area and post-fire runoff events caused some geologic adjustments. The 

year 2026 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 over the course of the next 10 years through the year 2021. 

Scientific research has found that most burned areas tend to recover within 3-5 years 

following a fire (Neary et al., 2005), so a buffer of 5 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 2026. 

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Soil Erosion

This alternative would not have any new activities within the project area so soil erosion 

would not be affected and would remain unchanged. Areas where erosion is occurring 

would not change. There would be no direct effects to soil productivity from soil erosion 

with this alternative because no new activities are planned. Extensive areas of soil 

erosion can occur following large-scale, high intensity wildfire events. Fire hazard and 

the potential for wildfire would continue to increase in this alternative. 

Soil Heating

There would be no direct effect to soil productivity from soil heating with this alternative 

because no burning would occur. If a wildfire were to occur, the soils could be adversely 

affected. 

Soil Compaction
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

122

This alternative would not have any new activities occurring within the project area so 

soil compaction would not be affected. There would be direct or indirect effects to soil 

productivity from soil compaction with this alternative because no new activities are 

planned. 

Organic Matter and Nutrients

This alternative would not have any new activities within the project area therefore; soil 

organic matter and nutrients would not be affected. There would be no direct or indirect 

effects to soil productivity from nutrient removal with this alternative because no new 

activities are planned. 

Geologic Hazards

This alternative would not have any new activities within the project area; therefore the 

potential for mass movement of soil would not be affected. There would be no direct or 

indirect effects to soils from geologic hazards, mass movement. 

Common to All Action Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects

Soil Erosion

The alternatives vary in potential for soil erosion by the extent of vegetation treatments 

on soils with severe erosion hazard rating where slopes are greater than 20%. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would implement mechanical treatments on soils with a severe 

erosion hazard rating on 7,866 acres (27% of project area) for Alternative 2 and 9,000 

acres (31% of project area) for Alternative 3. Prescribed fire is not expected to impact 

soil productivity from soil erosion because the organic layer of soils would not be burned 

off and would remain to protect soils from erosion. Implementation of Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines, which include WCPs and BMPs would minimize the potential 

for erosion in any alternative. 

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, 

2010).

Although some wind-throw of trees would continue to occur, large areas of wind-thrown 

trees are not expected to result following project implementation due to the consideration 

of wind-throw potential when proposed silvicultural prescriptions were developed for the 

project area.

Alternative 2 does not propose any new road or trail construction and therefore no new 

construction would take place on soils with elevated erosion risk. Approximately 76 

miles of road maintenance and 33 miles of road reconstruction are proposed this would 

correct existing road runoff and erosion issues.

Alternative 3 includes approximately 0.8 miles of new trail construction that would link 

the expansion of the Redbank Spring campground associated with this alternative to the 

nearby existing trail system. Most of this proposed trail segment would be built across 

soils with severe erosion hazard rating (0.6 miles out of 0.8) and would likely require 

more maintenance and drainage structures to prevent rutting and erosion and overall trail 

damage. However all new construction is required to implement standard WCP/BMP 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

123

measures to control runoff and erosion as part of project design criteria (Appendix B). 

Therefore the potential for soil erosion would be minimal. 

The “New Moon” OHV campground proposed by Alternative 2 is an ideal location based 

on the inherent soil properties found at this site. The NRCS provides soil interpretations 

specifically tailored to recreation developments, including suitability for camp and picnic 

areas, off-road motorcycle/ATV trails, and human foot paths and trails (USDA NRCS, 

2009). Soils at the proposed location are rated “somewhat limited” for overall 

campground development. This indicates that soils are generally suited for campground 

development but may require some additional measures or considerations to address 

limitations posed by specific soil properties. Fair performance and low-to-moderate 

levels of maintenance will be required to maintain vegetative cover and prevent rutting 

and soil loss due to erosion. Furthermore, soils in the proposed campground area are 

rated “slight” for erosion from off-road and off-trail disturbance in general. Soils in this 

location are not limited for human foot paths and trails or off-road motorcycle/ATV 

trails.

Alternative 3 proposes an expansion of the existing Redbank Spring campground to 

accommodate OHV use. Soils in this area are not well suited for development and 

disturbances associated with a campground and off-road motorcycle/ATV trails based on 

the inherent soil properties. The inherent soil properties create conditions that will yield 

poor performance and high levels of maintenance will be required to maintain vegetative 

cover and mitigate rutting and soil loss due to erosion. Soils in this campground area are 

rated “severe” for erosion from off-road and off-trail, disturbance in general as discussed 

previously. Design criteria specific to the Alternative 3 OHV campground has been 

included to minimize these potential effects (Appendix B) and prevent soil erosion that 

would be considered detrimental.

Based on the acres of mechanical treatments proposed on soils with severe erosion hazard 

rating and proposed campgrounds in each alternative, Alternative 3 has the greatest 

potential for soil erosion than Alternative 2. Although the alternatives would vary in the 

potential for effects, no detrimental erosion would be expected due to design criteria, 

including Forest Plan direction. 

Soil Heating

Effects to soils from heating from management actions can come from two sources; 

burning slash piles and prescribed fire. 

Burning slash piles may result in detrimental soil disturbance due to the high intensity 

fire, high temperatures, and long duration of burning needed to completely burn these 

larger piles. However, design criteria have been included to minimize the amount of 

detrimental soil disturbance associated with burned slash piles (Appendix B). Burning of 

hand piles can also result in severely burned soils but these piles are much smaller in size 

and therefore do not produce the same degree or extent of soil damage. Design criteria 

pertaining to slash treatment and hand piles has also been included to minimize potential 

effects to soils (Appendix B). These measures include specifications for pile locations 

and size, soil and duff moisture requirements, and rehabilitation where necessary.

Prescribed fire is proposed on approximately 6,295 acres (Alternative 2) and 7,009 acres 

(Alternative 3). Prescribed burning associated with Alternatives 2 and 3 are not expected 

to result in severely burned soils within proposed activity areas. Prescribed broadcast-
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

124

burn prescriptions would be designed to provide only the fire intensity needed to achieve 

vegetation and fuel management objectives. Design criteria have also been included to 

protect soils during prescribed burning operations (Appendix B). These measures include 

specifications for soil and duff moisture requirements, fire intensity, appropriate ignition 

techniques, ground cover requirements following burning, and rehabilitation measures. 

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.

Soil Compaction

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 helps to protect soils in 

these areas from compaction. Activities would be limited to dry or frozen conditions. 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.

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. Design criteria for 

management of aspen stands have been included in the Briggs Spring project to protect 

these sensitive soils. 

The construction of an OHV campground under either action alternative would directly 

cause soil compaction in the development area. However this activity is exempt from 

inclusion in detrimental soil disturbance calculations because it is associated with 

proposed administrative sites, facilities, and infrastructure.

Management activities associated with both action alternatives have been designed to 

minimize soil compaction through the use of design criteria (Appendix B) which includes 

USFS Watershed Conservation Practices (WCPs) and South Dakota Best Management 

Practices (BMPs). These practices include but are not limited to the use of designated 

and existing skid trails in sensitive areas, soil moisture limitations, and seasonal 

restrictions. 

Acres of proposed treatments on soils subject to compaction are:

• Alternative 2 = 18,920 acres (65% of project area)

• Alternative 3 = 21,454 (74% of project area)

Based on these acres, Alternative 3 has the greatest potential for soil compaction, 

followed by Alternative 2. Very little soil compaction would be expected to occur and it 

could be a short term impact. Forest Plan monitoring has shown “there is evidence that 

conditions were such that within one geographic area, on at least one soil type, and to the 

depth sampled, that the mean soil bulk density decreased from levels above the threshold 

classified as ‘detrimental compaction’ to levels below the threshold within the time 

period of one year” (USDA Forest Service, 2009). 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

125

Organic Matter and Nutrients

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. 

The difference between Alternatives 2 and 3 regarding impacts to the soil resource from 

nutrient removal are based on acres of mechanical treatment proposed on soils that could 

have low organic matter. Prescribed fire would affect surface litter layer by partially or 

entirely consuming organic matter. Prescribed burning also affects the duff layer where 

topsoil organic matter resides. The degree of impact depends on fire intensity and 

burning duration and moisture content of the duff layer. Design criteria have been 

included to limit fire intensity through soil and duff moisture requirements, seasonal 

timing of burning, slash pre-treatment where necessary, and ignition techniques. 

Therefore the effects of prescribed burning on topsoil organic matter are expected to be 

minimal due to the inclusion of design criteria and the inherent nature of lower-intensity 

prescribed burning

It is estimated that 4,165 acres (Alternative 2) and 7,744 acres (Alternative 3) of 

shelterwood treatment are located on soils that could potentially have low topsoil organic 

matter. Other treatments are proposed on soils with low topsoil organic matter, including 

various thinning. These other treatments would retain sufficient residual material in the 

stand to meet Forest Plan Guidelines and Standard 1102. 

The Forest Plan requires the maintenance or improvement of long-term levels of organic 

matter and nutrients on all lands (Standard 1102). Guideline 1102a provides the 

following direction to achieve this standard for areas where topsoil is thinner than 1 inch, 

topsoil organic matter is less than 2%, or the effective rooting depth is less than 15 

inches:

• Consider the existing and projected levels of fine slash; and

• Retain 90% or more of the fine logging slash (less than 3 inches in diameter) in 

the stand after each clearcut and seed-tree harvest; and

• Retain 50% or more of the fine slash in these stands after each shelterwood and 

group selection harvest.

Implementing Forest Plan requirements and design criteria pertaining to these soils is 

expected to maintain long term nutrient levels and contribute to the topsoil organic 

matter, and thus ensures compliance with Forest Plan Standards 1102 and 1112 

pertaining to the retention of organic matter for soil productivity as well as runoff control.

Geologic Hazards

Approximately 40 acres out of the total vegetation management activities proposed under 

Alternative 2 include areas where slopes are greater than 40% and soil have the potential 

for mass movement. Alternative 3 has approximately 68 acres out of the total vegetation 

management activities. However, these are isolated areas within larger treatment units 

and are often associated with steep, rocky outcrops and canyon walls. 

The project has been designed so that all proposed ground-based mechanical treatments 

under both action alternatives would generally avoid slopes exceeding 40%. Therefore, 

any soils prone to movement on these slopes would also be avoided. Ground-based 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

126

equipment operations are excluded from these areas, except to cross, short, isolated 

segments as part of project design criteria that includes WCPs and BMPs in order to 

minimize the risk of initiating a slope failure during or following harvest activities in 

these areas. Implementing design criteria would minimize or eliminate the risk of mass 

movement. 

Cumulative Effects to Soils

The cumulative effects area for the soils resource is the proposed activity units in the 

project area. The effects of the alternatives on the soils resource would be contained 

within the units. The timeframes used to consider effects of past, present, and future 

activities are from 2000 to 2026. This time frame would include impacts from the Jasper 

Fire (2000) and impacts from past timber sales, and through completion of proposed 

activities in this project. The past, present, and future activities considered in this 

analysis are presented in Appendix F. 

Forest Plan standards and guidelines, as well as site specific design criteria would be 

implemented in all alternatives. When implemented as described, no adverse cumulative 

effects to soils are expected to occur. Past monitoring shows that when Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines are implemented on similar projects, this standard is met 

(USDA Forest Service, 2008). It is further expected that the compacted, eroded, or

displaced condition would be less than 15%, as described in Standard 1103. The 

following discussion considers the cumulative effects of potential disturbances to longterm soil productivity in accordance with Forest Plan Standard 1101. 

Soil Erosion

Past, currently ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable actions listed in Appendix F were 

considered along with proposed activities for cumulative effects to soil erosion and 

displacement. Any soil erosion that may occur related to implementation of the Briggs 

Spring 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, 

2006b). Therefore the risk of cumulative detrimental soil erosion is mitigated for typical 

storm events observed in the Black Hills for all forest management activities.

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, 

2010). 

Grazing management throughout the project area is not expected to cause 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 (i.e. 

WCPs/BMPs) to minimize soil erosion.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

127

Any soil erosion would be expected to be minimal and would be within the limits of 

Forest Plan Standard 1103 for the action alternatives. There would be no cumulative 

effects to soil erosion resulting from the no action alternative. 

Soil Heating

Events that could cause negative effects of soil heating are wildfires and, to a lesser 

degree, prescribed burning. Prescribed burning within the project area would be 

implemented in a manner designed to reduce the potential for adverse soil heating 

impacts. Prescribed burning would have beneficial effects by reducing long-term fire 

hazard and the potential for large-scale, high intensity wildfire that could have soil 

heating effects. Therefore, no adverse cumulative effects would be expected under any 

alternative. 

Soil Compaction

Past, currently ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the Briggs Spring project 

area were considered along with proposed activities for cumulative effects to soil 

compaction. Any soil compaction that may occur related to implementation of the Briggs 

Spring 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. Therefore the risk of cumulative detrimental soil compaction is 

minimized. 

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. Dispersed recreation 

activities also do not tend to cause detrimental soil compaction due to the lack of 

concentrated use for this type of recreation. 

Minimal cumulative impacts to the soil from compaction are expected and would be 

within the limits set by Forest Plan Standard 1103. No cumulative effects from the no 

action alternative would occur. 

Organic Matter and Nutrients

There would be no adverse cumulative impacts to soil organic matter and nutrients from 

any alternative within the project area because sufficient residual material and trees 

would be left on site for nutrient recycling after project implementation. 

Geologic Hazards

There is little potential for mass movement of soils in this project area. Actions that 

influence mass movement of soils include timber harvesting and road building. There 

would be no cumulative impact to mass movement of soils from any alternative. The 

action alternatives include design criteria to minimize and reduce the risk of landslides 

within the treatment area. 

Hydrology

Affected Environment
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

128

The Briggs Spring project boundary overlaps portions of three 6th level watersheds. 

These watersheds include Redbird Canyon, Gillette Canyon, and a very small portion of 

the Stockade Beaver Creek watershed (Table 39). Since the project area does not 

coincide exactly with watershed boundaries, the water resources analysis area differs 

from the project area boundary. Although a small portion of the Stockade Beaver Creek 

watershed is included in the Briggs Spring project boundary, it is privately owned land 

and thus no federal land management activities would take place. For this reason, the 

Stockade Beaver Creek watershed was excluded from the watershed analysis area. 

Watershed Condition

Watershed boundaries and HUC codes were obtained from the National Hydrography 

Dataset developed and maintained by the USDA Service Center and USGS (USGS, 

2008).

Table 39. 6th Level Watersheds (HUC 12) associated with the Briggs Spring 

project

6th Level 

(HUC 12) 

Watershed

6th Level (HUC 12) 

Watershed Name

Total 

Watershed 

Acres

Acres of 

Watershed 

in Project

Percent of 

Watershed 

in Project

101201070404 Stockade-Beaver Creek 37,643 129 0.3%

101201070405 Gillette Canyon 51,464 2,679 5%

101201070406 Redbird Canyon 52,135 26,021 50%

Watershed Condition Classes were assessed during the 1997 Forest Plan Revision, but 

watershed boundaries have changed since that time due to the development of the 

nationwide National Hydrography Dataset (USGS, 2008). Watershed boundaries used in 

the 1997 Forest Plan correspond well to the analysis watersheds for this area and all three 

watersheds are rated as Condition Class 2 – Moderate Concern. According to the Forest 

Plan (1997), “Class 2 watersheds are those which may have streams and soils in 

disequilibrium; a change in the rate or nature of management activity, stricter 

implementation of Watershed Conservation Practices and BMPs, or minor structural 

projects should be able to return these watersheds to a Class 1 condition; some upland 

restoration may be necessary.”

Redbird Canyon (HUC 101201070406)

The overall Redbird Canyon watershed encompasses 52,049 acres (about 81 square 

miles). Only the upper portion of the watershed is included in the Briggs watershed 

analysis area (Map 6, Appendix A), totaling 32,054 acres or 62% of the overall 

watershed. Seeps and springs are abundant throughout the watershed. Stream channels 

are ephemeral to intermittent in nature, as most precipitation is lost to aquifer recharge. 

Most of the watershed is National Forest lands managed for timber production and 

grazing. Privately owned lands comprise 4,638 acres and are a combination of scattered 

homestead and mining claims, generally occupying wider valley bottoms and grassy 

meadows. 

Gillette Canyon (HUC 101201070405)

The Gillette Canyon watershed encompasses 51,072 acres (about 80 square miles). Only 

the upper portion of the watershed is included in the Briggs water resources analysis area 

(Map 6, Appendix A), totaling 18,768 acres or 37% of the overall HUC 6 watershed. 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

129

Elevations range from approximately 5,800 feet at the outlet of Wolf Draw in the south 

over 6,900 feet on the northeastern watershed divide with Spring Creek. Seeps and 

springs are abundant throughout this watershed as well. Stream channels are ephemeral 

to intermittent in nature, as most precipitation is lost to aquifer recharge. Most of this 

watershed is also National Forest lands managed for timber production and livestock 

grazing. Portions of the watershed that experienced high tree mortality resulting from the 

Jasper Fire are now primarily managed for grazing and wildlife. Privately owned lands 

comprise 406 acres of this portion of the Gillette Canyon watershed. Private lands are a 

combination of scattered homestead and mining claims, generally occupying wider valley 

bottoms and grassy meadows.

Floodplains

A floodplain is the flat area on either side of a stream or river that is susceptible to 

inundation by floodwaters. Floodplains slow flood velocities and decrease erosion 

because they are by nature wide and flat, thus allowing for shallower and slower water. 

Thus, floodplains provide for flood moderation, water quality protection, ground water 

recharge, and wildlife habitat, among other benefits. The Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) has mapped 100-year floodplains across the nation 

(FEMA, 1998).

There are approximately 345 acres of mapped 100-year floodplains within the project 

area. Mapped 100-year floodplains are located along the following streams and drainage 

ways: Redbird Draw, isolated segments of Redbird Canyon, and Gillette Canyon.

Wetlands and Riparian Areas

There are approximately 27 acres of wetlands mapped by the NWI within the Briggs 

Spring project area (Table 40). These are associated with 69 different wetland areas, 

many of which are associated with impoundments used primarily for stock watering. All 

of the NWI wetlands within the project boundary are classified as Palustrine and 

generally less than one acre in size. Additionally, there are 31 miles of mapped linear 

wetlands within the project boundary (Table 40), located in Redbird Draw and Redbird 

Canyon. Additionally, there are approximately 30 acres, associated with another 96 

wetlands, which were identified during field reviews and GIS analysis that were not 

identified by NWI mapping. Thirty-five acres are located on Forest Service managed 

lands and the remaining 22 acres are located on privately owned lands.

Table 40. Wetlands within Briggs Spring project area

Wetland 

Classification Wetland Type(s)

Wetland 

Areas 

(Acres)

Linear 

Wetlands 

(miles)

Lacustrine Lakes None None

Palustrine Marshes, swamps, floodplains, fens, bogs, 

wet meadows, etc. 27 31

Riverine Adjacent to rivers, streams and includes ox 

bows, freshwater marshes, etc. None None

To Be 

Determined Field identified and GIS digitized wetlands 30 None

Total 57 acres 31 miles
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

130

There are 24 known springs located within the Briggs Spring project area, all of which 

are in the Redbird Canyon watershed. Nineteen springs are located on USFS lands and 

include Baseline Spring, Beef Pasture Spring, Bert Howey Spring, Briggs Spring, Cabin 

Spring, Cigarette Spring, Herrin Spring/WPA Well, Howell Spring, Johnson Spring, 

Lower Antelope Spring, Multiplex Springs, North Cigarette Spring, Old Camp Spring, 

Redbank Spring, Redbird Spring, Rogers Spring, Upper Antelope Spring, White Spring, 

and Willow Spring. The remaining five springs are located on privately-owned lands. 

Stream Flow Regime

The Briggs Spring project area does not contain any perennial streams with sustained 

lengths, but does have a few, very short segments in which surface water can be found,

but each segment is generally a few hundred feet in length or less, and supported by 

springs. These segments add up to less than one mile in length. The area is dominated 

by intermittent and ephemeral streams. There are approximately 58 miles of intermittent 

streams and 27 miles of ephemeral streams within the project boundary (Table 41). 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/swales are not specifically mapped.

Table 41. Miles of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams in the Briggs 

Spring project area

Stream Flow Regime Stream 

Miles

Acres Associated 

w/Protected 

Streams (WIZ)

Perennial – defined channel and generally flows 

year-round. 0.7 17

Intermittent – defined channel but flows for only 

part of the year; includes loss zones where 

streamflow goes underground into ground water 

aquifers. For the Briggs Spring Project Area, these 

also include Karst Streams.

58 1,415

Ephemeral – defined channel or flow path, but 

carries water only in response to larger storm events 

or snowmelt. For the Briggs Spring Project Area, 

these include Karst Streams and Water Courses, 

which are protected water courses.

27 655

The drainages in the Briggs Spring watershed analysis area are in a stream flow regime 

dominated by runoff resulting from both snowmelt and intense summer thunderstorms 

(Sando, 1998).

Due to the unique underlying geology of the Briggs Spring project area, it is generally 

considered a ground water recharge zone (Carter et al., 2002; 2003). Prior to the Jasper 

Fire of 2000, surface runoff and flow in stream channels was a rare occurrence in this 

region, often occurring only in response to very high intensity thunderstorms of a “cloud 

burst” nature. Although short, isolated sections of spring-fed streams exist, stream 

channels are generally ephemeral and intermittent, carrying water only in response to 

such intense rainfall events or rapid, seasonal snowmelt. Waterways are often well 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

131

vegetated with no defined flow channel and many times have ponderosa pine trees 

growing within the channels. 

No active stream discharge gauges are present in the area (USGS, 2008a). One USGS 

crest-stage gauge is located near the outlet of Redbird Canyon and used to indirectly 

measure occasional high flows.

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 in low-gradient valley bottoms than conditions today (Grafe & Horsted, 

2002; Horsted, 2006; Shepperd & 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 & 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).

