United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

Black Hills

National

Forest

Mystic Ranger District

8221 South Highway 16

Rapid City, SD 57702

Phone 605-343-1567 Fax 605-343-7134

Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper

File Code: 1950, 2210 - Mystic Range Project

Date: April 09, 2010

Greetings from the Black Hills National Forest:

Black Hills National Forest (BHNF) personnel recently completed a Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (DEIS) for the Mystic Range Project. The Mystic Range Project falls under the authority 

and guidelines of the 1996 schedule the Forest Service provided the US Congress in response to the 

1995 Rescission Act. The 1995 Rescission Act directed the Forest Service to complete 

environmental analysis on grazing allotments on National Forest System lands. 

The Mystic Range Project generally lies within the central portion of the Mystic Ranger District, 

which is located in western South Dakota. The project area encompasses eight grazing allotments: 

Bald Horse (27,828 acres), Deerfield (7,874 acres), Palmer Gulch (14,190 acres), Porcupine (9,858 

acres), Redfern (11,573 acres), Rimmer (2,011 acres), Slate Prairie (5,896 acres), and Tigerville (5,825 

acres). The project area consists of approximately 85,055 acres of National Forest System lands. 

The project’s main focus is to determine whether or not livestock grazing should continue on the 

eight allotments and, if so, whether any changes may be needed to meet the Black Hills National 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended (Forest Plan).

The Mystic Ranger District proposes to reauthorize grazing of domestic livestock on eight grazing 

allotments and improve livestock management as needed. The purpose of and need for the Mystic 

Range Project is to:

• Improve livestock management so that it is consistent with the goals, objectives, 

standards, and guidelines of the Forest Plan, as amended.

• Improve species composition of upland vegetation.

• Improve streambank stability.

• Improve riparian vegetation diversity and abundance.

• Reduce the risk of livestock-vehicle collisions.

I have enclosed a copy of the Mystic Range DEIS. Chapters 1 and 2 provide background and 

comparison of alternatives for many readers to judge the relative merits of the various alternative 

approaches to improving the current Range Management program on these eight allotments. At this 

time, the Forest Service has not identified a preferred alternative. More detail on the effects of 

alternatives is presented in Chapter 3. 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) provides for a 45-day public review/comment 

period for a DEIS. Comments on the Mystic Range Project must be in writing and postmarked or 

emailed no later than 45 days after the Notice of Availability is published in the Federal Register, 

which is expected to be on April 09, 2010. Comments on the DEIS should be specific and address 
the adequacy of the document and the merits of the alternatives discussed (40 CFR 1503.3). I 

would greatly appreciate if you would take the time from your busy schedule to review and 

comment on the Mystic Range Project DEIS. So, for example, if you prefer some aspects of an 

alternative but disagree with others, please be as specific as possible when sending your comments. 

These comments will be used to prepare a Final EIS/Record of Decision (ROD) and are critical in 

making good decisions about how to manage this area of your National Forest.

Please send comments to: Robert Thompson, District Ranger, Mystic Ranger District, Mystic 

Range Project, 8221 South Highway 16, Rapid City, SD 57702. Or, if preferred, you may email 

your comments to: comments-rocky-mountain-black-hills-mystic@fs.fed.us with ‘Mystic Range’ as 

the subject. The DEIS is also available on the BHNF web site at 

www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me or Katie Van 

Alstyne at the Mystic Ranger District office in Rapid City at (605)-343-1567, or write to us at the 

above address. Thank you for your time and interest in the management of your National Forest.