Stream Health

Streams within the Briggs Spring project area have not yet been rigorously surveyed and 

evaluated for stream stability. However, general stream health assessments have been 

completed in accordance with Region 2 and Forest Plan guidance. Most stream channels 

within the Briggs Spring project area are currently stable and rated as “robust”. Some 

segments of channel instability exist in the southern portion of the project area as a result 

of post-fire flooding after the Jasper Fire. Post-fire floods scoured material out of 

channels and stream banks, depositing this material in flatter stream segments where 

flood waters slowed, particularly at culverts (Gould, 2003). Scour and transport of debris 

has slowed significantly as the burned area recovered and very little occurs now, and only 

in response to the occasional runoff created by very high-intensity summer 

thunderstorms. Overall, stream channels appear to be recovering well based on field 

investigations.

Connected Disturbed Areas (CDAs) are disturbed sites that have a continuous surface 

flow path into streams and other water bodies (USDA Forest Service, 1999). 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. 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, 2006b).

CDAs in the Briggs Spring project area are primarily associated with livestock 

concentration in wet areas such as springs and wetlands that are not fenced or where 

fences are in disrepair. Some of the larger spring and wetland areas that are impacted 

include Briggs Spring, Willow Spring and wetland complex, Upper Antelope Spring, and 

White Spring

Water Quality
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

132

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). None of the 

streams within the Briggs Spring Project Area or water resources analysis area are listed 

specifically for other beneficial uses due to the lack of continuous surface water.

No water bodies within the Briggs Spring project area are currently listed as impaired 

(SD DENR, 2010), nor have they been listed on previous years reports (SD DENR, 1998; 

2002; 2004; 2006; 2008).

Environmental Consequences

Effects to water resources were analyzed for the same time period as soil resources, 

beginning in the year 2000 and extending through the year 2026, for the same reasons 

stated previously. Effects to water resources are also summarized in the context of short 

term effects (5 years or less) as well as long term effects (longer than 5 years).

Past, currently ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable actions listed in Appendix F were 

considered along with proposed activities 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. Past and present land use 

and activities within the analysis watersheds, which encompasses the Briggs Spring 

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.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Floodplains, Wetlands and Riparian Areas

This alternative would not have any new activities within the project area so there would 

be no direct or indirect effects on floodplains, wetlands and riparian ecosystems. 

Stream Flow Regime

Alternative 1 would not have any new activities within the project area. Therefore, no 

direct effects to flow regime would occur. Indirect effects include a potential for increase 

in biomass over time, which would generally reduce the amount of water available for 

streamflow. This alternative would also have potential for a large stand replacing event 

which would impact stream flow regime. 

Stream Health and Water Quality

This alternative would have no new activities within the project area. Current conditions 

of temperature/oxygen, sediment, water purity, aquatic life, and bed and bank stability 

would be expected to remain unchanged. No change to existing stream health ratings 

would occur. However, this alternative has potential for a large scale disturbance, such as 

a large-scale, high intensity fire, to occur and this would impact water quality and stream 

health. 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

133

Common to All Action Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects

Floodplains, Wetlands and Riparian Areas

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.

Both potential locations for an OHV campground proposed by the action alternatives are 

located well away from stream channels and floodplains and therefore would not affect 

these resources. Short-term impacts may occur to stream channels and floodplains under 

both action alternatives in areas where vegetative and fuels treatments and road work is 

proposed within riparian corridors and adjacent to streams. However, design criteria and 

WCPs/BMPs (Appendix B) are included to protect stream courses and minimize 

floodplain and riparian impacts during management activities. Forest Plan Standards 

1301, 1302, 1306 and Guideline 1115 also stipulate the use of buffers for streams and 

riparian areas (USDA Forest Service, 2006). 

Roads that cross wetland and riparian areas would have design criteria and WCPs/BMPs 

associated with them. Management activities would be expected to be an overall 

improvement in wetland and riparian conditions once protective measures around these 

areas are installed (i.e. fencing or natural barriers) and road improvements are made.

Design criteria have been included in the project to protect these areas during 

management activities. Buffers provide protection for these areas, no effects to wetland 

and riparian areas are anticipated for proposed activities. Therefore this project would 

comply with all water-quality related Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and all State 

and National water quality regulations.

The proposed OHV campground associated with Alternative 2 is not located near 

wetlands, riparian areas, or GDEs and would therefore have no direct or indirect impact 

to these resources.

There is a potential for adverse impacts to wetland and ground water dependent 

ecosystems associated with the Redbank Spring and pond to result from the proposed 

OHV campground at Redbank Spring for the reasons described previously in the soils 

section. No substantial or long-lasting effects to wetlands, riparian areas, or ground water 

dependent ecosystems at Redbank Spring are expected to result from the modification of 

the existing campground based on the requirement for proper implementation and project 

design criteria and WCP/BMP measures and regular campground maintenance and 

monitoring.

Runoff and erosion control measures are included as part of the project design criteria 

and required WCP/BMP measures. Additional design measures specific to the OHV 

campground in Alternative 3 are also included to mitigate potential impacts to wetland 

and ground water dependent resources and to be in alignment with national Forest 

Service direction, water resources and wetland regulations, and Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines. These measures are in addition to other standard WCP/BMP measures and 

are included in project design criteria listed in Appendix B.

Stream Flow Regime
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

134

Stream flow is not anticipated to be negatively affected by implementation of project 

activities associated with either action alternative. 

Intermittent and 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 vegetation treatments, 

prescribed fire, fuels treatments, and OHV campground areas are not expected to 

measurably alter this current response. WCP/BMP measures 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, 2006b). Therefore, for typical precipitation 

events observed in the Black Hills area, storm runoff is not expected to cause damages to 

soil or water resources. 

Stream Health and Water Quality

Proposed timber and fuels management, and prescribed burning activities associated with 

both action alternatives are 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 2 and 3 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, 2008). Applicable WCPs found in FSH 2509.25 (USDA Forest 

Service, 2006), along with SD BMPs (SDSU et al., 2003), are used to prevent 

degradation of both surface and ground water quality. 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 and immediately adjacent 

to water resources.

Vegetative buffers would remain in place to filter any incoming sediment or chemical 

pollutants, provide stream bank stability, 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, perennial and 

intermittent streams, and water courses have 100-foot WIZ vegetative buffers as required 

by agreement with the SD DENR (USDA Forest Service, 2006b; 2009a) and Forest Plan 

Standards 1301, 1302, 1306 and Guideline 1115 (USDA Forest Service, 2006).

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 sitespecifically approved. Forest management activities such as tree harvest and prescribed 

fire can take place within the 100-ft WIZ buffer along streams if desired for silvicultural 

reasons and done so cautiously, with a “tread lightly” approach. Design criteria has been 

included to protect vegetation within 50 feet of each stream bank for stream-side areas 

where vegetation management may be desired. Within this 50 foot stream-side buffer, 

willows, aspen, spruce, or other trees and shrubs providing physical bank stabilization or 

shade to the stream would not be removed unless site specifically approved otherwise.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

135

Approximately 76 miles of road maintenance activities are proposed under Alternative 2

and approximately 33 miles of road reconstruction is proposed. Approximately 77 miles 

of road maintenance activities are proposed under Alternative 3 and approximately 34

miles of road reconstruction is proposed. Alternative 3 also proposes approximately one 

mile of OHV trail construction that would connect Redbank Spring Campground to the 

existing OHV trail system. Road maintenance and reconstruction activities would reduce 

potential impacts to water quality. Road problems and CDAs would be corrected as part 

of the commercial timber harvest and road package, thus reducing sediment to the 

streams. Harvest activities would have a positive effect on stream temperature for those 

short segments that carry surface water flow. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 could result in localized, short term sediment delivery to water 

resources from road-related activities adjacent to streams or at stream crossings. In the 

long term, roads would produce less sediment as a result of the implementation of the 

road work in these alternatives (road work associated with timber sale areas).

The proposed OHV campground associated with Alternative 2 is not located near streams 

or other water bodies and will therefore have no direct or indirect impact to these 

resources. 

There is a potential for adverse impacts to the water quality of Redbank Spring and pond 

due to the proposed expansion of Redbank Campground for an OHV recreation area. 

The proposed OHV campground location associated with Alternative 3 has a much 

higher risk of resulting in excess runoff and sediment delivery to the adjacent surface 

water bodies compared to Alternative 2. This is largely due to the current location of 

Redbank Campground in the immediate proximity of Redbank Spring, pond, and 

wetland. Design criteria specific to the Alternative 3 OHV Campground has been 

included, in addition to standard runoff and erosion control measures. These additional 

design and operational requirements are necessary to minimize the potential for adverse 

impacts to water quality at Redbank Spring and pond. Design Criteria and WCP/BMP 

measures for campground layout and design, as well as regular maintenance and 

monitoring of visitor use and compliance, are expected to prevent water quality 

impairment of Redbank Spring and pond. No substantial or long-lasting effects to 

wetlands, riparian areas, or ground water dependent ecosystems at Redbank Spring are 

expected to result. 

Cumulative Effects

Floodplains, Wetlands and Riparian Areas

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. Conversely, already unstable stream channels would continue to 

degrade, causing impacts to ripple throughout their tributary networks as well. Design 

criteria and WCPs/BMPs have been included in both action alternatives to protect 

streams and floodplains during harvest activities. Road work associated with both action 

alternatives would lead to improved flood passage and channel stability at improved 

stream crossings. 

Cumulatively, all activities are expected to maintain current conditions of wetlands, 

riparian areas, and/or ground water dependent ecosystems through implementation of 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

136

design criteria and WCPs/BMPs (Appendix B). Some improvements in condition may 

occur where road-related problems are addressed through commercial timber harvest road 

work. In general, wetland, riparian, and GDE sites are expected to remain in their current 

condition, regardless of which alternative is chosen. 

Stream Flow Regime

Under Alternative 1, current stream flow conditions would likely persist. Cumulative 

impacts could occur from MPB killing enough trees across watersheds, or a large-scale, 

high intensity wildfire occurs, both of which could cumulatively result in increased 

stream flows in the short term. Timber management associated with the action 

alternatives may cumulatively make more soil moisture available throughout the 

watersheds to sustain slightly higher water levels in springs, wetlands, and stream 

channels downstream of these areas. Prescribed fire, fuels treatment, and an OHV 

campground would not have any measureable effect on stream flows, regardless of the 

alternative chosen.

Stream Health and Water Quality

Cumulatively, all activities are expected to maintain current water quality levels through 

the proper implementation and adherence to required design criteria and WCPs/BMPs 

(Appendix B). The OHV campground associated with Alternative 3 would require more 

extensive engineering design and WCP/BMP measures than Alternative 2 to prevent 

impacts to water quality. However, specified design criteria, including proper 

implementation and maintenance of WCP/BMP measures, would ensure protection of 

water quality at Redbank Spring. Vegetation management, prescribed fire, and road 

activities, including design criteria and WCP/BMP measures, would not be expected to 

have a negative, measurable change in overall water quality in any of the streams or 

water bodies due to activities associated with either action alternative. Implementation of 

either action alternative may cumulatively result in decreased sediment delivery and 

improved water quality through road improvement work. 

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.

For Alternative 1, existing CDAs would be corrected as funding and project 

authorizations allow (i.e. grazing allotment improvements, annual road maintenance, 

stream or wetland improvement projects, etc). For both action alternatives, existing roadrelated CDAs could be corrected as part of contracted road work associated with timber 

sales. Both action alternatives would have the potential to create new disturbed sites 

related to the creation or expansion of existing campground facilities for concentrated 

OHV recreational use. However, the OHV campground proposed under Alternative 2 is 

located well away from any surface waters and thus is not likely to result in a connection 

to surface water bodies. The expansion of the Redbank Spring Campground proposed 

under Alternative 3 has the potential to result in a new CDA due to the proximity of the 

facility immediately adjacent to Redbank Spring, pond, and wetland and the level of 

development of hardened, impervious surfaces. However, design measures specific to 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

137

the Alternative 3 OHV campground have been included in addition to standard design 

criteria and WCP/BMP measures to prevent a connection to surface water bodies. 

Therefore, the risk of creating a new CDA site would be minimized through project 

design criteria and required WCP/BMP measures.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 4

138

CHAPTER 4: CONSULTATION AND 

COORDINATION

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local 

agencies, tribes and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this 

environmental assessment:

Interdisciplinary Team Members:

Lynn Kolund District Ranger – Bachelor of Science, Forest Biology, 

Colorado State University, 1978. Thirty-one years of Forest 

Service experience in timber, silviculture, recreation, 

wilderness, fire and lands. Worked on seven districts and two 

Supervisor’s offices on six National Forests in Wyoming, 

Colorado, Alaska and South Dakota.

Kelly Honors District NEPA Coordinator – Bachelor of Science, Forestry, 

State University of New York, College of Environmental 

Science and Forestry, 1985. Twenty six years of Forest 

Service experience at the district level in timber and planning; 

twenty-three of those years on the Black Hills National Forest. 

Twenty-two years experience in writing NEPA documents.

Wendy Steuerwald IDT Leader – Assistant NEPA Coordinator – Bachelor of 

Science, Wildlife Management, University of WisconsinStevens Point, 2003. Thirteen years of Forest Service 

experience at the district level on the Black Hills National 

Forest, twelve years experience in timber and one year in 

planning. 

Nancy Bayne Silviculturalist – Bachelor of Science, Forest Resources with 

an emphasis in Silviculture, University of Minnesota, 1986. 

Twenty-one years of Forest Service experience in timber at the 

district level on the Black Hills National Forest. Six years in 

current silviculturalist position.

Gwen Lipp Fire/Fuels Planner – Bachelor of Science, Environmental 

Engineering, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, 

2004. Ten years of Forest Service experience at the district 

and national level in fire operations, fuels, timber, prescribed 

fire and planning. Current qualifications include: Incident 

Commander Type 4, Dozer Boss, Engine Boss, Prescribed Fire 

Effects Monitor, Prescribed Fire Ignition Specialist, Resource 

Unit Leader, Situation Unit Leader, Task Force Leader trainee, 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 4

139

Burn Boss Type 2 trainee and Planning Section Chief trainee.

Tracy Clark Wildlife Biologist – Bachelor of Science, Wildlife 

Management with Minor in Environmental Law Enforcement, 

University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, 1990. Eight seasons 

(1989-1994, 2000-2001) of wildlife experience as a Biological 

Technician with the Forest Service, Park Service and BLM in 

South Dakota, Idaho and Oregon. From 1994-1996 worked as 

a private consultant with the Minnesota DNR writing land 

stewardship plans and performing forest inventory. From 

1996-2001 worked as a contractor performing stand exam on 

the Black Hills National Forest. Have been a Wildlife 

Biologist on the Black Hills National Forest since January of 

2002.

Jessica Gould Hydrologist – Bachelor of Science (2000) and Master of 

Science (2004) in Civil Engineering, focusing on water 

resources, from the South Dakota School of Mines and 

Technology (SDSM&T). Master’s thesis conducted on the 

Black Hills NF, studying post-fire watershed responses after 

the Jasper Fire of 2000. PhD candidate in Geology & 

Geological Engineering, focusing on hydrogeology 

(groundwater), also from SDSM&T. Doctoral research 

focuses on identification and characterization of peat-forming, 

groundwater-dependent wetlands called fens in the Black Hills. 

Fourteen years of experience with the Forest Service at the 

district and SO levels, eleven in soil and water resources 

management, and 10 years working on the Black Hills NF. 

Nationally Registered and State licensed EMT-Intermediate 

and volunteer fire fighter with Hill City Fire and Ambulance 

Services. Hydrologist on the DOI National Interagency 

Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) Team since 2003, 

lead Hydrologist since 2007. Assessed post-fire watershed 

conditions on over 5 million acres associated with fires in SD, 

WY, MT, ID, NV, and CA.

Lucas Bindel Rangeland Management Specialist –

Matthew Scott Botanist – Bachelor of Science – Rangeland Ecology and 

Watershed Management; Minor, Reclamation and Restoration 

Ecology; Extensive coursework in soils and botanical sciences, 

2006. Three years experience fuels, wildland and prescribed 

fire management. Four years experience as a Natural Resource 

Specialist for Laramie Rivers Conservation District focused in 

rangeland management, vegetation monitoring, and wildlife 

habitat management. Qualified for OPM 430 Series (Botanist) 

in 2010. Six months experience as Botanist on the Black Hills 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 4

140

National Forest.

Matthew Padilla Archaeologist – Master of Arts in Anthropology and Minor in 

GIS from New Mexico State University, 2006. Bachelor of 

Arts in Anthropology from Kansas State University, 2003. 

Three field seasons as an Archaeological Technician for the 

Black Hills National Forest (2002, 2004, 2005). One year as a 

SCEP archaeologist on the Plumas National Forest (2006). 

Four years of Forest Service experience as an Archaeologist at 

the district level, six years as a fire archaeologist, and five 

years as a BAER archaeologist. USFS experience in 

California and South Dakota.

Donald Weiand Civil Engineering Technician – Bachelor of Science in 

Industrial Technology from Black Hills State University, 1996. 

Associate of Science in Drafting from Black Hills State 

University, 1994. Fourteen years of Forest Service experience 

at the district and Forest level in transportation planning, road 

design, contract preparation & administration, and 

environmental analysis. Certified in roads, administration of 

timber sales, and public works under the Forest Service 

National Construction Certification Program. Eighteen years 

as an Army Engineer with experience in route reconnaissance 

and roads planning and road construction operations. 

Dave Pickford Recreation – Bachelor of Arts in Outdoor Recreation from 

Eastern Washington University, 1984. Eighteen years of

Forest Service experience as the District level in timber, 

firefighting, trails, recreation and wilderness on the Ottawa and 

Black Hills National Forests. USFS, NPS and USFWS field 

experience in Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, UP 

Michigan as well as NH State Parks. Former USAF Survival 

Specialist and USAF (civilian) Outdoor Adventure Program 

Staff.

Meagan Buehler Lands Specialists – Bachelor of Science, Forestry, minor in 

Wildlife & Fisheries Biology, University of MassachusettsAmherst, 1997. Eleven years experience with the Forest 

Service at the district level for the Black Hills National Forest 

currently as District Lands Specialist. One season experience 

with the BLM in Oregon as a forester-stand exams and timber 

sale preparation.

Gary Haag Geologist/Minerals Specialist: Bachelor of Arts, Geology, 

Rutgers University, 1979 & Master of Science, Geology, 

Rutgers University, 1982. New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection 1884-1989, ground water discharge 

permit program. South Dakota Department of Environment 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 4

141

and Natural Resources 1989-2010, ground water discharge 

permit program. February 2010 to present on BHNF-Hell 

Canyon Ranger District as a geologist working on locatable 

and mineral material projects and mineral potential reports for 

mineral withdrawals and timber sales.

Stephen Keegan Forest Landscape Architect - Bachelor of Science, Landscape 

Architecture & Environmental Studies, State University of 

New York (SUNY) - College of Environmental Science and 

Forestry, 1980; Bachelor of Science, Syracuse University 

1980; Associates of Arts, Humanities, SUNY - Onondaga 

Community College, 1978. Twenty-eight years of Forest 

Service experience at the Forest and Zone level on the Helena, 

Clearwater, Malheur & Black Hills National Forests. Of which 

twenty-one years have been as a Landscape Architect 

conducting Scenic Resource Assessments for: vegetation and 

fuels management, watershed analysis, utility & facility 

construction, wild & scenic rivers, scenic byways, and burned 

area emergency rehabilitation.

Margaret Farrell GIS/Database Management Specialist – Bachelor of Science, 

Geology, University of Wyoming, 1985. Eighteen years of 

Forest Service experience in database management, including 

fourteen years experience in ESRI GIS products.

Federal, State, and Local Agencies:

Jewel Cave National Monument

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The Honorable John Thune, United States Senate

The Honorable Tim Johnson, United States Senate

The Honorable Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin, House of Representatives

Governor Mike Rounds, South Dakota Governor’s Office

South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources

South Dakota State Department of Game, Fish, and Parks

Shelly Deisch

Shannon Percy

South Dakota Division of Forestry

State of South Dakota Department of Transportation

South Dakota Department of Forestry

Custer County Commissioners

Custer County Highway Department

Pennington County Commissioners
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 4

142

Pennington County Planning Department

Tribes:

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe

Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe

Eastern Shoshone Tribe

Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe

Kiowa Ethnographic Endeavor for 

Preservation

Lower Brule Sioux Tribe

Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation

Northern Arapaho Tribe

Oglala Sioux Tribe

Rosebud Sioux Tribe

Santee Sioux Tribe

Sicangu Lakota Treaty Council Office

Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe

Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe

Yankton Sioux Tribe

Organizations, Groups, and Businesses:

Barton Banks

Betty Baldwin Family Trust

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Black Hills 4-Wheelers

Black Hills Electric Cooperative

Black Hills Forest Resource Association

Black Hills Group Sierra Club

Black Hills Power and Light

Dakota Territory Cruisers

Double Triangle Ranch

Geddes Grazing Association

Howell Ranch, Inc.

Kay Linton Trust

Long Shot Ranch

Marquiss Family Trust

Mies, Inc. 

National Wild Turkey Federation

Native Ecosystems Council

Papcke Family Trust

Prairie Hills Audubon Society

R.E. Linde Sawmills, Inc.

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

Rushmore Forest Products

SD Association of Professional 

Archeologists

SD Chapter of the Sierra Club

Sky Vue Motel Corp., Inc.

Spearfish Forest Products

The Nature Conservancy

True Ranches, Inc.

Others:

Alexander, Kelsey

Anderson, Garner

Artley, Dick

Baldwin, Roberta & Gene

Baldwin, Gene

Brademeyer, Brian

Compton, Wayne

Couture, Alvin

Davis, Russell D. & Lorraine

Driscoll, Jesse

Gould, Robert

Kloss, Bob

Kuck, Thomas & Peggy

Marty, Les, Shirley & Zane

Morrison, Michael

Orsborn, Paul & Terry
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 4

143

Patton, Dennis

Perino, Janet

Perino, Matt & Donna

Rawhouser, Frank

Rogers, James & Laura

Sorensen, David

Stewart, Cody & Donna

Stuen, Ron

Terry, Blue

Tysdal, Garrett

Tysdal, Harold & Dana

Whitley, David
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 5

144

CHAPTER 5: LITERATURE CITED and GLOSSARY

Literature Cited

Allen, Kurt K. 2003. Evaluation of MPB Activity on the Black Hills National Forest. 

Forest Health Evaluation R2-04-02. Rapid City Service Center, Rapid City, SD.

Beason, J., K. Hutton, A. Panjabi, R. Sparks, and D. Hanni. 2006. Monitoring the Birds 

of the Black Hills: 2005 Field Season Report. Tech. Rep. M-MBBH05-01. 

Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO, 113 pp.

Bildstein, K.L., and K. Meyer. 2000. Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus). No. 482, 

In: The Birds of North America. A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The Birds of North 

America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

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. 130 p. Online: 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha747/#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. 41 p. Online: 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri034049/ .

Clark, T.W., and M.R. Stromberg. 1987. Mammals in Wyoming. Museum of Natural 

History. University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. 314 pp.

Cryan, P., M. Bogan, and G. Yanega. 2001. Roosting habits of four bat species in the 

Black Hills of South Dakota. Acta Chiropterologica. 3:43-52.

Davis, A.D., C.J. Webb, and C.J. Paterson. 1998. Comprehensive Inventory of Known 

Abandoned Mine Lands in the Black Hills of South Dakota. South Dakota School 

of Mines and Technology.

DeGraaf, R.M., V.E. Scott, R.H. Hamre, L. Ernst, and S.H. Anderson. 1991. Forest and 

rangeland birds of the United States, Natural History and Habitat Use. USDA 

Forest Service-Agriculture Handbook 688. 625 pp.

Dewitt, E., J.A. Redden, A.B. Wilson, D. Busher, and J.S. Dersch. 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.

DeWitt, E., J.A. Redden, D. Busher, and A.B. Wilson. 1989. Geologic map of the Black 

Hills Area, South Dakota and Wyoming. U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous 

Investigations Series Map I-1910, scale 1:250,000.

Drilling, Nancy E. 2010. 2009 Black Hills owl surveys. Technical Report M-SDBBA2-

03. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO, 13 pp.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 5

145

Duckwitz, J.J. 2001. Small mammal survey of Wind Cave National Park. Masters 

Thesis, South Dakota State University, Brookings. 95 p.

Farrar, Don. 2004. Personal communication with Deanna Reyher. Professor of Botany, 

Iowa State University, expert in Botrychium systematics. January 20, 2004.

Fauna West Wildlife Consultants. 2003. 2003 survey results for small forest owls, the 

northern goshawk and other raptors of interest in the Black Hills, South Dakota. 

Report prepared for South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, 

South Dakota.

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 1998. National Flood Insurance 

Program, Q3 Flood Data. GIS data on CD-ROM for South Dakota. Online: 

http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/fhm/dfm_ptd.shtm.

Flake, L.D., C.P. Lehman, A.P. Leif, M.A. Rumble, and D.J. Thompson. 2006. The wild 

turkey in South Dakota. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, 

Pierre, and South Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station, Brookings. SDAES 

B747. 

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, p 295-380.

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. USDA Forest 

Service. Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota. 127 pp.

Frison, George C. 1991 Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. Academic Press, New 

York.

Ghalambor, C. 2003. Conservation assessment of the pygmy nuthatch in the Black Hills 

National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/pygmy_nuthatch

.pdf .

Giroir G., C.White and R. Sparks. 2007. Monitoring the birds of the Black Hills, 2007 

field season report. Technical Report M-MBBH07-01. Rocky Mountain Bird 

Observatory, Brighton, CO, 81 pp.

Goodman, Ronald. 1992. Lakota Star Knowledge: Studies in Lakota stellar theology. 

Second ed. Siŋte Gleska University, Mission, South Dakota.

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. 121 p.

Grafe, E. and P. Horsted. 2002. Exploring with Custer: The 1874 Black Hills 

Expedition. Golden Valley Press: Custer, SD. 300 p.

Graham, Russell T., Sarah McCaffrey, Theresa B. Jain. 2004 Science basis for changing 

forest structure to modify wildfire behavior and severity, Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRSGTR-120. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 5

146

Rocky Mountain Research Station. Online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr120.pdf .

Griffin, S.L., L.A. Rice, C.S. DePerno, and J.A. Jenks. 1999. Seasonal movements and 

home ranges of white-tailed deer in the central Black Hills, South Dakota and 

Wyoming, 1993-97. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, 

Pittman-Robertson Game Rep., W-75-R-34, Pierre, South Dakota.

Hann, Wendel, D. Havlina, A. Shlisky, et al. 2003. Interagency and The Nature 

Conservancy fire regime condition class website. USDA Forest Service, US 

Department of the Interior, The Nature Conservancy, and Systems for 

Environmental Management. Online:

http://frames.nbii.gov/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=309&&PageID=1397&

mode=2&in_hi_userid=2&cached=true .

Higgins, K.F., E.D. Stukel, J.M. Goulet, and D.C. Backlund. 2000. Wild mammals of 

South Dakota. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, South 

Dakota. 278 pp.

Horsted, Paul. 2006. The Black Hills: Yesterday & Today. Golden Valley Press: Custer, 

SD. 304 p.

Huffman, David W. and Margaret M. Moore. March 2004. Responses of Fendler 

ceanothus to overstory thinning, prescribed fire, and drought in an Arizona 

ponderosa pine forest. Forest Ecology and Management. Pg 105-115.

Huxoll, C. 2008. 2007 Annual report: Big game harvest projections. South Dakota 

Game Report No, 2008-02. South Dakota Dept. of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, 

South Dakota. 72 pp.

Huxoll, C. 2009. 2008 Annual report: Big game harvest projections. South Dakota 

Game Report No, 2009-03. South Dakota Dept. of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, 

South Dakota. 75 pp.

Huxoll, C. 2010. 2009 Annual report: Big game harvest projections. South Dakota 

Game Report No, 2010-01. South Dakota Dept. of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, 

South Dakota. 83 pp.

Johnson, A.S., and S.H. Anderson. 2003. Conservation assessment for the northern sawwhet owl in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. 

USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. 

Custer, South Dakota. 27pp. Online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/northern_saw_w

het_owl.pdf . 

Luce, B., A. Cerovski, B. Oakleaf, J. Priday, and L.Van Fleet. 1999. Atlas of birds, 

mammals, reptiles, and amphibians in Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department, Wildlife Division, Biological Services Section, Lander, Wyoming.

Marriot, H., and D. Faber-Langendoen. 2000. The Black Hills community inventory, 

volume 2: Plant community descriptions. The Nature Conservancy, Midwest 

Conservation Science Center and Association for Biodiversity Information. 

Minneapolis, Minnesota. 326 pp.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 5

147

Marrone, G.M. 2002. Field guide to butterflies of South Dakota. South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, South Dakota. 478 pp.

McCallum, D.A. 1994. Review of technical knowledge: flammulated owl. Pages 14-46 

in Hayward G.D. and J. Verner technical editors. Flammulated, boreal, and great 

gray owls in the United States: A technical conservation assessment. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. RM-253. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 214 pp. 

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.

Mohren, S. 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.Sc. Thesis, University of 

Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. 110pp.

NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life 

[webapplication]. Version 7.1. Arlington, Virginia. Online: 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer . (Accessed August 11, 2010).

Neary, D.G., K.C. Ryan, and L.F. DeBano 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.

Padilla, Matthew J. and Ami L. Schlosser. 2011. A Level III Cultural Resource 

Inventory of the Briggs Spring Analysis Project, Pennington County, South 

Dakota. Black Hills National Forest, Hell Canyon Ranger District. BKF # 

R2008020300114. Section 106 Report on file at the Black Hills National Forest 

Supervisor’s Office.

Panjabi, Arvind. 2001. Monitoring birds of the Black Hills: Year 1. Final Report. 

Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Fort Collins, Colorado. 96 pp.

Panjabi, Arvind. 2003. Monitoring birds of the Black Hills: Year 2. Final Report. 

Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory. Fort Collins, Colorado. 125 pp.

Panjabi, A. 2004. Monitoring the birds of the Black Hills: Year 3. Annual Report 

submitted to Black Hills National Forest. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, 

Brighton, Colorado. 58 pp.

Panjabi, A. 2005. Monitoring the birds of the Black Hills: Year 4. Annual Report 

submitted to Black Hills National Forest. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, 

Brighton, Colorado. 67 pp.

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.

Peterson, R.A. 1995. The South Dakota breeding bird atlas. South Dakota 

Ornithologists’ Union. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center web home 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 5

148

page. Jamestown, North Dakota. Online: 

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

Powder River Eagle Studies. 2000. Northern Black Hills broad-winged hawk occurrence 

and distribution study. Phase Two Conclusion: Nest Search & Summary of Nest 

Site Characteristics. Submitted to: Wharf Resources Partnership, HC 37, Box 

811, Lead, South Dakota.

Rabe, M., T. Morrell, H. Green, J. DeVos Jr., and C. Miller. 1998. Characteristics of 

ponderosa pine snag roosts used by reproductive bats in Northern Arizona. 

Journal of Wildlife Management. 62(2):612-621.

Rom, Lance, Tim Church and Michele Church. 1996. Black Hills National Forest 

Cultural Resources Overview. Ms. on file at the Black Hills National Forest, 

Supervisor’s Office.

Royer, R.A., and G.M. Marrone. 1992. Conservation status of the regal fritillary 

(Speyeria idalia) in North and South Dakota. Rep. to the U.S. Department of 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 44 pp.

Rumble, M.A., L. Benkobi and R.S. Gamo. 2005. Elk responses to humans in a densely 

roaded area. Intermountain Journal of Sciences. Vol. 11, No.102:10-24.

Saab, V.A. and K.T. Vierling. 2001. Reproductive success of Lewis’s woodpecker in 

burned pine and cottonwood riparian forests. The Cooper Ornithological Society. 

The Condor 103: 491-501.

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.

Sandrini, J. 2007. 2006 job completion report, elk. Casper Region, Herd Unit 740. 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Newcastle.

Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2005. The North American breeding bird survey, 

results and analysis 1966-2005. Version 6.2.2006. USGS Patuxent Wildlife 

Research Center, Laurel, MD. Online: http://www.mbrpwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html . 

Schaupp, Willis C. Jr. 2011. Aerial overview detection survey in 2010, Black Hills of 

South Dakota and Wyoming, Service Trip Report RCSC-03-11. 6p. February 02, 

2011.

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, South Dakota. 

Online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/northern_myotis.

pdf . 

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, South Dakota. 

Online: 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 5

149

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/small_footed_ba

t.pdf .

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, South Dakota. 

Online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/long_ear_bat.pdf

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, South Dakota. 

Online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/long_legged_bat.

pdf .

SD DENR (South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources). 1998. 

The 1998 South Dakota 303(d) waterbody list and supporting documentation. 109

p. Online: http://denr.sd.gov/des/sw/IntegratedReports.aspx . 

SD DENR (South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources). 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 (South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources). 2002. 

South Dakota total maximum daily load waterbody list 2002. 67 p. Online: 

http://denr.sd.gov/des/sw/IntegratedReports.aspx . 

SD DENR (South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources). 2004. 

The 2004 South Dakota integrated report for surface water quality assessment. 

230 p. Online: http://denr.sd.gov/des/sw/IntegratedReports.aspx .

SD DENR (South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources). 2006. 

The 2006 South Dakota integrated report for surface water quality assessment. 

211 p. Online: http://denr.sd.gov/des/sw/IntegratedReports.aspx . 

SD DENR (South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources). 2008. 

The 2008 South Dakota integrated report for surface water quality assessment. 

262 p. Online: http://denr.sd.gov/des/sw/IntegratedReports.aspx .

SD DENR (South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources). 2010. 

The 2010 South Dakota integrated report for surface water quality assessment. 

272 p. Online: http://denr.sd.gov/des/sw/IntegratedReports.aspx . 

SDGFP (South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks). 2010a. Eagle awareness: Where to see 

eagles in South Dakota. South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks. Online: 

http://gfp.sd.gov/outdoor-learning/bald-eagle-awareness-days/range.aspx .

SDGFP (South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks). 20010b. Eagle awareness: Midwinter 

survey results. South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks. Online:

http://gfp.sd.gov/outdoor-learning/bald-eagle-awareness-days/midwinter.aspx .

SDGFP (South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks). 2010c. South Dakota snakes: Redbelly 

snake. South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks. Online: 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 5

150

http://gfp.sd.gov/wildlife/critters/amphibians-reptiles/snakes/bLack-hills-redbellysnake.aspx . 

SDNHP (South Dakota Natural Heritage Program). 2006. Rare, threatened or 

endangered animals tracked by the South Dakota Natural Heritage Program. 

South Dakota Natural Heritage Program. Online: 

http://www.sdgfp.info/Wildlife/Diversity/RareAnimal.htm . 

SDSU (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.

Sheppard, Wayne D. and Lance A. Asherin. 2004. Assessment of aspen clonal 

conditions on the Black Hills National Forest. USDA-Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Ft. Collins, CO. October 25, 2004.

Sheppard, Wayne D. and Michael A. Battaglia. 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. 112p.

Smith, B.E. 2003. Conservation assessment of the northern leopard frog in the Black 

Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota. 

78pp.

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 in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota 

and Wyoming. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills 

National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. Online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/assessments/coopers_ss_hawk.pdf . 

Sundstrom, Linea. 1989. Culture history of the Black Hills with reference to adjacent 

areas of the Northern Great Plains. J & L Reprint Company, Lincoln, NE.

Tallman, D.A., D.L. Swanson, and J.S. Palmer. 2002. Birds of South Dakota. Third 

Edition. Midstates/Quality Quick Print, Aberdeen, South Dakota. 441 pp.

Tigner, J. and E. Stukel. 2003. Bats of the Black Hills: A description of status and 

conservation needs. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks Wildlife 

Division Report 2003-05. 94 pp.

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.

USDA Forest Service. 1996. Final environmental impact statement for the revised land 

and resources management plan for the Black Hills National Forest. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 5

151

South Dakota. December 1996. Online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/index.shtml .

USDA Forest Service. 1999. Indicators for analysis of water/road interactions, Appendix 

2. In: Roads analysis, informing decisions about managing the National Forest 

transportation system. Miscellaneous Report FS-643. USDA Forest Service, 

Washington Office.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Expert interview summary for the Black Hills National 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment. Unpublished Rep. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, 

Custer, South Dakota. Online: 

http://fsweb.blackhills.r2.fs.fed.us/int_dir/00_10_25_ExpertInterviewSum.pdf .

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Fire and Archaeology: A workshop addressing fire 

behavior, the federal fire policy, and managing risks to cultural resources. 

prepared by Region 5, Forest Service, Vallejo, California.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Black Hills National Forest 2002 monitoring and five-year 

evaluation report. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills 

National Forest, Custer, South Dakota.

USDA Forest Service. 2004a. FY2003 monitoring and evaluation report. U.S. Dept. of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Phase II 

Amendment to the 1997 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the 

Black Hills National Forest. US Department of Agriculture-Forest Service, 

Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. October, 2005. Online:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/index.shtml . 

USDA Forest Service. 2005a. Forest Service Manual, Black Hills National Forest. FSM 

2600 – wildife, fish and sensitive plant habitat management. Chapter 20 –habitat 

planning and evaluation. Supplement number: r2_bh_2600-2005-7. Online: 

http://fsweb/directives/fsm/2600/bh_supp_2600-2005-1.doc . 

USDA-Forest Service. 2006. 1997 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the 

Black Hills National Forest, as amended by the Phase II Amendment. United 

States Department of Agriculture-Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, 

Custer, South Dakota. March, 2006.

USDA Forest Service. 2006a. FY2005 monitoring and evaluation report. U.S. Dept. of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota.

USDA Forest Service. 2006b. Forest Service handbook, Region 2 supplement, 2509.25 –

Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook. Rocky Mountain Region, Ft. 

Collins, Colorado. 58 p.

USDA Forest Service. 2006c. Forest Service minerals and geology program handbook 

FSH 2809.15. United States Department of Agriculture-Forest Service.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. FY2006 monitoring and evaluation report. U.S. Dept. of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 5

152

USDA Forest Service. 2007a. Ground Water Technical Guide. Washington Office, 

Washington DC. 295 p.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. FY2007 monitoring and evaluation report. U.S. Dept. of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota.

USDA Forest Service. 2008a. Forest Service Manual 2880 - Geologic resources, hazards, 

and services. Washington Office, Washington DC. 18 p.

USDA Forest Service. 2009. FY2008 monitoring and evaluation report. U.S. Dept. of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota.

USDA Forest Service. 2009a. 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. 2010. FY2009 monitoring and evaluation report. U.S. Dept. of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota.

USDA Forest Service. 2010a. Region 2, Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species 

homepage. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Region, Golden, Colorado. Online: 

http://fsweb.r2.fs.fed.us/rr/R2_TES_Site_2007/sensitive.html .

USDA NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2009. Soil data mart, 

Geospatial data for soil survey area SD604 – Custer and Pennington Counties, 

Black Hills Parts, South Dakota. Online: http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/ .

Accessed August 30, 2010.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008. Birds of conservation concern 2008. 

Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 93pp. Online: 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/reports/BCC2008/BCC2008m.pdf . 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. Species account – Bald eagle. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, South Dakota Ecological Services Field Office. 

Online: http://www.fws.gov/southdakotafieldoffice/EAGLE.htm .

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010a. Federal endangered and threatened 

species list by county for South Dakota. September 14, 2010. Online: 

http://southdakotafieldoffice.fws.gov/endsppbycounty.htm

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011. Federal endangered and threatened 

species list by county for South Dakota. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South 

Dakota Ecological Services Field Office. Online: 

http://www.fws.gov/southdakotafieldoffice/endsppbycounty.htm . 

USGS (US Geological Survey). 2008. National hydrography dataset, watershed boundary 

dataset. Online: http://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html . Accessed April 21, 2010.

USGS (US Geological Survey). 2008a. National water information system (NWIS). 

streamflow statistics for selected stations on Rapid Creek. Online: 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/sd/nwis . Accessed November 13, 2008.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 5

153

Vonhof, M.J., and R.M. Barclay. 1997. Use of tree stumps as roosts by the western 

long-eared bat. Journal of Wildlife Management. 61(3):674-684.

Webb, C., P. Rahn, and A. Davis. 1998. Abandoned and inactive mine inventory in the 

Black Hills National Forest of South Dakota. South Dakota School of Mines and 

Technology.

Wells-Gosling, N., and L.R. Heaney. 1984. Glaucomys sabrinus. Mammalian species 

no. 229, The American Society of Mammalogists.

Whitaker, J.O. Jr. 1972. Zapus hudsonius. Mammalian species no. 11. The American 

Society of Mammalogists.

White, C. and G. Giroir. 2009. Monitoring the birds of the Black Hills, 2008 field season 

report. Tech. Rep. M-MBBH-USFS08, SDDGF08. Rocky Mountain Bird 

Observatory, Brighton, CO, 57 pp.

WYNDD (Wyoming Natural Diversity Database). 2002. Species abstracts, element 

occurrence records and township/range list. Species of Special Concern, Black 

Hills National Forest. June 2002.

Glossary

Activity Fuels 

Fuels resulting from or altered by mechanical treatments, such as tiimber harvest 

or thinning, as opposed to naturally created fuels. 

Age Class 

Groups of trees approximately the same age. 

Allotment 

A designated area of land available for livestock grazing upon which a specified 

number and kind of livestock may be grazed under a range allotment management 

plan. It is the basic land unit used to facilitate management of the range resource 

on National Forest lands. 

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. 

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 than specific resource management service. 

It is usually developed and operated for long-term land and resource management 

purposes and constant service. 

At-Risk-Community (ARC)
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 5

154

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 event; and (C) for which a significant threat to human life or property 

exists as a result of a wildland fire disturbance event.” 

Available Fuel 

The total mass of ground, surface and canopy fuel per unit area consumed by a 

fire, including fuels consumed in postfrontal combustion of duff, organic soils, 

and large woody fuels.

Basal Area 

The cross-sectional area of a stand of trees measured at 4 feet 6 inches from the 

ground. 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 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. 

BMPs 

(See "Best Management Practices.")

Board Foot 

timber measurement equaling the amount of wood contained in a board one-inch 

thick, 12-inches long, and 12-inches wide.

Broadcast Burning 

A management ignited fire, allowed to burn under specific conditions 

(prescriptions) and within established boundaries to achieve some landmanagement objective.

Browse 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 5

155

Twigs, leaves and young shoots of trees and shrubs on which animals feed. 

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 Fuels

The live and dead foliage, live and dead branches, and lichen of trees and tall 

shrubs that lie above the surface fuels. (See also Available Canopy Fuel)

Clearcut 

The harvesting (removal) in one cut of all trees in an area. The area harvested 

may be a patch (zero-to-ten acres), stand (not more than 40 acrea), or strip.

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 

multi-resource 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.

CMAI 

(See "Culmination Mean Annual Increment.”)

Compaction 

The packing together of soil particles by forces exerted at the soil surface, 

resulting in increased soil density. 

Conifer 

A group of cone-bearing trees, mostly evergreen, such as the pine and spruce. 

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. 

Crown 

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 Fire 

Any fire that burns in canopy fuels.

Crown Fire Hazard 

A physical situation (fuels, weather, and topography) with potential for causing 

harm or damage as a result of crown fire.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 5

156

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 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.

DBH 

(See "Diameter at Breast Height.”)

Dead Fuels

Fuels with no living tissue within which moisture content is governed almost 

entirely by solar radiation.

Decision Documents 

Documents that provide the criteria and information used in the

formulation and evaluation of alternatives and the preferred alternative.

Design Criteria 

Management measures included in the design of a project to avoid or minimize 

potential resource impacts. 

Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) 

The diameter of a standing tree at a point 4 feet, 6 inches from ground level.

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.

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.

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.

Erosion 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 5

157

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.

Fire Hazard

A fuel complex, defined by volume, type, condition, arrangement and location, 

that determines the ease of ignition and the resistance to control. 

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 Regime Condition Class (FRCC) 

A tool developed to evaluate current against natural landscape characteristics with 

respect to vegetation-fuel composition and structure, fire frequency, fire severity, and 

other disturbances. Fire Regime Condition Class characterizes the degree of 

departure from natural fire, vegetation, and fuel regimes.

• Fire Regime Condition Class I - Fire regimes are within natural range, and risk 

of losing key ecosystem components is low. Vegetation attributes (species 

composition and structure) are intact and functioning within historical range.

• Fire Regime Condition Class II - Fire regimes have been moderately altered 

from their natural range. The risk of losing key ecosystem components is 

moderate. Fire frequencies have departed from natural frequencies by one or 

more return intervals. Vegetation attributes have been moderately altered.

• Fire Regime Condition Class III - Fire regimes have been significantly altered 

from their natural range. The risk of losing key ecosystem components is high. 

Fire frequencies have departed from natural frequencies by several return 

intervals. Vegetation attributes have been significantly altered.

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 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 5

158

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.

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.

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, any non-grass-like plant that has little or no woody material.

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.

Fuel Breaks 

Generally wide strips of land 100-300 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 Complex

The combination of ground, surface, and canopy fuel strata.

Fuel Loading 

The volume of the available or burnable fuels in a specified area, usually

expressed in tons per acre.

Fuel Model

A set of surface fuel bed characteristics (load and surface-area-to-volume-ratio by 

size class, heat content, and depth) organized for input to a fire model. Standard 

fuel models (Anderson 1982) have been stylized to represent specific fuel 

conditions. 

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.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 5

159

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)

Guideline 

Preferred or advisable courses of action; deviations from guidelines are 

permissible, but the responsible official must document the reasons for the 

deviation.

Hardwood 

Pertains to broadleaf trees.

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.

Ignition (Fire Management) 

The initiation of combustion.

Infrastructure 

The facilities, utilities, and transportation systems needed to meet public and 

administrative needs.

Insect Epidemic 

High population levels of insect pests that cause substantial injury to plant or 

animal hosts. Used synonymously with “Outbreak”. 

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.

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. 

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 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 5

160

place" and describes the image of an area. The landscape character provides a 

reference for defining the inherent scenic attractiveness classes.

Late Succession 

Ecosystems distinguished by old trees and related structural features (Mehl,

1992). 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 latesuccessional 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, closedcanopy late-successional ponderosa pine occurs where periodic, low intensity 

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.

Lopping and Scattering 

Lopping logging debris and spreading it more or less evenly on the ground.

Management Indicators Species (MIS)

Plant or animal species 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.

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. 

Mechanical (treatment, activity)

Vegetation management activitives which are implemented with the use of 

mechanized equipment (i.e chainsaws, etc.).

Monitoring 

The sample collection and analysis of information regarding Forest Plan and 

project level management practices to determine how well objectives have been 

met as well as the effects of those management activities on the land and 

environment.

Multi-storied Stands (Vegetation) 

Plant communities having two or more recognizable canopy layers or height 

levels.

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 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 5

161

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 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 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.

Non-motorized Activities 

Activities that do not incorporate the use of a motor, engine, or other non-living 

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.

Outbreak

See insect epidemic. 

Overstory 

The portion of vegetation in a forest forming the uppermost foliage layer.

Piling and Burning 

Piling slash resulting from logging and subsequently burning individual piles.

Plant Communities 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 5

162

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.

Products Other than Logs (POL)

Products such as posts, poles, and fiber from trees or parts of trees less than 

sawlog size. POL usually includes trees greater than 5 inches diameter breast 

height (DBH) (4.5 feet from ground level) and less than 7.9 inches diameter 

breast (DBH), with tops of trees greater than 4 inches to less than 6 inches in 

diameter.

Prescribed Burning/Fire

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).

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.

Ranger District 

Administrative subdivisions of the Forest supervised by a District Ranger who

reports to the Forest Supervisor.

Raptor Nests

Any nest of eagles, hawks, falcons, or owls.

Regeneration (Silviculture)

The renewal of vegetation whether by natural or artificial means. Also, the new 

growth itself.

Responsible Official 

The Forest Service employee who has the delegated authority to make a specific 

decision.

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 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 5

163

the area whose soil is relatively more moist than the adjacent upland and whose 

vegetation growth reflects the greater accumulation of available water.

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.

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.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 5

164

Low: A scenic integrity referring to the landscapes where the valued landscape 

character "appears moderately altered." Deviations begin to dominate the valued ,

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 used to inventory existing integrity. It 

must not be used as a management objective.

Sediment 

Displaced soil material suspended in water or that has been deposited in streams 

and lakes.

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.

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.

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.

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 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 5

165

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.

Skid Trail 

Any way, more or less prepared, over which logs are dragged. Any road or trail 

leading from stump to landing.

Skidding 

Moving logs from the stump to a collecting point.

Slash 

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 

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.

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.

Standard 

Mandatory courses of action; any deviation from standards requires amendment 

of the LRMP.

Stand 

A community, particulary 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.

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; 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 5

166

pool frequency and depth; bank vegetation; and woody debris that reflect the 

stability and habitat quality of the stream.

Stream Level

A classification of the relative position of streams in a channel network. Firstlevel streams drain into the ocean. Second-level streams are tributaries to the 

first-level streams. For example, the Mississippi is a first-level stream; the 

Missouri is a second-level 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. This stage is dominated by 

grasses and forbs lasting until tree seedlings become established. 

• Structural Stage 2 (Shrubs/Seedlings): Developmental stage dominated by tree 

seedlings (less than one inch dbh) and shrub species. This stage consists of shrubs 

and seedlings. This stage remains until seedlings reach 1 inch diameter at breast height 

(DBH).

• Structural Stage 3 (Sapling/Pole): Developmental stage dominated by young 

trees 1 to 9 inches dbh, 10 to 50 feet tall, and usually less than 50 years old. This 

stage is subdivided into three canopy closure classes: SS3A Sapling/Pole stage 

with less than 40% canopy cover

o SS3B Sapling/Pole stage with 40-70% canopy cover

o SS3C Sapling/Pole stage greater than 70% canopy cover

• Structural Stage 4 (Mature): Consists of trees larger and older than structural 

stage 3. This stage contains trees which are at least 9” DBH. 

o SS4A Mature stage with less than 40% canopy cover

o SS4B Mature stage with 40-70% canopy cover

o SS4C Mature stage greater than 70% canopy cover

• Structural Stage 5 (Late Succession): This stage is characterized by very large 

trees (16+ inches DBH). Trees are at least 160 years in age. Late succession 

ponderosa pine may occur in dense stands but may also grow in the open or in 

“park-like” stands. 

Successional Stages (Seral Stages) 

The relatively transitory communities that replace one another during 

development toward a potential natural community.

Temporary Roads

A road developed and operated for a limited period of time that will cease to exist 

as a transportation facility after the purpose for which it was constructed is 

completed and the occupied land is reclaimed and managed for natural resource 

purposes.

Thinning 

The practice of removing some of the trees in a stand to meet desired conditions. 

Two types of thinning may be done:
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 5

167

Pre-commercial, Non-commercial: Removing trees that are too small to make a 

merchantable product.

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.

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.

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.

Understory 

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.

Values, Values at Risk (Fire Management) 

Any or all natural resources, improvements, or other values that may be

jeopardized if a fire occurs. 

Water Influence Zone (WIZ) 

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 a drainage basin or catchment.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Chapter 5

168

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 firstlevel watershed contains all the drainage area of a first-level stream (See “Stream 

Level.”)

Waters of the United States 

Waters used for navigation and all other waters such as lakes, streams (including 

intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet 

meadows, playa lakes or natural ponds, 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. 
Appendix A:

MAPS

Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix A

A-1
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix A

A-2
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix A

A-3
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix A

A-4
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix A

A-5
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix A

A-6
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix A

A-7
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix A

A-8
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix A

A-9
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix A

A-10
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix A

A-11
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix A

A-12
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix A

A-13
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix A

A-14
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix A

A-15
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix A

A-16
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix A

A-17
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix A

A-18
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix A

A-19
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix A

A-20
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix A

A-21
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix A

A-22
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix A

A-23
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix A

A-24
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix A

A-25

Appendix B:

DESIGN CRITERIA

Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix B

B-1

Introduction

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

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

these design criteria.

Heritage

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

are 25 known cultural resources determined eligible for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places.

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

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

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

location and a District Archaeologist notified immediately. The SHPO and 

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

comment. Any cultural resources located during project implementation will be 

protected based on the recommendations of the District Archaeologist and the 

SHPO.

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

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

treatments.

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

activities will be flagged or otherwise posted for avoidance.

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

unevaluated sites.

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

stored or parked within the boundaries of the above eligible or 

unevaluated sites. Vehicles would be confined to existing and marked 

Forest Service roads if and when traversing through cultural resources, 

unless travel through site boundaries is specifically not allowed as stated 

in the site specific recommendations. 

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

and unevaluated sites will be conducted without the specified clearance 

and on-site presence of a district archaeologist.

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

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

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

fire (USDA, 2003).

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

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

through sites may be allowed, but specified features must be avoided by 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix B

B-2

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

areas, and mop-up).

o Wetline through cultural resources instead of using ground disturbing 

handlines.

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

allowed within site boundaries.

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

that the following on-site fire behavior criteria are met: There are 8 

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

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

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

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

of fuel loading. These 17 sites cannot be burned through and must be 

avoided during implementation of all prescribed burning. Consult with 

heritage resource specialist prior to any burning.

Fire/Fuels

 All prescribed burn treatments will meet with the provisions of the Clean Air Act. 

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

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

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

the time of burning.

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

incorporated into the burn plan as appropriate:

o Limit treatment area size.

o Specify wind directions and speed.

o Specify minimum mixing heights to ensure dispersal of emissions.

o Stagger ignitions.

 Whole tree yarding would be required in the harvest units listed in Table B-1 

where prescribed burning is planned.

Table B-1. Sites where whole tree yarding is required

Location Site

040701 10, 16, 32, 45

040702 3-6, 12, 13, 17, 19, 20-22, 31, 37, 42-45, 74

040704 10, 16-20, 26-28

040802 7-10, 17-22, 27, 28, 37-43, 45, 49, 50

040803 104, 108-110, 115, 126

040804 104, 108, 109, 115, 119, 120, 122-124, 130, 131

040805 135, 137, 139, 142, 151, 152

040806 131, 137, 144
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix B

B-3

040807 105, 111, 118, 151

 Revegetation of prescribed burned areas will be promoted by:

o Following broadcast burning, seed to initiate revegetation if ground cover 

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

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

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

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

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

to meet these levels. Guideline 4108

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

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

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

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

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

arterial roads, remove 70-90 percent of activity fuels up to 300 feet from roads 

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

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

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

burning.

 The threat of wildfire to public and private developments will be reduced by 

following the standards in the National Fire Protection Association Publication 

1144, “Protection of Life and Property from Wildfire” and reduce the fuel loading 

from habitat improvement treatments to acceptable standards.

 Although there is a potential for cave resources in the project area, no caves have 

been identified to date which require management as set forth in the Forest Plan. 

In the event that cave resources are identified during the course of the Briggs 

Spring project, the location will be reported to the wildlife biologist, archeologist 

and geologist for recommendation on resource protection measures, according to 

the Forest Plan.

Minerals

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

biological controls after treatments to reduce infestations and allow native 

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

Botany/Rangeland/Weeds

 Areas infested with noxious weeds may be treated with herbicide prior to 

disturbance to help reduce seed dispersal from existing plants.

 Disturbed areas such as skid trails, burned slash piles and temporary roads would 

be seeded with certified weed-free seed. Standard 1110

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

as large slash piling, skidding, and temporary road construction.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix B

B-4

 Restore or rebuild all fences damaged during project activities.

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

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

improvements.

 All livestock gates would remain shut from June 1st – October 15th.

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

following growing season to ensure regrowth of forage species. Guideline 4107

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

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

areas to prevent noxious weed growth near existing springs.

 Use of system trails needed for project implementation would be coordinated with 

recreation specialist. 

Recreation

 All system trail signs and markers would be protected during harvest activities.

 Exclude snowmobile trails from harvest activities from December 15-March 31, 

annually. Note that snowmobile trail #13 includes a portion located on Six Mile 

Road (FSR 301); this portion can be located either on the road bed, if the road is 

not plowed or being used for logging traffic, or it can be located on the road edge 

if the road is plowed.

 Signing of harvest activities would be placed at trailheads, bulletin boards and 

trail intersections to ensure public safety.

 Any logging slash should be removed from recreational sites, such as 

campgrounds prior to the opening date of May 15, annually.

 Protect the Redbank Spring campground improvements from vegetation 

management activities during its full operational period from May 15th to October 

15th annually. Protect campground facilities and improvements during all periods 

of vegetation management occurring in the campground.

 Avoid piling slash or placing landing piles in campgrounds or on trails (4 feet 

each side of the centerline of trails). Slash or logs would be removed and any 

disturbed ground recontoured and seeded prior to the start of the primary use 

recreation season on May 15th annually.

 For all overstory removals and shelterwood seed cut treatments, transition 

(‘feather’) the vegetation edge from dense canopy (in the adjacent non-treated 

areas) into this unit.

Scenery

 In all harvest units along FSRs: 117 (Boles Canyon), 294 (South Castle Creek), 

301 (Six Mile), 296 (Redbird-Gillette Canyon), 284 (Custer-Limestone), and 

294.2A (Redbank Spring Campground access), within 300 feet of these routes, 

and around campgrounds, the following design criteria should be used: 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix B

B-5

o Where possible along roads and trails, remaining vegetation should be in a 

variety of sizes and spacing to maintain a more natural appearance.

o Log decks within 300 feet of campgrounds and travel corridors would be 

returned to original contours, scarify to eliminate compaction (as 

necessary), and reseeded with native grass seed.

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

campgrounds and travel corridors. This could be accomplished by 

scattering and burning, piling and burning, or chipping) after harvesting.

o Slash needs to be treated in accordance with Forest Plan Guideline 5606. 

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

evenly spaced trees if possible.

o All temporary roads and skid trails within 1⁄4 mile of developed recreation 

areas should be returned to a natural appearance by eliminating the cut/fill 

slope to match the adjacent contours. Re-seed and place natural levels of 

down debris across these routes.

 In the Redbank Spring & New Moon developed recreation areas and for 300 feet 

around them, maintain some of the largest trees to ensure long-term large 

diameter trees, and their character will be present.

 Fuel treatments along private land boundaries would transition into the 

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

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

unit in a curvilinear layout.

 After project implementation any temporary roads would have slash dropped or 

spread over the road to prevent future unauthorized use. Boulders and berms may 

also be used to close these roads.

Transportation

 The sites in Table B-2 would have slash lopped and scattered within 200’ of the 

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

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

of the site edge:

Wildlife

Table B-2. Sites requiring lop and scatter within 200’ of adjacent pond or 

spring

Location Site

040702

40 - (Briggs Spring) – extend the 200’ wide lop and scatter treatment 

for the length of the west side of site 40 adjacent to site 23. Proposed 

for commercial and non-commercial vegetative treatments in 

Alternatives 2 and 3.

040702

52, 56, 57 - (White Spring) – lop and scatter 200’ radius from spring 

exclosure fence into these 3 sites. Proposed for commercial and noncommercial vegetative treatments in Alternatives 2 and 3.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix B

B-6

040703

14 - (beef pasture spring, north side, along private land) – lop and 

scatter 200’ radius from spring. Site proposed for mechanical fuels in 

Alternatives 2 and 3. Commercial treatment is proposed in Alternative 

3.

040704

2 - (Redbird Spring) – lop and scatter 200’ radius from spring 

exclosure fence near upper pond. Site proposed for commercial 

treatment in Alternative 3.

040705

134 - (Multiplex Spring) – extend the 200’ wide lop and scatter 

treatment for the length of the west side of site. Proposed for 

commercial and non-commercial vegetative treatments in Alternatives 

2 and 3.

040705

156 - (Redbank Spring Reservoir) – extend the 200’ wide lop and 

scatter treatment for the length of the north side of the site. Proposed 

for commercial and non-commercial vegetative treatments in 

Alternatives 2 and 3.

040807

105, 110, 111 - (Park Spring) – sites 105 and 111 are proposed for 

sanitation if needed and prescribed burning in Alternatives 2 and 3. 

Site 110 is deferred in Alternative 2 but is proposed for commercial 

treatment in Alternative 3. If sites 105 and 111 are sanitized, lop and 

scatter the south tips of the sites to a depth of 200’. If site 110 is 

treated than lop and scatter the south tip of the site from Park Spring 

south.

 When prescribed burning in sites 040702-23, 040705-132 and 040802-44 protect 

the existing fences around Willow Spring, Briggs Spring, Multiplex Spring, Junes 

Pools and Herrin Wildlife Ponds. No burning would occur within the fences in 

order to maintain residual grass cover for amphibians.

 No snags will be cut unless deemed a safety hazard. Snags determined to be a 

safety hazard should be felled and left in place, where feasible. Existing snags 

and down woody material (>10” diameter) will be protected during prescribed 

burning where feasibility and safety permits. Standards 2301, 2304, 2305, 2308,

and Objectives 211, 212

 Retain existing large woody debris in mechanically treated sites including the 

sites proposed for whole tree yarding. Do not pull existing logs out of the site 

while removing recently cut trees. Guideline 2307

 If piles are created while accomplishing mechanical vegetation treatments, 

including mechanical fuel treatments, leave 1 pile per 2 acres for small mammal 

habitat. Piles do not need to be any particular size; as a pile size guideline, aim 

for approximately 10’ x 10’ and 6’ in height. This will benefit small mammal 

predatory species by creating near-ground structure for prey species. Standard 

3117

 Screening cover for big game will be retained within 200’ of the road in the 

following areas proposed for non-commercial treatments (Guideline 3203). Any 

planned burning should have a mortality limit of 0-5% of seedlings and saplings 

within these areas. Mechanical thinning should not occur within 200’ of the road 

in these areas. Sites proposed for non-commercial treatments that need screening 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix B

B-7

cover (seedlings/saplings) retained within 200’ of the arterial or collector road are 

shown in Table B-3.

Table B-3. Sites where screening cover adjacent to roads must be 

maintained

Location Site Road Proposed treatment

040701 10 117.1 Mechanical thin and prescribed fire

040701 18 117.1 Mechanical thin

040701 20 117.1 Mechanical thin

040701 23 117.1 Mechanical thin

040701 38 301 Mechanical thin

040702 50 301 Mechanical thin

040702 54 301 Mechanical thin

040702 55 301 Mechanical thin

040702 56 301 Mechanical thin

040705 126 294 Mechanical thin

040801 8 284.5D Mechanical fuels

040801 9 117.1 Mechanical thin

040801 10 284.5D Mechanical thin

040802 47 284.5D Mechanical fuels and prescribed fire

040803 101 301 Mechanical thin

040805 151 284 Prescribed fire

040806 142- east 

end

284 Mechanical fuels and prescribed fire

040806 120 284.5D Mechanical thin

040808 109 284 Mechanical thin

 Allow only 0-5% mortality of pine regeneration in site 040702-73 when 

prescribed burning.

 To allow for hiding cover in sites listed in Table B-4, do not thin pine 

regeneration during timber stand improvement (post sale) treatments along 

specified roads.

Table B-4. Sites where hiding 

cover is to be retained

Location Site Road

040802 30, 31

296.2D

301.2D

301.2E

 If new raptor nests are found apply recommended spatial and activity time 

restrictions for the nest area. Restrictions would be dependent on raptor species 

and if the nest area is active. Standards 3115 and 3204

 Known raptor nests will be protected (Standard 3204).
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix B

B-8

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

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

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

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

Prior to starting any activities in the sites listed in Table B-5, consult with a 

district biologist. A biologist will check the known raptor nests for any indication 

of use. If no use is detected the treatment activities may be allowed to proceed.

Table B-5: Sites proposed for treatment within a 1⁄2 mile of northern goshawk nest 

territories requiring protection

Location Site

Alternatives 

proposing 

treatment

Treatments 

proposed Territory Comments*

040802 11 2 and 3 Commercial and noncommercial thinning Herrin-Miller Buffer: 0.5 miles 

April 1- August 15

040802 22 2 and 3 Hardwood release and 

prescribed burning Herrin-Miller

040802 23, 24,

32, 33 2 and 3 Sanitation if needed Herrin-Miller

040802 23, 24,

32, 33 3 Non-commercial thinning Herrin-Miller

040802 30 2 and 3

Commercial (south 1/3) 

and non-commercial 

thinning; sanitation if 

needed

Herrin-Miller

040802 15 2 and 3 Non-commercial 

thinning Herrin-Miller

040802 12, 15 3 Commercial thinning Herrin-Miller

040802 31 2 and 3

Sanitation if needed and 

non-commercial 

thinning

Herrin-Miller

040802 42, 43,

45 2 and 3

Commercial and noncommercial thinning; 

prescribed fire

Herrin-Miller

040802 44 2 and 3

Pine encroachment 

treatment and 

prescribed fire

Herrin-Miller

040802 51 2 and 3 Commercial and noncommercial thinning Herrin-Miller

040804 117 2 and 3 Sanitation if needed Dumbuk Buffer: 0.5 miles 

April 1- August 15

040805

101,

102,

103,

104,

153

2 and 3 Sanitation if needed Dumbuk

040805 107 2 and 3 Pine encroachment and 

prescribed fire

Dumbuk

040805 141 2 and 3 Mechanical fuels and 

prescribed fire

Dumbuk

040805 142 2 and 3 Sanitation if needed and 

prescribed fire

Dumbuk

040805 149 2 and 3 Mechanical fuels and 

prescribed fire

Dumbuk
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix B

B-9

040805 149 3 Commercial thinning Dumbuk

040806 132 2 and 3 Commercial thinning Dumbuk

040806 137 2 and 3

Commercial and noncommercial thinning; 

prescribed fire

Dumbuk

040806

138,

139,

145

2 and 3 Sanitation if needed Dumbuk

040806 140,

142 2 and 3 Mechanical fuels and prescribed fire

Dumbuk

040806 140,

142 3 Commercial thinning Dumbuk

040806 141 2 Sanitation, mechanical 

fuels and prescribed fire

Dumbuk

040806 141 3

Commercial thinning, 

mechanical fuels and 

prescribed fire

Dumbuk

040806 144 2 and 3 Pine encroachment and 

prescribed fire

Dumbuk

*The spatial buffer of 0.5 miles has a corresponding time period buffer when activity, such as commercial, 

non-commercial and fuels treatments including prescribed burning, is not to take place.