Sincerely,

/s/Robert J. Thompson

ROBERT J. THOMPSON

District Ranger

Enclosure:

Mystic Range Project DEIS

Mystic Range Project Comment Form
USDA Forest Service 

Black Hills National Forest

Mystic Ranger District 

Rapid City, South Dakota 

MYSTIC RANGE PROJECT 

DRAFT 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 
Commonly Used Acronyms and Abbreviations 

AMP Allotment Management Plan 

AOI Annual Operating 

Instructions 

AU Animal Unit 

AUM Animal Unit Month 

BA Basal Area 

BHNF Black Hills National Forest 

BMP Best Management Practices 

C/C Cow/Calf 

CDA Connected Disturbed Area 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

C/F Cover Frequency 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DBH Diameter Breast Height 

DFC Desire Future Condition(s) 

DMA Designated Monitoring Area(s) 

DPC Desired Plant Community 

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA Environmental Protection 

Agency 

FSR Forest System Road 

FEIS Final Environmental Impact 

Statement 

FP Forest Plan 

FS Forest Service 

FSH Forest Service Handbook 

FSM Forest Service Manual 

GIS Geographic Information System 

HM Head Month 

ID Team Interdisciplinary Team 

MA Management Area 

MIMS Multiple Indicator 

Monitoring Study 

MIS Management Indicator Species 

MMBF Million Board Feet 

MPB Mountain Pine Beetle 

MRP Mystic Range Project 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NFMA National Forest Management Act 

NFS National Forest System 

PFC Proper Functioning Condition 

ROD Record of Decision 

ROW Right of Way 

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

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SOLC Species of Local Concern 

T&E Threatened and Endangered 

USDA United States Department of 

Agriculture 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page i 

Mystic Range Project Area 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Pennington and Custer Counties, SD 

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service 

Cooperating Agencies: None 

Responsible Official: Robert J. Thompson, District Ranger 

 8221 S. Hwy 16 

 Rapid City, South Dakota 57702 

For Information Contact: Katie Van Alstyne, Team Leader 

 8221 S. Hwy 16 

 Rapid City, South Dakota 57702 

 (605)-343-1567 

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

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) in compliance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. The DEIS 

analyzes three alternatives related to the reauthorization of grazing permits on eight 

allotments on the Mystic Ranger District. The alternatives are No Action Alternative A, 

Alternative B, and Alternative C (Proposed Action). Implementation of Alternative A would 

eliminate grazing from all eight allotments two years after the decision is made. 

Implementation of Alternative B would reauthorize grazing on all eight allotments with no 

new construction of range structures. Implementation of Alternative C would reauthorize 

grazing on all eight allotments, similar to Alternative B, but includes requirements for 

construction of new range structures. Both Alternatives B and C include adaptive 

management approaches that might be used if determined necessary to meet resource goals. 

The Agency has not identified a preferred alternative. 

Reviewers should provide the Forest Service with their comments during the review period 

of the draft environmental impact statement. This will enable the Forest Service to analyze 

and respond to the comments at one time and to use information acquired in the preparation 

of the final environmental impact statement, thus avoiding undue delay in the decision 

making process. Reviewers have an obligation to structure their participation in the National 

Environmental Policy Act process so that it is meaningful and alerts the agency to the 

reviewers’ position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 

U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Environmental objections that could have been raised at the draft 

stage may be waived if not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact 

statement. City of Angoon v. Hodel (9th Circuit, l986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. 

Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Comments on the draft environmental 

impact statement should be specific and should address the adequacy of the statement and 

the merits of the alternatives discussed (40 CFR 1503.3). 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page ii 

Send Comments To: Robert J. Thompson, District Ranger 

Mystic Range Project 

 8221 South Highway 16 

 Rapid City, South Dakota 57702 

Email: comments-rocky-mountain-black-hills-mystic@fs.fed.us

with ‘Mystic Range’ as the subject 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page iii 

SUMMARY 

The Black Hills National Forest proposes to reauthorize grazing of domestic livestock on 

eight allotments: Bald Horse (27,828 acres), Deerfield (7,874 acres), Palmer Gulch (14,190 

acres), Porcupine (9,858 acres), Redfern (11,573 acres), Rimmer (2,011 acres), Slate Prairie 

(5,896 acres), and Tigerville (5,825 acres). The project area consists of approximately 85,055 

acres of National Forest System lands. All of these subject allotments are due for 

environmental review, and if necessary, revision to current rangeland management practices. 