 In addition to the sites listed in the table above, there would be time restrictions

(April 1-August 15, annually) for new activity related to project implementation 

on roads adjacent to the two goshawk territories.

o If the Herrin-Miller territory is active then FSR 301.2D (the entire length) 

and FSR 296.2D (within 1⁄2 mile of the junction with 301.2D) will have 

new use timing restrictions in place, for activities related to timber harvest.

o If the Dumbuk territory is active then FSR 284.5E (the entire length), FSR 

296.2B (between FSR 284.5D and U220036), and FSR 289.1A (from the 

junction with FSR 296.2B south to U220036), U220035 and U220036 will 

have new use timing restrictions in place, for activities related to timber 

harvest. A portion of FSR 284.5D is located within 1⁄2 mile of the 

goshawk nests in the Dumbuk territory. The timing restriction is not being 

recommended on this road. Other roads discussed above will have the 

timing restriction in place which will minimize additional disturbance 

within the territory. Standard 3111. Use of this road is also required to 

implement the proposed projects during the summer months.

 If R2 sensitive species or species of local concern is found after a contract or 

permit is issued, consult with the district wildlife biologist to coordinate 

mitigation measures. Standard 3115

 If northern leopard frogs are observed in the project area during any project 

activities, consultation with a district wildlife biologist would occur before any 

project activities are implemented.

 If, during any activities in the project area, red-bellied snakes are observed or 

potential hibernacula are found, consult with a district wildlife biologist. If a 

hibernacula/breeding site is found a spatial restriction may be established around 

the riparian area and the hibernacula.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix B

B-10

 Retain all spruce trees within 600 feet of the spring near the border of sites

040705-103 and 040705-106 for wildlife cover as well as enhanced vegetative 

diversity for forest birds.

 Retain a denser canopy (> 60 BA) in the northern 1/3 of site 040802-51 within 

200 feet of the meadow site 040802-44. The denser canopy will allow for more 

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

game. This site may be used as upland habitat for sensitive northern leopard frogs 

if present in the Herrin wildlife ponds within site 44.

 Within site 040705-126 retain a denser canopy (> 60 BA) and lop and scatter 

slash within 200’ of the springs in site 040705-135.

 Ten percent of the SS4 ponderosa pine acreage in the management area will have 

an average tree size of “very large”. Objective 5.1-204. In the sites listed in 

Table B-6, retain very large tree size (16” DBH and greater) of ponderosa pine 

trees:

Table B-6. Sites with large tree retention needs

Location Site

040701 10

040802 7, 8, 9

040803 110 (east end)

040808 108 (only if large pine trees are not 

producing regeneration within the meadow)

 There is one Frest site present in the project area that showed presence of a 

species of local concern snail. The Frest site is in 040701-36 along Road 117.1. 

No vegetative commercial treatment is planned in Alternative 2, however a POL 

treatment (post sale) is proposed. In Alternative 3 the site is proposed for group 

shelterwood commercial harvest with a POL treatment. The Frest site 

(approximately 1⁄4 acre) needs to be avoided during mechanical treatments under 

either alternative. A district biologist can flag the site boundary prior to any 

vegetative treatments. Standard 3103

 Where it is not a concern for fuels and/or the silviculturist, leave slashed tops 

from commercially harvested pine trees within aspen clones and within 100 feet 

of the clone. This will help provide barriers to inhibit ungulate browsing on 

regenerating aspen.

 Broadcast prescribed burning in structural stage 3B or 4B sites should be designed 

to limit mortality in all size classes to less than 10%.

 Within the hardwood stands listed in Table B-7, hinging of remaining noncommercial conifers would occur to protect aspen regeneration from browsing.

Table B-7. Aspen sites which require hinging of noncommercial sized trees

Location Site

040401 118

040502 18-28, 39, 40, 45, 51, 52, 63, 64

040704 24
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix B

B-11

040705 121, 129-132, 137, 138, 146, 147, 172

040802 7-10, 17-22, 27, 28, 37-43, 45, 49, 50

040803 104, 108-110, 115, 126

040804 104, 108, 109, 115, 119, 120, 122-124, 130, 

131

040805 135, 137, 139, 142, 151, 152

040806 131, 137, 144

040807 105, 111, 118, 151

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

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

burned within one year. This will reduce the risk of Ips beetle caused mortality.

Silviculture

 Prescribe burning mortality limits in ponderosa pine – The percentages listed in 

Table B-8 are not a target to strive for but rather a range in which to operate 

during a prescribe burn. Broadcast prescribe burning should be designed to limit 

mortality in the following tree diameter sizes:

Table B-8. Allowable mortality due to prescribed burning in pine sites

Ponderosa Pine Percent Mortality

> 16.0” DBH < 5%

9.0” – 16.0” DBH < 15%

5.0” – 8.9” DBH < 20%

1.0” – 4.9” DBH < 30%

> 500 seedlings/acre < 50%

300 – 500 seedlings/acre < 25%

100 – 300 seedlings/acre < 10%

No Rx burning within pine plantations.

 Prescribe burning mortality limits in aspen – The percentages listed in Table B-9

are not a target to strive for but rather a range a maximum allowable mortality that 

would occur due to a prescribe burn. Broadcast prescribe burning should be 

designed to limit mortality in the following tree diameter sizes:

Table B-9. Allowable mortality due to prescribed burning in aspen sites

Aspen Percent Mortality

> 3.0” DBH

(All age classes) ≤ 10%

< 3.0” DBH

(All seedlings & saplings) ≤ 5%

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

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

dwellings.

 The practices outlined in “Best Management Practices for the control of NonPoint Pollution from Silvicultural and Related Road Activities” will be followed.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix B

B-12

 Within harvest units, conifer trees identified as insect infested would be removed 

in order to reduce the potential for future infestations.

 Aspen stands should be whole tree harvested when removing commercial sized 

conifers to insure conifers can be removed without excess damage to remaining 

aspen. This will also eliminate shading of the ground by logging slash. If conifer 

slash is to be piled and burned, piles need to be placed at least one (aspen) tree 

height away from the edge of the aspen to avoid damage to the roots from the 

intense fire (Sheppard, 10-2004).

 Remove all conifers from designated aspen clones within conifer harvest units. 

Conifers less than 9-inches DBH shall be removed post harvest or hinged to 

provide protection to aspen suckers. Fencing the aspen regeneration will keep 

cattle from browsing on the aspen suckers but will not keep the elk and deer out. 

Other temporary barriers will need to be developed to prevent browsing by elk 

and deer.

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

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

and industry standard methods for p[rotecting geologic, soil and water resources. 

Soils and Hydrology

 Use existing roads and trails to the extent practical. Minimize construction of 

new trails or temporary roads.

 Rehabilitate and close temporary roads as soon as possible after activities are 

completed. Scarification will include scarification, seeding and physical barriers 

of slash or roack to block access. 

 All roads and trails will have drainage control structures installed as needed, and 

be regularly maintained prior to, during and following operations, including 

seasonal shutdowns. Drainage structure spacing should use the following 

guidelines shown in Table B-10.

Table B-10. Drainage structure spacing guidelines 

for roads and trails

Road or Trail Grade Maximum Spacing 

between Structures

2% 250 feet

5% 135 feet

10% 80 feet

15% 60 feet

20% 45 feet

 If winter road use occurs – maintain roads as needed to keepthe road surface 

drained during thaw and breakup periods; do not use riparian areas, wetlands or 

streams for snow storage or disposal; minimize use of sand, salt or other de-icing 

substances (i.e. Mag-Chloride).

Protected Stream Courses and Springs: 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix B

B-13

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

following streams; Antelope Draw, Gillette Canyon, Jenks Draw, Redbird 

Canyon, and Redbird Draw (see Map 7 in Appendix A).

 Avoid crossing protected stream courses to the extent practical. If a stream 

crossing is absolutely necessary, consult a hydrologist to identify a stable crossing 

location and any site-specific needs.

 Protected springs within the project area include:

Table B-11. Protected springs in the Briggs Spring project area 

Spring Name Location Site(s)

Cabin Spring 040502 23

Upper Antelope Spring Complex 040701 8

Lower Antelope Spring Complex 040701 8

Willow Spring Complex 040702 23

Briggs Spring/Pond 040702 23

White Spring/Ponds 040702 52

Beef Pasture Spring 040703 14

Old Camp Spring Complex 040703 26

Redbird Spring Complex 040704 2

North Cigarette Spring/Pond 040704 9

Cigarette Spring/Pond 040704 21, 22

Multiplex Springs Complex 040705 132, 133

Baseline Spring/Pond 040705 137

Redbank Spring Complex 040705 145, 170

Herrin Spring/WPA Well and Pond 040802 44

Bert Howey Spring 040806 103

Howell Spring 040806 116, 118

Rogers Spring/Pond 040806 132, 138

 Within the 100 foot Water Influence Zone (WIZ), either side of a protected stream 

course or spring/wetland, the following will apply: 

o Management activities within the WIZ must be done in such as manner as 

to limit damage to riparian vegetation, soil disturbance rutting, and 

sediment delivery. 

o Avoid ground based equipment operations within WIZ to the extent 

possible, except at designated crossings or where otherwise approved by a 

hydrologist. 

o Approved equipment operations within the WIZ will be during dry or 

frozen soil conditions, unless otherwise approved by a hydrologist. 

o Do not place temporary roads or skid trails within WIZ except at 

designated crossings or if otherwise approved by a hydrologist. 

o Do not locate landings or other slash piles within the WIZ. 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix B

B-14

o Ensure one-end log suspension within the WIZ. 

o Do not ignite prescribed fire within the WIZ. Prescribed burning may 

occur within a WIZ, but must not be initiated in the WIZ. 

o Protected stream courses, ponds or wetlands, and other wet areas within 

the WIZ should not be used as natural barriers for firelines unless a 

hydrologist approves this on a site specific basis. 

o Manage prescribed fire in the WIZ to achieve a low intensity burn to 

protect soils.

 Remove slash and debris that inadvertently enters stream courses

 Protected stream courses and known spring/wetlands requiring protection will be 

identified on the sale area map. 

 Do not store or locatae refueling sites within 150 feet of streams, wetlands, 

springs or ephemeral streams. Inspect equipment for leaks and remedy leaks right 

away. Any leaks or spills should be cleaned up immediately. 

 Conduct water drafting for prescribed fire operations at locations which minimize 

adverse effects to water quality.

100-Year Floodplains: 

 There are 100 year floodplains associated with Redbird draw, Redbird Canyon 

and Gillette Canyon see Table B-2 and Floodplain map in project file. The 

following applies to activities within the 100-year floodplain: 

o Do not locate landings and piles within the 100-year floodplain so as not 

to restrict any potential flood flows or damage floodplain processes. 

o Any vegetation felled and left in place should not restrict potential flood 

flows or create a debris-dam. 

 Avoid locating staging areas or other concentrated uses within 100-year 

floodplains.

Table B-12. 100-Year floodplains in the Briggs Spring project area

Floodplain Area Acres Location Site(s)

Redbird Draw

35 40701 44

77 40702 22, 23, 36, 52, 57, 70, 75

51 40801 12, 13, 19

42 40802 7, 46, 47, 53, 57

36 40806 115, 118, 149

Redbird Canyon

6 40803 127

46 40807 129, 139, 142, 143, 148

Gillette Canyon

10 40804 105, 109, 116, 129, 134

4 40805 107, 121, 125, 148
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix B

B-15

Soils: 

 Restrict roads, landings, skid trails and concentrated-use sites to designated sites 

to limit additional soil disturbance. 

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

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

compaction, rutting and soil erosion. 

 Avoid soil disturbing actions during periods of heavy rain or wet soils to prevent 

rutting, compaction, erosion and sediment delivery to streams. 

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

slopes steeper than 40%. 

 Avoid placing temporary roads and skid trails within ephemeral drainages to 

prevent soil rutting and compaction. 

 When machine piling of slash occurs, leave topsoil in place and avoid displacing 

soils into piles or windrows. 

 Rehabilitate landings and burned slash piles by scarifying and seeding these areas. 

Rehabilitate other disturbed sites, such as firelines, staging areas, and safety 

zones. 

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

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

diameter of 10 inches. (standard 2308s)

 Shelterwood harvest on the following sites should retain 50% or more of fine 

logging slash (guideline 1102a) Fine slash should be evenly distributed through 

the unit. 

Table B-13. Stand locations and sites that contain soil components low in topsoil organic 

matter within the Briggs Spring project area

Stand 

Location Site(s)

Acres 

within 

Stand 

Location

Percent of Stand 

Location (within 

the Project 

Area)

040401 118 10 100%

040502 18-28, 39-41, 45, 49, 51, 52, 59-61, 63-65 847 80%

040601 75 0.2 100%

040701 1, 2, 4-16, 18-21, 23-26, 28, 30-33, 35-45 1,360 54%

040702 1-24, 26-37, 39-77, 79, 80 2,265 55%

040703 1, 2, 4-9, 11-21, 23, 24, 26, 30, 32-36, 38, 

40, 42, 43 908 77%

040704 1-36 1,445 76%

040705 101-107, 109, 111, 113-132, 137-160, 

162-172, 174-178 1,637 48%

040801 1-19 596 56%

040802 1-15, 17-28, 30-43, 45-57 1,869 62%

040803 101-115, 117-137, 140-143 821 38%
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix B

B-16

040804 101-108, 110-113, 117, 119, 120, 123-

125, 130, 137 188 16%

040805 101-104, 107, 109, 125-129, 132, 133, 

135, 136, 138-142, 147, 149, 151-154 449 38%

040806 101-113, 115-117, 119-126, 128-134, 

137-145, 147, 149 825 34%

040807

101-103, 105-107, 109-112, 114, 115, 

118-121, 123, 124, 130-133, 140-142, 

144-150, 152, 153

970 39%

040808 101-107, 109, 110, 112 234 46%

 Skidding through hardwood stands should be minimized to protect the moist soils

in these areas and to prevent soil compaction and rutting. 

 Avoid locating landings and piles scheduled for burning within hardwood stands 

to protect soils. 

 Ground based operations occurring within and directly adjacent to hardwood 

stands should occur when soils are frozen. 

 Conduct prescribed fire operations within hardwood stands with the minimum fire 

intensity necessary to achieve objectives. 

 Conduct prescribed fires and pile burning when soil and humus are moist to 

minimize fire intensity and soil heating. 

 Use low intensity prescribed fire on steep slopes or highly erodible soils. 

 Locate and construct fire control lines to the minimum size and standard 

necessary to contain the fire and meet overall objectives. 
Appendix C:

MONITORING PLAN

Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix C

C-1

Monitoring Plan for the Briggs Spring Project

Introduction

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

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

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

Monitoring Implementation Guide identifies frequency and methods of data collection, 

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

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

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

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

The ID Team for the Briggs Spring project compiled additional monitoring 

objectives/items, which are summarized below. These items provide emphasis regarding 

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

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

referenced in this Monitoring Plan.

Soils and Hydrology

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

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

management activities. BMP implementation monitoring would occur during 

management activities, primarily through contract administration or oversight of Forest 

Service crew work.

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

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

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

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

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

and soils specialist.

Fuels

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

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

met.

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

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

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

metropolitan areas such as Rapid City would be assessed at the time of burning.

Noxious Weeds
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix C

C-2

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

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

Wildlife

Hell Canyon district biologist would monitor known goshawk nests every summer for 

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

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

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

Heritage

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

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

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

revisited and monitored for effects from the Briggs Spring Project following 

implementation. The selection of sites to be monitored is at the discretion of a District 

Archaeologist, and results will be sent to SHPO in the form of a site monitoring report.
Appendix D:

TREATMENTS and

POST SALE ACTIVITIES BY SITE

Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix D

D-1

Alternative 2 Treatments and Post-Sale Activities

Alternative Prescription Abbreviations:

CTHIN – Commercial Thin

GRSH – Group Shelterwood

HDWC – Hardwood Conversion

HDWR – Hardwood Release

OSR – Overstory Removal

PE – Pine Encroachment

POL – POL Thinning

SWSC – Shelterwood Seed Cut

Cover Type Abbreviations:

TPP – Ponderosa Pine

TAA – Aspen

GRA – Grass, meadow

Location/Site Site Acres

Post Sale

Cover Type

Alternative 2

Prescription

Alternative 2

Post Sale 

Activities

Alternative 2

Prescribe 

Burning 

Acres

40401-118 10 TAA DEFER

40502-18 47 TPP HWDC HWDR

40502-19 49 TPP GRSH POL, HWDR

40502-20 30 TPP GRSH POL, HWDR

40502-21 33 TPP SANITATION

40502-22 27 TAA HWDR HWDR

40502-23 28 TPP HWDC HWDR, POL

40502-24 62 TPP DEFER FUELS

40502-25 37 TPP GRSH FUELS

40502-26 20 TAA HWDR HWDR

40502-27 48 TPP HWDC HWDR

40502-28 47 TAA HWDR HWDR

40502-39 40 TPP DEFER FUELS

40502-40 44 TPP GRSH POL

40502-41 55 TPP SANITATION FUELS

40502-45 45 GRA PE PE

40502-49 20 TPP DEFER FUELS

40502-51 37 GRA PE PE

40502-52 12 GRA PE PE

40502-63 20 TPP CTHIN POL

40502-64 27 TAA HWDR HWDR

40502-65 9 TPP SANITATION

40701-1 100 TPP GRSH POL

40701-2 95 TPP CTHIN POL

40701-4 54 TPP SANITATION

40701-5 81 TPP SANITATION

40701-6 11 GRA PE PE

40701-7 97 TPP GRSH POL

40701-8 58 GRA PE PE 17

40701-9 41 TPP SANITATION
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix D

D-2

40701-10 94 TPP GRSH POL 94

40701-11 31 TPP DEFER FUELS 30

40701-12 35 TPP SANITATION POL 34

40701-13 83 TPP SANITATION POL 83

40701-14 32 TPP DEFER FUELS 31

40701-15 28 TPP SANITATION 28

40701-16 75 TPP GRSH POL 75

40701-17 15 TPP DEFER POL

40701-18 110 TPP GRSH POL

40701-19 93 TPP SANITATION POL 93

40701-20 35 TPP SANITATION POL

40701-21 71 TPP SANITATION

40701-23 73 TPP GRSH POL

40701-24 34 TPP SANITATION

40701-25 63 TPP SANITATION POL 63

40701-26 220 TPP GRSH POL

40701-28 64 TPP SANITATION 62

40701-30 72 TPP SANITATION

40701-31 65 TPP SANITATION HWDR 63

40701-32 51 TPP GRSH POL,HWDR 50

40701-33 63 TPP SANITATION POL

40701-35 25 GRA PE PE

40701-36 17 TPP DEFER POL

40701-37 45 TPP GRSH POL

40701-38 53 TPP GRSH POL

40701-39 67 TPP GRSH POL

40701-40 90 GRA PE PE 41

40701-41 35 GRA PE PE

40701-42 17 TPP DEFER 17

40701-43 4 GRA PE PE 4

40701-45 33 TPP GRSH POL 33

40702-1 131 TPP SANITATION

40702-2 85 TPP DEFER POL 83

40702-3 59 TPP SANITATION 59

40702-4 58 TPP SANITATION 58

40702-5 7 TPP GRSH

40702-6 17 TPP SANITATION

40702-7 50 TPP SWSC

40702-8 30 TPP SWSC

40702-9 68 TPP SWSC

40702-10 45 TPP SANITATION

40702-11 29 TPP SANITATION 20

40702-12 92 TPP GRSH POL 56

40702-13 68 TPP GRSH POL 68

40702-14 25 GRA PE PE

40702-15 81 TPP GRSH POL

40702-16 53 TPP DEFER POL 53

40702-17 78 TPP SANITATION 75

40702-18 22 GRA PE PE 22

40702-19 84 TPP GRSH POL 84

40702-20 56 TPP GRSH POL 56

40702-21 109 TPP GRSH POL 109

40702-22 22 TAA HWDR HWDR 22

40702-23 203 GRA PE PE 78
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix D