The project’s main focus is to determine whether or not livestock grazing should continue 

on the proposed allotments and, if so, what changes may need to be implemented to meet 

the Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended (Forest 

Plan). The underlying needs for this proposal include: 

• Improve livestock management so that it is consistent with the goals, objectives, 

standards, and guidelines of the Forest Plan, as amended 

• Improve species composition of upland vegetation 

• Improve streambank stability 

• Improve riparian vegetation diversity and abundance 

• Reduce the risk of livestock-vehicle collisions 

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

action, potential concerns, and opportunities for managing the Mystic Range Project Area 

were solicited from Forest Service resource specialists, tribal representatives, members of 

the public, other public agencies, and organizations. Methods used to request comments 

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

on June 12, 2009; mailing a scoping letter that solicited comments to approximately 91 

interested parties; conducted meetings with permittees of the eight allotments; and meeting 

with interested parties and individuals. 

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

develop alternatives and mitigation measures, and analyze effects. Through review and 

analysis of the scoping comments and input, the Mystic Range Interdisciplinary Team 

(ID Team) identified three prevailing or key issues related to the proposed activities. The 

three key issues include: 1. Soil and Water/Stream/Riparian. 2. Upland Vegetation and 

3. Social/Economics. 

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

analyzed in detail in this EIS are described as follows: 

Alternative A (No Action) – Alternative A is the no action alternative. Under this 

alternative, grazing would not be reauthorized and the current permit holders would be 

notified that their term grazing permits would be cancelled. All term grazing permits would 

be cancelled after two years, pursuant to Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2209.13 part 16.24, 

and Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 36 CFR 222.4(4)(1). The FSH and CFR regulations 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page iv 

indicate that a two-year notification is required prior to cancelling a permit, except in 

emergency situations. 

The no action alternative would close eight allotments, eliminating livestock grazing from 

85,055 acres of National Forest System lands. Permits would not be issued for any of the

eight affected allotments unless a subsequent NEPA analysis and decision to restock the 

allotments was made. 

Maintenance of range developments on the allotments would no longer be the responsibility 

of the permittees. Developments built to facilitate livestock management, including 

allotment and pasture fences, livestock enclosures, stock water ponds and water 

developments would be abandoned. Permittees who participated in the development of range 

improvements would be reimbursed for their amortized share, consistent with direction in 

FSH 2209.13, Chapter 70. Developments built that would benefit wildlife or reduce wildlife 

effects to resources, such as water developments and big game enclosures would remain in 

place and would continue to be maintained by the Forest Service and/or cooperators. 

Maintenance of unassigned allotment boundary fences would be assigned to the adjacent 

permittee, if one is present. 

The following structural improvements would be abandoned: 

• Approximately 145 miles of fence. 

• Approximately 219 water developments. 

• Approximately 9 miles of pipeline 

Spring boxes and underground pipes associated with water developments would be 

abandoned; pipes would be disconnected. If left in place, pipes would be capped on one or 

both ends to prevent water from flowing through the pipes. Unused fences would be 

removed as funds permit or as opportunities become available to utilize human resource

labor programs such as the Youth Conservation Corp or other similar programs. All salvage 

materials would be stored for re-use, disposed of in a landfill, or recycled. 

ALTERNATIVES B AND C 

COMMON TO BOTH ACTION ALTERNATIVES 

Both Alternatives B and C are designed to improve resource conditions in rangeland 

health, vegetation, watershed conditions, designated Botanical Areas, and wildlife habitat 

relative to livestock grazing. Both respond, to varying degrees, to the purpose and need 

for this project and the issues presented in Chapter 1 of this EIS. 

Both alternatives would reauthorize grazing on all eight allotments. Changes would be made 

to some of the allotments. Structural range improvements would continue to be maintained 

annually, and reconstructed as needed. The permittee would be responsible for maintenance 

and reconstruction. The Forest Service would assist in funding material costs for 

reconstruction, as funding allows. Both alternatives include maintenance and reconstruction 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page v 

if some existing improvements and removal of others that are no longer needed. 

Reconstruction should generally be completed within the next 3-5 years. Removal of 

improvements that are no longer needed should be accomplished within the next 5-10 years. 

Individual Allotment Management Plans (AMP’s) would be assembled from the EIS 

record of decision summarizing directions for season of use, numbers, class and type of

livestock, applicable Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, anticipated rotation of 

livestock, and monitoring requirements.

Residual levels (or remaining height of key plant species) would be prescribed for riparian 

areas in Annual Operating Instructions. Initially this would be 4” for key specie(s) 

(University of Idaho, 2004). Proper allowable use by percent weight is 50% for uplands. 

Livestock would be moved to the next pasture before thresholds for upland and riparian 

triggers are reached, based on adherence to Forest Plan Standard 2505. Permittees are 

responsible for monitoring these conditions. 

Alternatives B and C also have a long-term effectiveness monitoring plan to assess upland 

and riparian conditions and trends (see Chapter 2 Monitoring). The Forest Service is 

responsible for this effectiveness monitoring. If monitoring does not indicate progress 

towards desired conditions, it may be necessary to change proper allowable use percent 

utilization by weight from 50% to 45%, and/or increase residual riparian stubble height to six 

inches. 

The actual number of livestock and season of use would be determined each year prior to 

grazing and would be outlined in the Annual Operating Instructions (AOI). Factors such as 

drought, fire, or other specific management objectives could all influence annual livestock 

numbers and season of use. These variables are considered during winter meetings with 

each permittee to determine the upcoming grazing season’s permitted use. The degree to 

which drought impairs the range’s potential for future forage production depends on the 

intensity, frequency, and timing of grazing. Design criteria include development of a 

drought management strategy. 

Both alternatives include adaptive management options that could be implemented if needed 

to meet desired resource conditions. Adaptive management options are presented in Table 

2-1. The main difference between the two alternatives is that Alternative C includes new 

structural improvements and prescribed burning, while Alternative B does not. 

ALTERNATIVE B 

COMMON TO ALL ALLOTMENTS 

Alternative B is designed to maintain or improve resource conditions without construction of 

any new structural improvements such as fences, cattleguards, and water developments. 

Existing improvements would be maintained or reconstructed, as needed. Structural 

improvements that need maintained or reconstructed are presented by allotment in Appendix F. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page vi 

Some tools for effecting change in condition and trend are adjusting the timing and duration 

of livestock use, and moving to the next pasture before allowable proper use by weight 

guidelines and/or riparian stubble height requirements are exceeded. The permittee’s 

primary methods may be: 1) strategic salt and/or supplement placement, 2) range riding to 

influence animal behavior by working the livestock, and 3) culling animals that do not range 

out from riparian areas. The purpose of using these methods is to achieve grazing efficiency, 

and reduce adverse effects on soils, riparian areas, and upland vegetation within the

allotments that have specific areas that are not meeting desired conditions. 

Bald Horse Allotment 

The current 27,828 acre Bald Horse Allotment is grazed using a nine pasture deferred 

rotation system from 06/01 to 10/26 each year, for 299 mature cattle (cow/calf pair) and a 

maximum of 1921 AUM's. Existing structural improvements include 20 spring 

developments, 3 ponds, 14 water tanks, and approximately 37 miles of fence. 

Alternative B would continue the existing nine pasture deferred rotation system on the 

Bald Horse Allotment. This alternative would continue the practice of non-use (no 

grazing) within the Buzzards Roost Pasture. Limited grazing could be allowed in the 

future if it is determined that such grazing would benefit other resource objectives. This 

alternative varies the order of pasture use each season. It reduces the number of days in 

the Middle Horse Pasture in order to improve riparian conditions. It would temporarily

increase the number of days in the Prairie Creek Pasture to help offset this reduction. No 

use would be allowed before June 15 in the Prairie Creek Pasture to avoid conflicts with 

bighorn sheep lambing use. 