D-3

40702-24 48 TPP GRSH POL

40702-25 9 TAA DEFER

40702-26 50 TPP SANITATION

40702-27 42 TPP SANITATION

40702-28 29 TPP DEFER

40702-29 40 TPP SANITATION

40702-30 24 TPP SANITATION

40702-31 50 TPP GRSH POL 44

40702-32 73 TPP GRSH POL

40702-33 52 GRA PE PE 5

40702-34 49 TPP CTHIN NO POL

40702-35 61 TPP CTHIN POL, HWDR

40702-36 24 GRA PE PE

40702-37 27 TPP GRSH POL, HWDR 27

40702-38 10 TPP SANITATION

40702-39 37 TPP SANITATION

40702-40 33 TPP GRSH POL

40702-41 56 TPP GRSH POL

40702-42 35 TPP GRSH POL

40702-43 28 TPP GRSH POL

40702-44 47 TPP GRSH POL 47

40702-45 74 TPP GRSH POL 74

40702-46 63 TPP GRSH POL

40702-47 23 TPP GRSH POL

40702-48 40 TPP GRSH POL

40702-49 55 TPP GRSH POL, HWDR

40702-50 82 TPP GRSH POL, HWDR

40702-51 49 TPP SANITATION

40702-52 76 TPP GRSH POL, HWDR

40702-53 62 TPP GRSH POL, HWDR

40702-54 32 TPP GRSH POL, HWDR

40702-55 47 TPP GRSH POL

40702-56 66 TPP CTHIN POL

40702-57 35 TPP GRSH FUELS

40702-58 16 TPP SANITATION

40702-59 58 TPP DEFER POL

40702-60 59 TPP DEFER POL

40702-61 7 GRA PE PE

40702-62 39 TPP DEFER POL

40702-63 58 TPP GRSH POL, HWDR

40702-64 57 TPP GRSH POL

40702-65 40 TPP GRSH POL

40702-66 55 TPP GRSH POL, HWDR

40702-67 58 TPP SWSC POL, HWDR

40702-68 68 TPP SANITATION

40702-69 36 TPP SANITATION

40702-70 82 GRA PE PE 5

40702-71 18 TPP SANITATION

40702-72 36 TPP DEFER

40702-73 22 TPP DEFER NO POL 20

40702-74 11 TPP GRSH POL 11

40702-77 25 TPP DEFER

40702-78 4 GRA PE PE

40702-79 18 TPP DEFER
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix D

D-4

40702-80 50 TPP DEFER POL

40702-81 1 TAA HWDR HWDR

40702-82 5 TPP SANITATION

40703-1 32 TPP DEFER

40703-2 38 TPP SANITATION

40703-3 9 GRA PE PE

40703-4 41 TPP SANITATION POL

40703-5 12 TPP DEFER

40703-6 30 TPP SANITATION

40703-7 12 TPP DEFER POL

40703-8 32 TPP SANITATION POL

40703-9 19 TPP SANITATION

40703-10 29 TPP SANITATION

40703-11 50 TPP DEFER FUELS

40703-12 9 GRA PE PE

40703-13 69 TPP GRSH POL

40703-14 39 TPP DEFER FUELS

40703-15 43 TPP SANITATION FUELS

40703-16 44 TPP SANITATION

40703-17 51 TPP SANITATION

40703-18 68 TPP SANITATION

40703-19 37 TPP DEFER

40703-20 12 GRA PE PE

40703-21 20 TPP SANITATION FUELS

40703-22 24 TPP DEFER

40703-23 36 GRA PE PE

40703-24 36 TPP DEFER

40703-26 74 TPP SANITATION

40703-30 25 TPP SANITATION

40703-32 49 GRA PE PE

40703-33 18 TPP SANITATION FUELS

40703-34 56 TPP SANITATION FUELS

40703-35 68 TPP SANITATION FUELS

40703-36 14 TAA DEFER

40703-38 25 TPP SANITATION FUELS

40703-40 15 TAA DEFER

40704-1 64 TPP DEFER

40704-2 58 TPP DEFER

40704-3 18 GRA PE PE

40704-4 49 TPP SANITATION FUELS

40704-5 4 GRA PE PE

40704-6 64 TPP GRSH POL

40704-7 52 TPP SANITATION

40704-8 51 TPP SANITATION

40704-9 55 TPP GRSH POL

40704-10 69 TPP GRSH POL 68

40704-11 46 GRA PE PE 12

40704-12 60 TPP SANITATION

40704-13 53 TPP SANITATION

40704-14 30 TPP SANITATION

40704-15 23 GRA PE PE

40704-16 47 TPP GRSH POL 46

40704-17 51 TPP GRSH POL 50

40704-18 42 TPP GRSH POL 41
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix D

D-5

40704-19 46 TPP GRSH POL 46

40704-20 51 TPP GRSH POL 50

40704-21 32 TPP SANITATION

40704-22 56 TPP GRSH POL

40704-23 40 TPP GRSH POL

40704-24 82 TPP DEFER FUELS

40704-25 35 GRA PE PE 10

40704-26 52 TPP GRSH POL 52

40704-27 56 TPP GRSH POL 55

40704-28 35 TPP GRSH 30

40704-29 9 GRA PE PE

40704-30 87 TPP GRSH POL

40704-31 44 TPP GRSH POL

40704-35 12 TPP SANITATION

40704-36 27 TPP DEFER POL

40705-101 15 GRA PE PE

40705-102 9 TAA DEFER

40705-103 109 TPP GRSH POL

40705-104 13 TPP DEFER

40705-105 69 GRA PE PE

40705-106 32 TPP GRSH POL

40705-107 41 TPP DEFER

40705-108 30 TPP DEFER

40705-109 12 TPP SANITATION FUELS

40705-110 46 TPP GRSH POL

40705-111 25 TPP DEFER

40705-112 56 TPP GRSH POL

40705-113 43 TPP GRSH POL

40705-114 58 TPP GRSH POL

40705-115 40 TPP GRSH POL

40705-116 38 GRA PE PE

40705-117 44 TPP GRSH POL

40705-118 71 TPP GRSH POL

40705-119 38 TPP GRSH POL

40705-120 63 TPP DEFER

40705-121 77 GRA PE PE

40705-122 46 TPP GRSH POL

40705-123 85 TPP GRSH POL

40705-124 79 TPP GRSH POL

40705-125 30 TPP GRSH POL

40705-126 78 TPP GRSH POL

40705-127 32 TPP GRSH POL

40705-128 16 TPP GRSH POL, HWDR

40705-129 33 TPP GRSH POL, HWDR

40705-130 91 TPP DEFER

40705-131 43 TPP DEFER

40705-132 58 GRA PE PE

40705-133 7 GRA PE PE

40705-134 21 TPP GRSH POL

40705-135 42 GRA PE PE

40705-136 17 TAA DEFER

40705-137 59 GRA PE PE

40705-138 17 TPP DEFER

40705-139 76 TPP SANITATION
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix D

D-6

40705-140 63 TPP SANITATION

40705-141 80 TPP DEFER

40705-142 35 GRA PE PE

40705-143 59 TPP SANITATION

40705-144 54 TPP DEFER

40705-145 66 GRA PE PE

40705-146 53 GRA PE PE

40705-147 48 GRA PE PE

40705-148 67 TPP DEFER

40705-149 28 TPP DEFER

40705-150 56 TPP SANITATION

40705-151 78 TPP SANITATION

40705-152 45 TPP SANITATION

40705-153 54 TPP GRSH

40705-154 14 GRA PE PE 14

40705-155 33 TPP DEFER 31

40705-156 28 TPP GRSH POL, HWDR

40705-157 43 TPP DEFER

40705-158 56 GRA PE PE 35

40705-159 22 GRA PE PE

40705-160 54 TPP DEFER

40705-161 19 GRA PE PE

40705-162 35 TPP SANITATION

40705-163 42 TPP SANITATION

40705-164 31 TPP GRSH POL

40705-165 62 TPP GRSH POL

40705-166 32 TPP DEFER FUELS 32

40705-167 51 TPP DEFER FUELS 49

40705-168 69 TPP DEFER 67

40705-169 20 TPP DEFER FUELS 20

40705-170 3 TPP DEFER FUELS

40705-171 17 TPP SANITATION

40705-172 14 TPP DEFER

40705-173 10 GRA PE PE

40705-174 28 TPP SANITATION

40705-175 5 GRA PE PE 5

40705-176 24 TPP DEFER 24

40705-178 14 TPP GRSH HWDR

40801-1 10 TPP DEFER POL

40801-2 25 TPP SANITATION POL

40801-3 46 TPP DEFER

40801-4 70 TPP SANITATION

40801-5 19 TPP DEFER POL

40801-6 22 TPP SANITATION

40801-7 45 TPP SANITATION

40801-8 67 TPP SANITATION FUELS

40801-9 16 TPP DEFER POL

40801-10 53 TPP GRSH POL

40801-11 18 GRA PE PE

40801-12 58 GRA PE PE

40801-13 38 TPP GRSH POL

40801-14 10 GRA PE PE

40801-15 7 TPP DEFER

40801-16 6 GRA DEFER
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix D

D-7

40802-1 47 TPP DEFER FUELS 47

40802-2 55 TPP DEFER 55

40802-3 35 TPP DEFER

40802-4 75 TPP SWSC

40802-5 59 TPP SWSC

40802-6 36 TPP SANITATION

40802-7 37 TPP CTHIN 29

40802-8 32 TPP GRSH 32

40802-9 42 TPP GRSH 42

40802-10 65 TPP GRSH POL, HWDR 65

40802-11 59 TPP GRSH POL

40802-12 51 TPP DEFER

40802-13 32 TPP SWSC

40802-14 29 TPP SANITATION

40802-15 65 TPP DEFER POL

40802-16 8 GRA PE PE

40802-17 41 TAA HWDR HWDR 27

40802-18 26 TPP SWSC 26

40802-19 44 TPP SANITATION 44

40802-20 52 TPP SANITATION 51

40802-21 74 TPP GRSH POL 70

40802-22 25 TAA HWDR HWDR 14

40802-23 52 TPP SANITATION

40802-24 62 TPP SANITATION

40802-25 31 TPP GRSH POL 5

40802-26 19 TPP GRSH POL

40802-27 74 TPP GRSH POL 74

40802-28 30 TPP GRSH POL 30

40802-29 20 GRA PE PE 14

40802-30 106 TPP SANITATION POL 40

40802-31 63 TPP SANITATION

40802-32 84 TPP SANITATION

40802-33 72 TPP SANITATION

40802-34 50 TPP DEFER FUELS 22

40802-35 26 TPP SANITATION FUELS

40802-36 17 TPP GRSH POL, HWDR

40802-37 23 TPP GRSH POL 23

40802-38 43 TPP GRSH POL 43

40802-39 41 TPP GRSH POL 41

40802-40 61 TPP GRSH POL 61

40802-41 72 TPP GRSH POL 72

40802-42 70 TPP GRSH POL 70

40802-43 53 TPP GRSH POL 52

40802-44 58 GRA PE PE 9

40802-45 74 TPP CTHIN POL 49

40802-46 91 GRA PE PE 69

40802-47 78 TPP SANITATION FUELS 77

40802-48 4 GRA PE PE 4

40802-49 41 TPP GRSH POL 41

40802-50 79 TPP CTHIN POL 79

40802-51 73 TPP CTHIN POL

40802-52 69 TPP SANITATION FUELS

40802-53 75 TPP DEFER FUELS

40802-54 53 TPP SANITATION
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix D

D-8

40803-101 69 TPP GRSH POL

40803-102 119 TPP SANITATION

40803-103 54 TPP GRSH POL

40803-104 111 TPP GRSH POL 103

40803-105 33 TPP SANITATION

40803-106 102 TPP DEFER

40803-107 55 TPP GRSH POL

40803-108 69 TPP CTHIN POL 69

40803-109 50 TPP CTHIN POL 50

40803-110 100 TPP GRSH POL 100

40803-111 42 TPP SANITATION

40803-112 30 TPP CTHIN POL

40803-113 33 TPP SWSC HWDR

40803-114 36 TPP DEFER 32

40803-115 43 TPP CTHIN POL 32

40803-116 68 TPP DEFER FUELS

40803-117 24 TPP CTHIN POL

40803-118 49 TPP DEFER POL

40803-119 37 TPP DEFER

40803-120 30 TPP DEFER

40803-121 61 TPP CTHIN POL

40803-122 18 TPP SANITATION

40803-123 25 TPP SANITATION

40803-124 66 TPP DEFER POL

40803-125 100 TPP DEFER

40803-126 18 TPP CTHIN HWDR 18

40803-127 105 GRA PE PE 14

40803-128 52 GRA PE PE 21

40803-129 28 TPP OSR POL

40803-130 30 TPP SANITATION

40803-131 4 GRA PE PE

40803-132 31 TPP DEFER 31

40803-133 21 TPP CTHIN POL

40803-134 1 TPP SANITATION

40803-135 4 GRA PE PE

40803-143 8 TPP DEFER

40804-101 40 TPP CTHIN POL

40804-102 69 TPP SANITATION

40804-103 41 TPP CTHIN POL, HWDR

40804-104 28 TPP CTHIN POL 24

40804-105 25 GRA PE PE 25

40804-106 6 GRA PE PE 6

40804-107 19 TPP DEFER 17

40804-108 56 TPP GRSH POL, HWDR 56

40804-109 27 TPP CTHIN POL 26

40804-110 11 GRA PE PE

40804-111 10 TPP SANITATION

40804-112 47 TPP SANITATION

40804-113 44 GRA PE PE 12

40804-115 24 TPP GRSH POL, 

Deadfall 24

40804-116 28 GRA PE PE 24

40804-117 80 TPP SANITATION

40804-118 11 GRA PE PE
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix D

D-9

40804-119 73 TPP CTHIN POL, 

Deadfall 10

40804-120 56 TPP CTHIN POL, 

Deadfall 3

40804-121 15 GRA PE PE 9

40804-122 11 TAA HWDR HWDR 6

40804-123 64 TPP CTHIN POL, 

Deadfall 15

40804-124 50 TPP SANITATION DEADFALL 10

40804-125 15 TAA HWDR HWDR 12

40804-126 12 TPP DEFER

40804-129 20 TPP DEFER DEADFALL 20

40804-130 44 TPP CTHIN POL, 

Deadfall

40804-131 3 TAA HWDR HWDR

40804-133 24 TPP DEFER 24

40804-134 47 TPP DEFER DEADFALL 45

40804-135 20 TPP DEFER 16

40804-136 22 TPP DEFER

40804-137 37 TPP DEFER DEADFALL 19

40804-140 125 TPP DEFER DEADFALL 123

40805-101 64 TPP SANITATION

40805-102 49 TPP SANITATION

40805-103 27 TPP SANITATION

40805-104 51 TPP SANITATION

40805-107 80 GRA PE PE 33

40805-109 27 TPP DEFER 27

40805-121 28 TPP DEFER Deadfall, 

HWDR

40805-125 77 TPP DEFER

40805-126 38 TPP DEFER DEADFALL

40805-127 18 TPP DEFER

40805-128 10 TPP DEFER 10

40805-129 23 TPP DEFER 23

40805-132 29 TPP DEFER DEADFALL 29

40805-133 34 TPP DEFER DEADFALL 34

40805-135 33 TPP SANITATION 33

40805-136 63 TPP DEFER 63

40805-137 6 TPP SANITATION 6

40805-138 29 TPP DEFER 29

40805-139 10 TAA HWDR HWDR 10

40805-140 7 TAA DEFER HWDR 7

40805-141 18 TPP DEFER DEADFALL 18

40805-142 56 TPP SANITATION 56

40805-143 18 TPP DEFER 7

40805-144 43 TPP GRSH POL

40805-145 29 TPP DEFER DEADFALL 15

40805-146 13 TPP DEFER

40805-147 44 TPP DEFER DEADFALL

40805-148 48 TPP DEFER DEADFALL

40805-149 110 TPP DEFER DEADFALL 100

40805-151 26 TPP OSR 26

40805-152 39 TPP CTHIN POL, deadfall 39

40805-153 28 TPP SANITATION
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix D

D-10

40805-154 16 TPP DEFER DEADFALL 15

40806-101 35 TPP CTHIN POL

40806-102 84 TPP SANITATION

40806-103 96 TPP DEFER POL

40806-104 37 TPP DEFER DEADFALL

40806-105 55 TPP DEFER POL

40806-106 39 TPP DEFER

40806-107 41 TPP CTHIN POL

40806-108 62 TPP CTHIN POL

40806-109 74 TPP DEFER

40806-110 34 TPP DEFER

40806-111 48 TPP CTHIN POL

40806-112 20 TPP CTHIN POL

40806-113 5 GRA PE PE

40806-114 25 TPP CTHIN POL

40806-115 61 TPP DEFER

40806-116 72 TPP SANITATION DEADFALL

40806-117 18 TPP DEFER DEADFALL

40806-118 95 GRA PE PE

40806-119 15 TPP DEFER DEADFALL

40806-120 40 TPP CTHIN POL, HWDR

40806-121 45 TPP CTHIN HWDR

40806-122 49 TPP SANITATION

40806-123 26 TPP SANITATION

40806-124 18 TPP SANITATION

40806-125 37 TPP CTHIN HWDR

40806-126 66 TPP CTHIN POL

40806-127 21 TPP CTHIN POL

40806-128 52 TPP CTHIN POL

40806-129 34 TPP CTHIN POL

40806-130 30 TPP CTHIN POL

40806-131 70 TPP CTHIN POL 48

40806-132 106 TPP SWSC

40806-133 56 TPP DEFER POL

40806-134 84 TPP OSR POL

40806-135 26 TPP DEFER DEADFALL 26

40806-137 65 TPP CTHIN POL 59

40806-138 91 TPP SANITATION

40806-139 15 TPP SANITATION

40806-140 77 TPP DEFER DEADFALL 77

40806-141 53 TPP SANITATION DEADFALL 52

40806-142 112 TPP DEFER DEADFALL 110

40806-143 9 GRA PE DEFER 8

40806-144 38 GRA PE PE 35

40806-145 15 TPP SANITATION

40806-146 38 GRA PE PE

40806-147 10 TPP DEFER

40807-101 19 TPP DEFER

40807-102 16 TPP DEFER

40807-103 21 TPP DEFER

40807-104 14 GRA PE PE

40807-105 69 TPP SANITATION 67

40807-106 39 TPP SANITATION 20

40807-107 67 TPP DEFER
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix D

D-11

40807-108 13 GRA PE PE

40807-109 74 TPP DEFER DEADFALL

40807-110 63 TPP DEFER

40807-111 21 TPP SANITATION 21

40807-112 94 TPP DEFER DEADFALL 79

40807-114 9 TPP DEFER 9

40807-115 40 TPP SANITATION DEADFALL 28

40807-116 32 GRA PE PE 9

40807-118 29 TPP SANITATION DEADFALL 29

40807-119 57 TPP DEFER

40807-120 38 TPP DEFER DEADFALL

40807-121 53 TPP DEFER

40807-123 21 GRA PE PE

40807-124 54 TPP DEFER DEADFALL

40807-126 102 TPP DEFER

40807-128 60 TPP DEFER DEADFALL

40807-129 29 TPP GRSH POL

40807-130 21 TPP SANITATION DEADFALL 17

40807-131 19 TPP DEFER

40807-132 24 TPP DEFER DEADFALL

40807-133 28 TPP DEFER

40807-134 44 TPP DEFER

40807-135 8 GRA DEFER DEFER

40807-136 80 TPP DEFER

40807-137 58 TPP DEFER

40807-138 36 TPP DEFER

40807-139 20 GRA PE PE

40807-140 22 TPP DEFER

40807-141 28 TPP DEFER DEADFALL

40807-142 38 TPP DEFER DEADFALL

40807-143 34 TPP DEFER

40807-144 53 TPP DEFER

40807-145 25 TPP DEFER

40807-151 7 TPP SANITATION 7

40807-152 38 TPP DEFER

40807-153 24 TPP DEFER DEADFALL 10

40808-101 29 TPP DEFER

40808-102 23 TPP CTHIN POL

40808-103 40 TPP CTHIN POL

40808-104 44 TPP CTHIN POL

40808-105 56 TPP SANITATION

40808-106 139 TPP SANITATION

40808-107 14 GRA PE PE

40808-108 34 GRA PE PE

40808-109 67 TPP CTHIN POL

40808-110 21 GRA PE PE

40808-111 5 TPP DEFER

40808-112 41 TPP DEFER DEADFALL

Total Acres 24,548 6,295
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix D

D-12

Alternative 3 Treatments and Post-Sale Activities

Alternative Prescription Abbreviations:

CTHIN – Commercial Thin

GRSH – Group Shelterwood

HDWC – Hardwood Conversion

HDWR – Hardwood Release

OSR – Overstory Removal

PE – Pine Encroachment

POL – POL Thinning

SWSC – Shelterwood Seed Cut

Cover Type Abbreviations:

TPP – Ponderosa Pine

TAA – Aspen

GRA – Grass, meadow

Location/Site Site Acres

Post Sale

Cover Type

Alternative 2

Prescription

Alternative 2

Post Sale 

Activities

Alternative 2

Prescribe 

Burning 

Acres

40401-118 10 TAA DEFER

40502-18 47 TPP HWDC HWDR 47

40502-19 49 TPP GRSH POL, HWDR 19

40502-20 30 TPP GRSH POL, HWDR 17

40502-21 33 TPP SANITATION

40502-22 27 TAA HWDR HWDR 27

40502-23 28 TPP HWDC POL, HWDR 27

40502-24 62 TPP GRSH FUELS

40502-25 37 TPP GRSH FUELS 37

40502-26 20 TAA HWDR HWDR 20

40502-27 48 TAA HWDC HWDR 48

40502-28 47 TAA HWDR HWDR 47

40502-39 40 TPP GRSH FUELS 6

40502-40 44 TPP GRSH POL 9

40502-41 55 TPP GRSH FUELS

40502-45 45 GRA PE PE 45

40502-49 20 TPP GRSH FUELS

40502-51 37 GRA PE PE 37

40502-52 12 GRA PE PE 12

40502-63 20 TPP CTHIN POL 20

40502-64 27 TAA HWDR HWDR 27

40502-65 9 TPP SANITATION 9

40701-1 100 TPP GRSH FUELS

40701-2 95 TPP CTHIN POL

40701-4 54 TPP SANITATION

40701-5 81 TPP SANITATION

40701-6 11 GRA PE PE

40701-7 97 TPP GRSH POL

40701-8 58 GRA PE PE 17

40701-9 41 TPP SANITATION

40701-10 94 TPP GRSH POL 94

40701-11 31 TPP GRSH FUELS 30
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix D