Some existing improvements would be reconstructed to ensure their effectiveness and others 

that are no longer needed would be removed. This includes reconstructing the spring 

exclosure and repairing a pipeline to the water tank at Van Pelt Spring in the Lower Victoria 

Pasture, reconstructing or relocating the water development in the north half of the West 

Horse Pasture, improving drainage around the existing water tank (south of Twin Sisters) 

increasing exclosure protection in the South Bald Hills Pasture, and reconstructing and 

enlarging the spring exclosure on the northwest end of the Middle Bald Hills Pasture. To 

prevent cattle from straying into Pactola Basin, Alternative B removes an unused cattleguard 

from FSR 164 and uses the materials to install a cattleguard in FSR 165 to replace the 

existing steel gate; and repairs fencing along the Centennial Trail as needed in the Prairie 

Creek Pasture. Alternative B also would remove any interior fencing in the Buzzard’s Roost 

Pasture, and remove a defunct water development on southwest corner of the Prairie Pasture. 

Deerfield Allotment 

The current 7,874 acre Deerfield Allotment is grazed using a six pasture system from 06/06 

to 10/25 each year, for 102 mature cattle (cow/calf pair) and a maximum of 631 AUM's. 

Existing structural improvements include 9 ponds and approximately 26 miles of fence. 

Alternative B would continue the current six pasture grazing system, and maintain existing 

structural improvements. It recommends continued use of a range rider in the Heely Pasture. 

It would reconstruct the pond at the FSR 691.1J/691.1G junction for an improved watering 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page vii 

source in the Gold Run Pasture. No improvements need removal at this time. As with the 

current practice, Alternative B would maintain the protective boundary and not allow grazing 

within the McIntosh Pasture. Some limited grazing could be conducted within the McIntosh 

Pasture if it is determined to be beneficial for weed control or other botanical purposes. This 

would require development of a separate management plan. 

Palmer Gulch Allotment 

The current 14,190 acre Palmer Gulch Allotment has two permittees and is split into two 

separate grazing rotations: five pastures on the north half and six pastures on the south half. 

The north half is 4,843 acres in size and utilizes a five pasture deferred rotation system. 

Current permitted use on the north half is from 06/01 to 10/31 for 74 cow/calf pair and a 

maximum of 491 AUM’s. The south half is about 9,327 acres in size and utilizes a six pasture

deferred rotation system. Current permitted use is from 06/01 to 10/21 for 67 cow/calf pair 

and a maximum of 445 AUM’s. It includes a small (20 acre) on/off winter use pasture 

adjacent to private land. Existing structural improvements include 3 spring developments, 18 

ponds, 1 water tank, and approximately 27 miles of fence for both halves of the allotment. 

Alternative B would continue the split between north and south for this allotment, and would 

formalize the split by dividing it into two separate allotments. For this evaluation, reference 

will be made to the “North Half Palmer Gulch” and the “South Half Palmer Gulch”. 

North Half 

Alternative B would operate on three pastures instead of five currently permitted because 

two of the pastures – Sawmill and Dump – are currently unusable. The Sawmill Pasture 

is currently not grazed due to lack of private land fencing. The Dump Pasture has not 

been grazed since 2003 because there are no railroad cattleguards in place to control 

cattle access onto the railroad right-of-way. In total, non-use in these two pastures would 

result in a total of 44 days reduction in actual grazing use. 

Alternative B includes reconstruction of the Joe Dollar Mine water tank and spring

development in the Samalius Pasture. This alternative would also remove approximately 

one half mile of unneeded ROW fence in the Keystone Pasture and one third mile of 

unused fence on the Sawmill Pasture. Alternative B would also maintain two ponds in the 

north half of the Ford Pasture and three ponds in the south half of the Samelius Pasture. 