D-13

40701-12 35 TPP GRSH POL 34

40701-13 83 TPP GRSH POL 83

40701-14 32 TPP GRSH FUELS 31

40701-15 28 TPP GRSH 28

40701-16 75 TPP GRSH POL 75

40701-17 15 TPP GRSH POL

40701-18 110 TPP GRSH POL

40701-19 93 TPP GRSH POL 93

40701-20 35 TPP GRSH POL

40701-21 71 TPP GRSH

40701-23 73 TPP GRSH POL

40701-24 34 TPP GRSH

40701-25 63 TPP GRSH POL 63

40701-26 220 TPP GRSH POL

40701-28 64 TPP GRSH 62

40701-30 72 TPP GRSH

40701-31 65 TPP GRSH HWDR 63

40701-32 51 TPP GRSH POL, HWDR 50

40701-33 63 TPP GRSH POL

40701-35 25 GRA PE PE

40701-36 17 TPP GRSH POL

40701-37 45 TPP GRSH POL

40701-38 53 TPP GRSH POL

40701-39 67 TPP GRSH POL

40701-40 90 GRA PE PE 41

40701-41 35 GRA PE PE

40701-42 17 TPP GRSH 17

40701-43 4 GRA PE PE 4

40701-45 33 TPP GRSH POL 33

40702-1 131 TPP SANITATION

40702-2 85 TPP GRSH POL 83

40702-3 59 TPP SANITATION 59

40702-4 58 TPP SANITATION 58

40702-5 7 TPP GRSH

40702-6 17 TPP SANITATION

40702-7 50 TPP SWSC

40702-8 30 TPP SWSC

40702-9 68 TPP SWSC

40702-10 45 TPP GRSH

40702-11 29 TPP GRSH 20

40702-12 92 TPP GRSH POL 56

40702-13 68 TPP GRSH POL 68

40702-14 25 GRA PE PE

40702-15 81 TPP GRSH POL

40702-16 53 TPP GRSH POL 53

40702-17 78 TPP SANITATION 75

40702-18 22 GRA PE PE 22

40702-19 84 TPP GRSH POL 84

40702-20 56 TPP GRSH POL 56

40702-21 109 TPP GRSH POL 109

40702-22 22 TAA HWDR HWDR 22

40702-23 203 GRA PE PE 78

40702-24 48 TPP GRSH POL

40702-25 9 TAA DEFER
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix D

D-14

40702-26 50 TPP SANITATION

40702-27 42 TPP SANITATION

40702-28 29 TPP GRSH

40702-29 40 TPP SANITATION

40702-30 24 TPP SANITATION

40702-31 50 TPP GRSH POL 44

40702-32 73 TPP GRSH POL

40702-33 52 GRA PE PE 5

40702-34 49 TPP CTHIN

40702-35 61 TPP CTHIN POL, HWDR

40702-36 24 GRA PE PE

40702-37 27 TPP GRSH POL, HWDR 27

40702-38 10 TPP SANITATION

40702-39 37 TPP SANITATION

40702-40 33 TPP GRSH POL

40702-41 56 TPP GRSH POL

40702-42 35 TPP GRSH POL

40702-43 28 TPP GRSH POL

40702-44 47 TPP GRSH POL 47

40702-45 74 TPP GRSH POL 74

40702-46 63 TPP GRSH POL

40702-47 23 TPP GRSH POL

40702-48 40 TPP GRSH POL

40702-49 55 TPP GRSH POL, HWDR

40702-50 82 TPP GRSH POL, HWDR

40702-51 49 TPP SANITATION

40702-52 76 TPP GRSH POL, HWDR

40702-53 62 TPP GRSH POL, HWDR

40702-54 32 TPP GRSH POL, HWDR

40702-55 47 TPP GRSH POL

40702-56 66 TPP CTHIN POL

40702-57 35 TPP GRSH FUELS

40702-58 16 TPP GRSH

40702-59 58 TPP GRSH POL

40702-60 59 TPP GRSH POL

40702-61 7 GRA PE PE

40702-62 39 TPP GRSH POL

40702-63 58 TPP GRSH POL, HWDR

40702-64 57 TPP GRSH POL

40702-65 40 TPP GRSH POL

40702-66 55 TPP GRSH POL, HWDR

40702-67 58 TPP SWSC POL, HWDR

40702-68 68 TPP SANITATION

40702-69 36 TPP SANITATION

40702-70 82 GRA PE PE 5

40702-71 18 TPP GRSH

40702-72 36 TPP GRSH

40702-73 22 TPP GRSH 20

40702-74 11 TPP GRSH POL 11

40702-77 25 TPP DEFER

40702-78 4 GRA PE PE

40702-79 18 TPP GRSH

40702-80 50 TPP GRSH POL

40702-81 1 TAA HWDR HWDR
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix D

D-15

40702-82 5 TPP SANITATION

40703-1 32 TPP GRSH

40703-2 38 TPP GRSH

40703-3 9 GRA PE PE

40703-4 41 TPP GRSH POL

40703-5 12 TPP GRSH

40703-6 30 TPP GRSH

40703-7 12 TPP GRSH POL

40703-8 32 TPP GRSH POL

40703-9 19 TPP GRSH

40703-10 29 TPP SANITATION

40703-11 50 TPP GRSH FUELS

40703-12 9 GRA PE PE

40703-13 69 TPP GRSH POL

40703-14 39 TPP GRSH FUELS

40703-15 43 TPP GRSH FUELS

40703-16 44 TPP SANITATION

40703-17 51 TPP GRSH

40703-18 68 TPP SANITATION

40703-19 37 TPP GRSH

40703-20 12 GRA PE PE

40703-21 20 TPP GRSH FUELS

40703-22 24 TPP GRSH

40703-23 36 GRA PE PE

40703-24 36 TPP GRSH

40703-26 74 TPP GRSH

40703-30 25 TPP GRSH

40703-32 49 GRA PE PE

40703-33 18 TPP GRSH FUELS

40703-34 56 TPP GRSH FUELS

40703-35 68 TPP GRSH FUELS

40703-36 14 TAA DEFER

40703-38 25 TPP GRSH FUELS

40703-40 15 TAA DEFER

40704-1 64 TPP GRSH

40704-2 58 TPP GRSH

40704-3 18 GRA PE PE

40704-4 49 TPP SANITATION FUELS

40704-5 4 GRA PE PE

40704-6 64 TPP GRSH POL

40704-7 52 TPP GRSH

40704-8 51 TPP GRSH

40704-9 55 TPP GRSH POL

40704-10 69 TPP GRSH POL 68

40704-11 46 GRA PE PE 12

40704-12 60 TPP GRSH

40704-13 53 TPP GRSH

40704-14 30 TPP SANITATION

40704-15 23 GRA PE PE

40704-16 47 TPP GRSH POL 46

40704-17 51 TPP GRSH POL 50

40704-18 42 TPP GRSH POL 41

40704-19 46 TPP GRSH POL 46

40704-20 51 TPP GRSH POL 50
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix D

D-16

40704-21 32 TPP GRSH

40704-22 56 TPP GRSH POL

40704-23 40 TPP GRSH POL

40704-24 82 TPP GRSH FUELS 19

40704-25 35 GRA PE PE 10

40704-26 52 TPP GRSH POL 52

40704-27 56 TPP GRSH POL 55

40704-28 35 TPP GRSH 30

40704-29 9 GRA PE PE

40704-30 87 TPP GRSH POL

40704-31 44 TPP GRSH POL

40704-35 12 TPP SANITATION

40704-36 27 TPP DEFER POL

40705-101 15 GRA PE PE

40705-102 9 TAA HWDR

40705-103 109 TPP GRSH POL

40705-104 13 TPP GRSH

40705-105 69 GRA PE PE

40705-106 32 TPP GRSH POL

40705-107 41 TPP GRSH

40705-108 30 TPP GRSH

40705-109 12 TPP GRSH FUELS

40705-110 46 TPP GRSH POL

40705-111 25 TPP GRSH

40705-112 56 TPP GRSH POL

40705-113 43 TPP GRSH POL

40705-114 58 TPP GRSH POL

40705-115 40 TPP GRSH POL

40705-116 38 GRA PE PE

40705-117 44 TPP GRSH POL

40705-118 71 TPP GRSH POL

40705-119 38 TPP GRSH POL

40705-120 63 TPP GRSH

40705-121 77 GRA PE PE 5

40705-122 46 TPP GRSH POL

40705-123 85 TPP GRSH POL

40705-124 79 TPP GRSH POL

40705-125 30 TPP GRSH POL

40705-126 78 TPP GRSH POL

40705-127 32 TPP GRSH POL

40705-128 16 TPP GRSH POL, HWDR

40705-129 33 TPP GRSH POL, HWDR 11

40705-130 91 TPP GRSH POL 29

40705-131 43 TPP GRSH POL 7

40705-132 58 GRA PE PE 23

40705-133 7 GRA PE PE

40705-134 21 TPP GRSH POL

40705-135 42 GRA PE PE

40705-136 17 TAA DEFER

40705-137 59 GRA PE PE 34

40705-138 17 TPP GRSH POL 17

40705-139 76 TPP SANITATION

40705-140 63 TPP SANITATION

40705-141 80 TPP GRSH
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix D

D-17

40705-142 35 GRA PE PE

40705-143 59 TPP SANITATION

40705-144 54 TPP GRSH POL

40705-145 66 GRA PE PE

40705-146 53 GRA PE PE 52

40705-147 48 GRA PE PE 42

40705-148 67 TPP DEFER

40705-149 28 TPP DEFER

40705-150 56 TPP SANITATION

40705-151 78 TPP SANITATION

40705-152 45 TPP SANITATION

40705-153 54 TPP GRSH

40705-154 14 GRA PE PE 14

40705-155 33 TPP GRSH 31

40705-156 28 TPP GRSH POL, HWDR

40705-157 43 TPP GRSH

40705-158 56 GRA PE PE 35

40705-159 22 GRA PE PE

40705-160 54 TPP GRSH

40705-161 19 GRA PE PE

40705-162 35 TPP SANITATION

40705-163 42 TPP GRSH

40705-164 31 TPP GRSH POL

40705-165 62 TPP GRSH POL

40705-166 32 TPP GRSH FUELS 32

40705-167 51 TPP GRSH FUELS 49

40705-168 69 TPP GRSH 67

40705-169 20 TPP GRSH FUELS 20

40705-170 3 TPP GRSH FUELS

40705-171 17 TPP SANITATION

40705-172 14 TPP DEFER 14

40705-173 10 GRA PE PE

40705-174 28 TPP SANITATION

40705-175 5 GRA PE PE 5

40705-176 24 TPP GRSH 24

40705-178 14 TPP GRSH HWDR

40801-1 10 TPP GRSH POL

40801-2 25 TPP GRSH POL

40801-3 46 TPP GRSH

40801-4 70 TPP SANITATION

40801-5 19 TPP GRSH POL

40801-6 22 TPP GRSH

40801-7 45 TPP SANITATION

40801-8 67 TPP GRSH FUELS

40801-9 16 TPP GRSH POL

40801-10 53 TPP GRSH POL

40801-11 18 GRA PE PE

40801-12 58 GRA PE PE

40801-13 38 TPP GRSH POL

40801-14 10 GRA PE PE

40801-15 7 TPP DEFER

40801-16 6 GRA DEFER

40802-1 47 TPP GRSH FUELS 47

40802-2 55 TPP GRSH 55
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix D

D-18

40802-3 35 TPP GRSH

40802-4 75 TPP SWSC

40802-5 59 TPP SWSC

40802-6 36 TPP SANITATION

40802-7 37 TPP CTHIN 29

40802-8 32 TPP GRSH 32

40802-9 42 TPP GRSH 42

40802-10 65 TPP GRSH POL, HWDR 65

40802-11 59 TPP GRSH POL

40802-12 51 TPP DEFER

40802-13 32 TPP SWSC

40802-14 29 TPP SANITATION

40802-15 65 TPP GRSH POL

40802-16 8 GRA PE PE

40802-17 41 TAA HWDR HWDR 27

40802-18 26 TPP SWSC 26

40802-19 44 TPP SANITATION 44

40802-20 52 TPP SANITATION 51

40802-21 74 TPP GRSH POL 70

40802-22 25 TAA HWDR HWDR 14

40802-23 52 TPP SANITATION POL

40802-24 62 TPP SANITATION POL

40802-25 31 TPP GRSH POL 5

40802-26 19 TPP GRSH POL

40802-27 74 TPP GRSH POL 74

40802-28 30 TPP GRSH POL 30

40802-29 20 GRA PE PE 14

40802-30 106 TPP SANITATION POL 40

40802-31 63 TPP SANITATION POL

40802-32 84 TPP SANITATION POL

40802-33 72 TPP SANITATION POL

40802-34 50 TPP GRSH FUELS 22

40802-35 26 TPP GRSH FUELS

40802-36 17 TPP GRSH POL, HWDR

40802-37 23 TPP GRSH POL 23

40802-38 43 TPP GRSH POL 43

40802-39 41 TPP GRSH POL 41

40802-40 61 TPP GRSH POL 61

40802-41 72 TPP GRSH POL 72

40802-42 70 TPP GRSH POL 70

40802-43 53 TPP GRSH POL 52

40802-44 58 GRA PE PE 9

40802-45 74 TPP CTHIN POL 49

40802-46 91 GRA PE PE 69

40802-47 78 TPP GRSH POL 77

40802-48 4 GRA PE PE 4

40802-49 41 TPP GRSH POL 41

40802-50 79 TPP CTHIN POL 79

40802-51 73 TPP CTHIN POL

40802-52 69 TPP SANITATION FUELS

40802-53 75 TPP GRSH FUELS

40802-54 53 TPP GRSH

40803-101 69 TPP GRSH POL

40803-102 119 TPP SANITATION
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix D

D-19

40803-103 54 TPP GRSH POL

40803-104 111 TPP GRSH POL 103

40803-105 33 TPP SANITATION

40803-106 102 TPP GRSH

40803-107 55 TPP GRSH POL

40803-108 69 TPP CTHIN POL 69

40803-109 50 TPP CTHIN POL 50

40803-110 100 TPP GRSH POL 100

40803-111 42 TPP SANITATION

40803-112 30 TPP CTHIN POL

40803-113 33 TPP SWSC HWDR

40803-114 36 TPP GRSH 32

40803-115 43 TPP CTHIN POL 32

40803-116 68 TPP GRSH FUELS

40803-117 24 TPP CTHIN POL

40803-118 49 TPP GRSH POL

40803-119 37 TPP GRSH

40803-120 30 TPP GRSH

40803-121 61 TPP CTHIN POL

40803-122 18 TPP SANITATION

40803-123 25 TPP SANITATION

40803-124 66 TPP GRSH POL

40803-125 100 TPP GRSH

40803-126 18 TPP CTHIN HWDR 18

40803-127 105 GRA PE PE 14

40803-128 52 GRA PE PE 21

40803-129 28 TPP OSR POL

40803-130 30 TPP SANITATION

40803-131 4 GRA PE PE

40803-132 31 TPP GRSH 31

40803-133 21 TPP CTHIN POL

40803-134 1 TPP SANITATION

40803-135 4 GRA PE PE

40803-143 8 TPP GRSH

40804-101 40 TPP CTHIN POL

40804-102 69 TPP SANITATION

40804-103 41 TPP CTHIN POL, HWDR

40804-104 28 TPP CTHIN POL 24

40804-105 25 GRA PE PE 25

40804-106 6 GRA PE PE 6

40804-107 19 TPP GRSH 17

40804-108 56 TPP GRSH POL, HWDR 56

40804-109 27 TPP CTHIN POL 26

40804-110 11 GRA PE PE

40804-111 10 TPP SANITATION

40804-112 47 TPP SANITATION

40804-113 44 GRA PE PE 12

40804-115 24 TPP GRSH POL, 

Deadfall 24

40804-116 28 GRA PE PE 24

40804-117 80 TPP SANITATION

40804-118 11 GRA PE PE

40804-119 73 TPP CTHIN POL, 

Deadfall 10
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix D

D-20

40804-120 56 TPP CTHIN POL, 

Deadfall 3

40804-121 15 GRA PE PE 9

40804-122 11 TAA HWDR HWDR 6

40804-123 64 TPP CTHIN POL, 

Deadfall 15

40804-124 50 TPP SANITATION DEADFALL 10

40804-125 15 TAA HWDR HWDR

40804-126 12 TPP DEFER 12

40804-129 20 TPP GRSH DEADFALL 20

40804-130 44 TPP CTHIN POL, 

Deadfall

40804-131 3 TAA HWDR HWDR

40804-133 24 TPP GRSH 24

40804-134 47 TPP DEFER DEADFALL 45

40804-135 20 TPP DEFER 16

40804-136 22 TPP DEFER

40804-137 37 TPP GRSH DEADFALL 19

40804-140 125 TPP GRSH DEADFALL 123

40805-101 64 TPP SANITATION

40805-102 49 TPP SANITATION

40805-103 27 TPP SANITATION

40805-104 51 TPP SANITATION

40805-107 80 GRA PE PE 33

40805-109 27 TPP DEFER 27

40805-121 28 TPP GRSH Deadfall, 

HWDR

40805-125 77 TPP GRSH

40805-126 38 TPP GRSH DEADFALL

40805-127 18 TPP DEFER

40805-128 10 TPP GRSH 10

40805-129 23 TPP DEFER 23

40805-132 29 TPP GRSH DEADFALL 29

40805-133 34 TPP DEFER DEADFALL 34

40805-135 33 TPP SANITATION 33

40805-136 63 TPP DEFER 63

40805-137 6 TPP SANITATION 6

40805-138 29 TPP GRSH 29

40805-139 10 TAA HWDR HWDR 10

40805-140 7 TAA DEFER HWDR 7

40805-141 18 TPP DEFER DEADFALL 18

40805-142 56 TPP SANITATION 56

40805-143 18 TPP DEFER 7

40805-144 43 TPP GRSH

40805-145 29 TPP DEFER DEADFALL 15

40805-146 13 TPP GRSH

40805-147 44 TPP DEFER DEADFALL

40805-148 48 TPP GRSH DEADFALL

40805-149 110 TPP GRSH DEADFALL 100

40805-151 26 TPP OSR 26

40805-152 39 TPP CTHIN POL, deadfall 39

40805-153 28 TPP SANITATION

40805-154 16 TPP GRSH DEADFALL 15

40806-101 35 TPP CTHIN POL
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix D

D-21

40806-102 84 TPP SANITATION

40806-103 96 TPP GRSH POL

40806-104 37 TPP GRSH DEADFALL

40806-105 55 TPP GRSH POL

40806-106 39 TPP GRSH

40806-107 41 TPP CTHIN POL

40806-108 62 TPP CTHIN POL

40806-109 74 TPP GRSH

40806-110 34 TPP GRSH

40806-111 48 TPP CTHIN POL

40806-112 20 TPP CTHIN POL

40806-113 5 GRA PE PE

40806-114 25 TPP CTHIN POL

40806-115 61 TPP GRSH

40806-116 72 TPP GRSH DEADFALL

40806-117 18 TPP GRSH DEADFALL

40806-118 95 GRA PE PE

40806-119 15 TPP GRSH DEADFALL

40806-120 40 TPP CTHIN POL, HWDR

40806-121 45 TPP CTHIN HWDR

40806-122 49 TPP SANITATION

40806-123 26 TPP SANITATION

40806-124 18 TPP SANITATION

40806-125 37 TPP CTHIN HWDR

40806-126 66 TPP CTHIN POL

40806-127 21 TPP CTHIN POL

40806-128 52 TPP CTHIN POL

40806-129 34 TPP CTHIN POL

40806-130 30 TPP CTHIN POL

40806-131 70 TPP CTHIN POL 48

40806-132 106 TPP SWSC

40806-133 56 TPP GRSH POL

40806-134 84 TPP OSR POL

40806-135 26 TPP GRSH DEADFALL 26

40806-137 65 TPP CTHIN POL 59

40806-138 91 TPP SANITATION

40806-139 15 TPP SANITATION

40806-140 77 TPP GRSH DEADFALL 77

40806-141 53 TPP GRSH DEADFALL 52

40806-142 112 TPP GRSH DEADFALL 110

40806-143 9 GRA DEFER 8

40806-144 38 GRA PE PE 35

40806-145 15 TPP SANITATION

40806-146 38 GRA PE PE

40806-147 10 TPP DEFER

40807-101 19 TPP GRSH

40807-102 16 TPP GRSH

40807-103 21 TPP GRSH

40807-104 14 GRA PE PE

40807-105 69 TPP SANITATION 67

40807-106 39 TPP GRSH 20

40807-107 67 TPP GRSH

40807-108 13 GRA PE PE

40807-109 74 TPP DEFER DEADFALL
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix D

D-22

40807-110 63 TPP GRSH

40807-111 21 TPP SANITATION 21

40807-112 94 TPP GRSH DEADFALL 78

40807-114 9 TPP GRSH 9

40807-115 40 TPP GRSH DEADFALL 28

40807-116 32 GRA PE PE 9

40807-118 29 TPP SANITATION DEADFALL 29

40807-119 57 TPP GRSH

40807-120 38 TPP GRSH DEADFALL

40807-121 53 TPP DEFER

40807-123 21 GRA PE PE

40807-124 54 TPP GRSH DEADFALL

40807-126 102 TPP DEFER

40807-128 60 TPP GRSH DEADFALL

40807-129 29 TPP GRSH POL

40807-130 21 TPP GRSH DEADFALL 17

40807-131 19 TPP GRSH

40807-132 24 TPP DEFER DEADFALL

40807-133 28 TPP DEFER

40807-134 44 TPP DEFER

40807-135 8 GRA DEFER

40807-136 80 TPP DEFER

40807-137 58 TPP DEFER

40807-138 36 TPP DEFER

40807-139 20 GRA PE PE

40807-140 22 TPP GRSH

40807-141 28 TPP DEFER DEADFALL

40807-142 38 TPP GRSH DEADFALL

40807-143 34 TPP GRSH

40807-144 53 TPP GRSH

40807-145 25 TPP DEFER

40807-151 7 TPP SANITATION 7

40807-152 38 TPP DEFER 10

40807-153 24 TPP GRSH DEADFALL

40808-101 29 TPP GRSH

40808-102 23 TPP CTHIN POL

40808-103 40 TPP CTHIN POL

40808-104 44 TPP CTHIN POL

40808-105 56 TPP SANITATION

40808-106 139 TPP SANITATION

40808-107 14 GRA PE PE

40808-108 34 GRA PE PE

40808-109 67 TPP CTHIN POL

40808-110 21 GRA PE PE

40808-111 5 TPP DEFER

40808-112 41 TPP GRSH DEADFALL

Total Acres 24,548 7,009

Riparian Fencing/Protection

Buck and Pole Fence (6240- option A): Alternatives 2 and 3 

Construct buck and pole fence to protect water sources Redbank Spring (040705-145) 

and Willow Spring (040702-23).
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix D

D-23

FY 2011 estimated cost for 200 feet = $3,096

800 feet planned: 4 X $3,096 = $12,384

Install Elk Cable: Alternatives 2 and 3

Install a length of elk cable on existing riparian exclosure fences to prevent elk knocking 

down the fence at Willow Spring (040702-23) and Herrin Wildlife Ponds (040802-44).

2500 feet planned: 40 cents/foot for cable = $1,000; 

Additional supplies and labor = $1,500

Total estimate = $2,500

Shrubs

Willow Planting with Protective Cages (6080): Alternatives 2 and 3

Collect native willow cuttings and grow at Bessey Nursery. Plant 200 willows per acre 

split between Willow Spring (040702-23) and Herrin Wildlife Ponds (040802-44). One 

cage per 5 willows.

FY 2011 estimated cost per acre = $1,598.72

1 acre planned: 1 X $1,598.72 = $1,598.72

Habitat Access Management

Habitat Access Management- Berms (6240): Alternatives 2 and 3

Close with an earthen berm (or boulders) roads identified as non-essential, such as user 

created roads.

FY 2011 estimate per berm (closure) = $419.00

20 closures planned: 20 X $419.00 = $8,380.00

Habitat Access Management- Carsonite Posts: Alternatives 2 and 3

Place carsonite post where user created roads are to be closed in the action alternatives.

FY 2011 estimate per carsonite post = $40.00

50 carsonite posts planned: 50 X $40.00 = $2,000.00

Appendix E:

FINDINGS: SILVICULTURE
 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix E

E-1

Silvicultural Findings of Compliance with Laws, Regulations, and Policy

Briggs Spring EA

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

silvicultural prescription:

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

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

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

resource management objectives. 

All areas to be harvested are in the 5.1 Management Area (MA) – Resource 

Production Emphasis. Theme: “These areas are managed for wood products, 

water yield, and forage production, while providing other commercial products, 

visual quality, diversity of wildlife and a variety of other goods and services. 

Numerous open roads provide commercial access and roaded recreation 

opportunities, while closed roads provide non-motorized recreation 

opportunities.”

Table E-1. Alternative 2 treatment acres in MA 

5.1

Treatment MA 5.1

Commercial Thinning 2,204

Overstory Removal 138

Shelterwood Seed Cut 479

Group Shelterwood 6,376

Hardwood Conversion 123

Hardwood Release 250

Sanitation 6,063

Pine Encroachment 2,674

Table E-2. Alternative 3 treatment acres in MA 

5.1

Treatment MA 5.1

Commercial Thinning 2,204

Overstory Removal 138

Shelterwood Seed Cut 479

Group Shelterwood 13,845

Hardwood Conversion 123

Hardwood Release 259

Sanitation 3,678
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix E

E-2

Pine Encroachment 2,674

2. Silvicultural treatments are consistent with the Forest Plan.

Forest Plan Standard 2408, Phase II Amendment, page II-25, for acceptable 

silvicultural systems.

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

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

See the Briggs Spring Hydrology specialist report.

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

after final regeneration harvest. 

All stands within the project area that are to receive shelterwood removals can be 

adequately restocked within 5 years of harvest. The minimum tree stocking 

standards for Region 2 will be met. Region 2 minimum stocking standards are 

described in FSH 2409.26b Reforestation Handbook R2 Amendment No. 

2409.26b – 93-2. 

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

5th years), and on all selection cuts (5th year) to assure the stands have regenerated 

properly. There will be no clearcutting in the Briggs project area.

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

protected from detrimental changes in water temperatures, blockages of water 

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

adversely affect water conditions or fish habitat. 

See the Briggs Spring Hydrology specialist report.

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

the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output of timber.

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

1. For clearcutting, it is the optimum method. 

Clearcutting will not be used in the Briggs Spring project area.

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

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

Forest Plan Standard 2408, Phase II Amendment, page II-25, for acceptable 

silvicultural systems.

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

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

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

See the Briggs Spring specialist reports.
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix E

E-3

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

with the natural terrain. 

See the Briggs Spring Visual Quality specialist report.

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

maximum size limit requirement. 

Forest Plan Standard 2101, Phase II Amendment, page II-17.

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

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

of timber resources.

See: Briggs Spring Botany BE and specialist report

Briggs Spring Wildlife BE and specialist report

Briggs Spring Hydrology specialist report

Briggs Spring Heritage specialist report

Briggs Spring Recreation specialist report

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

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

increment of growth (CMAI).

Page II-26 of the Black Hills Forest Plan Guideline 2411. Regeneration 

harvests of even-aged timber stands should not be undertaken until the 

stands have generally reached (or surpassed 95% of the) culmination of the 

mean annual increment measured in cubic feet.

CMAI occurs when the periodic annual increment equals the mean annual 

increment (MAI). MAI is calculated by adding the current stand volume with any 

mortality or previous removal and then dividing by the stand age. 

Finding prepared by: Date:

Nancy S. Bayne, Certified Silviculturist

Finding recommended by: Date:

Nancy S. Bayne, Certified Silviculturist

Finding accepted by: Date:

Lynn D. Kolund, District Ranger

Appendix F:

PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE

ACTIVITIES

Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix F

F-1

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Activities

The following is a summary of activities within the Briggs Spring project area. 

Past History

The Briggs area has been commercially harvested many times in the past. Present day 

records (RIS database, old harvest atlas, and the thinning atlas) indicate commercial 

harvest activity from the 1970s to the present along with precommercial thinning, weed 

and release, and mechanical site prep. 

Redbank, Dumbuk, and Thumb are the most recent timber sales in the analysis area. 

Redbank and Dumbuk closed FY2004 and all post sale activities are to be completed by 

FY2012 and Thumb closed FY2007 and all post sale activities are to be completed by 

FY2012. Portions of the Stateline and Run timber sales and the Cattle Salvage sale were 

also within the Briggs area. The Cattle Salvage sale was sold in August 2004 to salvage 

mountain pine beetle infested timber and closed in 2005. Run closed in FY2005 and

Stateline closed in FY2006. All post sale activities are to be completed by FY2010 in 

Run and FY2011 in Stateline. 

Precommerical thinning has been used a great deal in the analysis area during the 1980s 

and 1990s with weed and release only used within the last decade. Since the 1980s until 

present, more than 6700 acres have been treated by precommerical thinning methods 

throughout the analysis area.

The grasses in some of the locations grow to form a thick matt of grass, which prevents 

ponderosa pine seedlings from getting established. To provide a seedbed mechanical site 

prep was used to expose mineral soil in the area to encourage natural regeneration in the 

ponderosa pine. In the early 1990s, 636 acres were mechanically site prepped.

In 2000 the Jasper Fire burned the southern end of the Dumbuk timber sale. Some of the 

area was salvage logged after the fire.

Some of the private land has been logged in the past and a few parcels of private land 

burned in the Jasper Fire of 2000. Most of the private land is mostly used for grazing 

cattle. There are a few parcels that are used for summer residences and hunting.

Present

Current timber sales located with the project area are as follows:

The Thumb timber sale encompasses most of the northern half of the project area on the 

north side of the Six-mile Road (FDR 301). This sale closed in 2000 and post sale 

activities will be on going until 2000. The Redbank timber sale is also located in the 

northern half of the analysis area on the northwest end. Redbank sale closed fiscal year 

2004 and post sale activities will be ongoing until 2009. The Dumbuk timber sale is 

south of the Six-mile Road (FDR 301) and runs down to the Custer-Limestone Road 

(FDR 284). Dumbuk was completed in fiscal year 2005 and post sale activities will end 

in 2010. 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix F

F-2

The Stateline timber sale (west side) closed in the summer of 2006 and post sale activities 

will be ongoing until 2011. The Run timber (west side) sale closed in 2005 and a few 

post sale activities will continue until 2010. 

Current timber sales adjacent to the project areas are as follows:

The Nest timber sale, northeast of Briggs, closed in fiscal year 2008 and post sale 

activities will be on-going until 2013. West of the Briggs analysis area is the Nottingham 

timber sale that was recently sold in December 2008. Nottingham is in the Mallo area. 

South of Nottingham is the Friar Tuck timber sale. Friar Tuck is to sell fiscal year 2010. 

To the south of Friar Tuck is the Sherwood timber sale. Sherwood runs north from the 

Summit Ridge Road (FDR 265). The Coulsen timber sale is to the northeast of the 

project area. This sale closed in fiscal year 2009 and post sale activities will be on-going 

through 2014.

The private land is used for cattle grazing, residences, and hunting opportunities.

Reasonably Foreseeable

All the timber sales within the boundaries of the planning area have all completed any 

post sale vegetative treatments except for Run. In fiscal year 2009 Run will finished up 

with weed and release. All remaining timber activities from these sales will only include 

regeneration surveys.

In areas adjacent to the Briggs analysis area, the Nest and Coulsen timber sales will begin 

post sale activities. There will be no timber vegetative treatments in Nest only 

regeneration surveys. Coulsen will have weed and release, precommercial thinning, and 

aspen release. All commercial harvesting activities in Nottingham and Sherwood timber 

sales will continue and commercial harvesting will start up once Friar Tuck timber sale 

has been sold. 

The adjacent Pole Creek analysis area is on the Mystic District north of the Six-mile 

Road and is east of Briggs. This project would entail prescribe burning only and could be 

implemented as early as spring 2009 or fall 2009.

The private land will be used for grazing cattle, summer residences, and hunting.
Appendix G:

SUMMARY: BIOLOGICAL

ASSESSMENT and BIOLOGICAL

EVALUATION

Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix G

G-1

Summary of Botany and Wildlife 

Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation

Introduction

This is a summary of the Briggs Spring project Biological Assessment/Biological 

Evaluations (BA/BEs), and is a review and analysis of actions proposed in the Briggs 

Spring Project Draft Environmental Assessment. The full BA/BEs are in the Briggs 

Spring project file. The purpose of a BA/BE is to determine how the proposed action and 

alternatives to the proposed action will affect federally listed species or sensitive species 

listed by the Rocky Mountain Region (FSM 2670, R2 2600-94-2). The Briggs Spring 

BA/BEs are prepared in accordance with legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (19 U.S.C. 1536 (c)), and follow standards 

established in Forest Service Manual direction (2672.42) and the Code of Federal 

Regulations (50 CFR S402). The Briggs Spring BA/BEs tier directly to the EIS for the 

revised Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) 

as amended, the BA/BE completed for the Forest Plan revision, and the BA/BE prepared 

for the Phase II Amendment (USDA Forest Service, 2006).

Pre-field Review and Field Reconnaissance

Botany

Federally Listed Plant Species

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) website list for Threatened and Endangered 

species was accessed on September 14, 2010 for the state of South Dakota. There are no 

threatened or endangered plant species habitat known to occur in the State of South 

Dakota, nor does habitat that could support threatened or endangered plant species 

known from adjacent states occur in the project area (USFWS, 2010a).

Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species

The Region 2 Forest Service sensitive species list was updated by the Regional Forester on June 

9, 2009 (USDA Forest Service, 2009). All R2 sensitive plant species potentially occurring in the 

Black Hills National Forest were considered in the evaluation. Based on the pre-field review, no 

Region 2 sensitive plant species or suitable habitat has been located within the 

project area. A pre-field review was conducted of available information to assemble 

occurrence records, describe habitat needs and ecological requirements, and determine 

whether field reconnaissance is needed to complete the analysis. Sources of information 

included botanical surveys, Forest Service records and files, local professional judgment, 

and published research.

Wildlife

Federally Listed Animal Species

There are no federally listed wildlife species in the Briggs Spring project area. A list of 

federally threatened, endangered and proposed species has been provided by the U.S. 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix G

G-2

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), South Dakota State Office, and was last updated on 

December 21, 2010 (USFWS, 2011). The South Dakota State Office is the primary 

center for all of the Black Hills, including Wyoming. The USFWS lists the following 

endangered and/or threatened species for Pennington County, South Dakota: whooping 

crane, least tern and black-footed ferret.

The whooping crane and least tern have been removed from the list of species considered 

on the Black Hills National Forest under section 7 consultation (letter of concurrence 

from D. Gober, Field Supervisor, USFWS, Pierre, South Dakota, dated August 8, 2003). 

Although the black-footed ferret is listed for Pennington County, it is an experimental 

population located in eastern Pennington County, where they have been re-introduced 

into Badlands National Park and the Conata Basin of Buffalo Gap National Grassland. 

Habitat for the black-footed ferret is not present in the project area. There are no prairie 

dog colonies present. It was determined that management activities on the Forest would 

have ‘no effect’ on these species since the Black Hills National Forest lacks suitable 

habitat.

Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species

The current sensitive species list for the Rocky Mountain Region (R2) was renewed on

June 9, 2009. Sensitive species for the Black Hills National Forest are listed on the R2 

threatened, endangered and sensitive species home page (USDA Forest Service, 2010a). 

There are now 26 species on the Region 2 sensitive species list that could be present in 

the Black Hills.

The pre-field review of Region 2 Sensitive Species and Federally Endangered and 

Threatened and Proposed species was completed using survey results, district records, 

communication with District personnel, literature reviews, on-line databases and the 

South Dakota Natural Heritage Database. The following R2 sensitive species have been 

found within the project area: bald eagle, northern goshawk, northern harrier, blackbacked woodpecker, northern leopard frog and Black Hills redbelly snake.

The following table lists an endangered species (black-footed ferret) and Region 2 

sensitive species that may be present in the Black Hills. Of the 26 R2 sensitive species in 

the table, thirteen have suitable habitat in the Briggs Spring project area and may be 

impacted by the alternatives (Table G-1).

Table G-1. Expected occurrence of Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and R2 Sensitive 

Species within Briggs Spring project area

Species Status1 Species

Present2

Habitat

Present/ 

Analysis 

Provided3

Habitat

Description

Black-footed ferret 

(Mustela nigripes) XN NO NO

Prairie dog towns (USFWS, 2008a). No 

reintroduction sites or other known 

occupied habitat in Black Hills.

Bald eagle

(Haliaeetus

leucocephalus) S YES YES

Winter resident in the Black Hills and 

spring/fall migrant. Usually found near 

unfrozen water or carrion in winter 

(Tallman et al., 2002).

Rocky Mountain Open habitats such as grasslands, talus 
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix G

G-3

Table G-1. Expected occurrence of Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and R2 Sensitive 

Species within Briggs Spring project area

Species Status1 Species

Present2

Habitat

Present/ 

Analysis 

Provided3

Habitat

Description

bighorn sheep (Ovis 

canadensis 

canadensis)

S NO NO slopes, and rock outcrops where forage 

plants are abundant and escape cover is 

nearby (Beecham et al., 2007).

Fringed myotis

(Myotis thysanodes) S NO YES

Forages on insects in a variety of habitats 

including grasslands and forested areas. 

Roosts in a variety of structures 

including caves, mines, and buildings 

(Schmidt, 2003a).

Townsend’s big-eared 

bat

(Corynorhinus

townsendii)

S NO YES

Forages on insects in a variety of habitats 

including forested and wet areas. Roosts 

in a variety of structures including caves, 

mines, and buildings (Schmidt, 2003b).

Black-tailed prairie 

dog

(Cynomys 

ludovicianus)

S NO NO Short-grass and mixed-grass prairies

(USFWS, 2008b).

American marten

(Martes americana) S NO NO

Spruce forests with complex near-ground

structure, extending into adjacent 

ponderosa pine stands (Buskirk, 2002).

Northern goshawk

(Accipiter gentilis) S YES YES

Forages in a variety of forested areas and 

small openings; nests primarily in dense 

mature conifer forests (Erickson, 1987).

Ferruginous hawk

(Buteo regalis) S NO NO

Unbroken semiarid grassland with 

elevated nesting sites available. Prefer 

areas with high densities of rodents and 

lagomorphs (Johnsgard, 1990).

American peregrine 

falcon (Falco 

peregrinus anatum) S NO NO

Tall cliffs and open areas near water

(Johnsgard, 1990).

Northern harrier

(Circus cyaneus)

S YES YES Prairies, open fields and marshes 

(Tallman et al., 2002).

Yellow-billed cuckoo 

(Coccyzus americanus) S NO NO

Low elevation riparian areas and 

woodlands characterized with 

cottonwood-willow or bur oak (Panjabi, 

2003).

Burrowing owl

(Athene cunicularia) S NO NO

Dry grasslands and pastures, usually 

associated with prairie dogs or ground 

squirrels (Tallman et al., 2002).

Flammulated owl

(Otus flammeolus)

S NO YES Open ponderosa pine forests (McCallum, 

1994).

Lewis’s woodpecker

(Melanerpes lewis) S NO YES

Open burned areas with large snags; oak 

and cottonwood forests (Anderson, 2003; 

Panjabi, 2003).

Black-backed 

woodpecker

(Picoides arcticus) S YES YES

Burned areas with a high density of preburn snags; dense and/or mature forests 

with a high snag density (Anderson, 

2003; Panjabi, 2003).

American three-toed 

woodpecker S NO NO

Almost exclusively in mature spruce 

forests (Giroir et al., 2007).
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix G

G-4

Table G-1. Expected occurrence of Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and R2 Sensitive 

Species within Briggs Spring project area

Species Status1 Species

Present2

Habitat

Present/ 

Analysis 

Provided3

Habitat

Description

(Picoides dorsalis)

Loggerhead shrike

(Lanius ludovicianus) S NO NO

Open country with scattered, low 

deciduous thickets (Tallman et al., 

2002).

Grasshopper sparrow

(Ammodramus

savannarum) S NO YES

Found almost exclusively in native 

mixed-grass prairies (Panjabi, 2003).

Long-billed curlew

(Numenius 

americanus) S NO NO

Considered native prairie specialists 

requiring shortgrass or mixed-grass 

prairie habitat with nearly flat 

topography (Sedgwick, 2006).

Northern leopard frog

(Rana pipiens) S YES YES

Riparian and wetland areas for tadpoles, 

subadults, and breeding adults; upland 

habitats for foraging adults (Smith, 

2003).

Black Hills redbelly 

snake (Storeria 

occipitomaculata

pahasapae)

S YES YES

Wet meadows, woodlands, and forestmeadow edge habitat in the Black Hills 

(Smith and Stephans, 2003).

Lake chub

(Couesius plumbeus) S NO NO

Streams or lakes with clear, cool water 

and clean cobble/gravel substrate; only 

known population in Deerfield Reservoir 

(Isaak et al. 2003).

Finescale dace

(Phoxinus neogaeus) S NO NO

Small lakes and cool, boggy 

environments associated with springs or 

beaver dams; isolated to the Redwater 

Drainage – no documented occurrences 

in the South Dakota portion of the Black 

Hills National Forest (Isaak et al., 2003).

Mountain sucker 

(Catostomus

platyrhynchus) S NO NO

Large rivers, lakes, reservoirs, prairie 

streams but most often in cool, clear, 

moderately swift mountain streams with 

mud, cobble, or boulder substrate (Isaak 

et al., 2003).

Cooper’s mountain 

snail

(Oreohelix strigosa 

cooperi)

S NO YES

Lowland wooded or riparian areas on 

limestone soils (Frest and Johannes, 

2002).

Regal fritillary 

butterfly

(Speyeria idalia) S NO YES

Tall-grass prairie and extensive 

grasslands with violets (Royer and 

Marrone, 1992). 1 XN = Experimental Population, T = Threatened, P = Proposed, S = Sensitive 2 Confirmed records of species in area.

3 Suitable habitat known or suspected to occur. Species not present and with no habitat in the project area 

will not be further analyzed in this document because they would not be affected by the proposed project 

alternatives.

Determinations Summary – Fauna (Wildlife)
Briggs Spring DRAFT Environmental Assessment Appendix G

G-5

The determination of effects on federally listed animal species and Region 2 Sensitive 

Species in this BA/BE were made as the result of the information gathered in the prefield review, field reconnaissance, and effects analysis for all alternatives. Because 

analysis considered management activities of all alternatives and associated design 

criteria, only one determination is made for each species, which applies to all alternatives. 

The basis for these determinations was potential habitat, distribution, and effects from 

proposed activities. The determination language is set forth in Forest Service Manual 

2670 and by the USFWS.

The Phase II Forest Plan Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005b) evaluated 

population viability, and determined that all federally listed and sensitive species are 

likely to persist on the Forest over the next 50 years if standards and guidelines are 

followed, and if conditions move toward Forest Plan objectives. All standards and 

guidelines will be followed in all action alternatives of the Briggs Spring project. 

Furthermore, all alternatives are consistent with Objective 221, which is to conserve or 

enhance habitat for sensitive species. Therefore, persistence of all R2 sensitive species 

would not be affected by any alternative of the Briggs Spring project.

With implementation of Forest Plan direction and project-specific design criteria, the 

following determinations are made for R2 Sensitive Species:

Species Alternative 1 

Determination

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Determination

Bald eagle NI NI

Fringed myotis MAII MAII

Townsend’s big-eared bat NI MAII

Northern goshawk NI MAII

Northern harrier NI MAII

Flammulated owl MAII MAII

Lewis’s woodpecker MAII MAII

Black-backed woodpecker MAII MAII

Grasshopper sparrow NI MAII

Northern leopard frog NI MAII

Black Hills redbelly snake NI MAII

Cooper’s mountain snail NI MAII

Regal fritillary butterfly NI MAII

NI = No impact

MAII = May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability 

in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.