South Half 

Existing pastures would continue to be used on the South Half Palmer Gulch Allotment. 

Current permitted use is from 06/01 to 10/21 for 67 cow/calf pair and a maximum of 445 

AUM’s, including the grazing of 3 cow/calf pair of occasional winter use on a 20 acre 

pasture from 10/22 to 5/31 for a maximum of 29 AUM’s. 

A cooperative effort may be made with the Hell Canyon RD and the permittee in the design 

and implementation of an aspen regeneration project (Norbeck FEIS) to ensure livestock 

trailing to adjacent pastures is possible after project completion. No use would be allowed in 

the Palmer and Sunday Pastures before June 15 to avoid conflicts with bighorn sheep 

lambing use. Livestock would be removed from these pastures around August 1 to allow 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page viii 

grass/forb regrowth for winter use by wildlife. Alternative B would remove the unused FS 

horse pasture fence in the East Zimmer Pasture and allow cattle grazing, and relocate the 

temporary water tank, when used, on the Lower Bear Pasture. 

Porcupine Allotment 

The Porcupine Allotment currently uses a Holistic Management (HM) team approach, 

which has been in effect since 1988. The allotment totals 9,858 acres and utilizes a 12 

pasture rest rotation system from 06/09 to 09/30 and average 334 cattle (cow/calf with some 

yearlings) and an average 1653 AUM’s. Variable numbers and season allowed each year for 

this HM allotment. Existing structural improvements include 3 vertical wells, 5 spring 

developments, 19 ponds, 8 water tanks, 9 miles of pipeline, and approximately 34 miles of 

fence 

Alternative B would continue the existing HM grazing system and permitted average AUMs. 

It also proposes to bury all existing exposed pipelines for protection from wildfire,

equipment, and sunlight damage; reconstruct exclosure of North Antelope Springs, and 

may rest one pasture per year over a twelve year cycle unless specific reasons indicate 

grazing treatment is necessary. Grazing would generally be conducted early or late season 

in the Signal and South Exchange Pastures to favor consumption of noxious weeds. 

Redfern Allotment 

The current 11,573 acres Redfern Allotment utilizes a five pasture deferred rotation system 

from 06/11 to 10/25, for 195 cow/calf pairs at a maximum of 1159 AUMs. Existing 

structural improvements include 6 spring developments, 26 ponds, 3 water tanks, and 

approximately 18 miles of fence. 

The total permitted use under Alternative B would be 177 cow/calf pairs, based on a 

reduction of 18 pair from the existing permit because of a pending term grazing permit 

waiver. This alternative would maintain the existing structural improvements. It would 

also relocate or reconstruct two water sources in the west central, upland portion of the 

Slate Creek Pasture, remove a defunct water development located approximately 0.75 

miles east of Queen Bee Mine property on the Queen Bee Pasture, and determine if the 

horse pasture is necessary and resolve maintenance issues, also on the Queen Bee 

Pasture. 

Rimmer Allotment 

The Rimmer Allotment currently includes 2,011 acres split between two pastures operating 

from 06/11 to 10/10, for 33 cow/calf pairs and a maximum of 175 AUM’s. Existing 

structural improvements include 1 spring development, 2 ponds, and approximately 5 miles

of fence. 

Alternative B would modify the allotment by incorporating the underutilized West 

School Pasture from the Slate Prairie Allotment into the Rimmer Allotment to form a 

third pasture. The number of days would be reduced to lessen the duration of use in the 

Rimmer Pasture. Initially, the Rimmer Pasture use would be reduced by 10 days and the 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page ix 

Grandad Pasture reduced by four days. These reductions would be made up by the added 

West School Pasture. The allotment would increase in size by approximately 77 acres 

with the addition of the West School Pasture. 

Alternative B would reconstruct the exclosure at Lost Park Springs and repair two gates 

along the Deerfield Trail 40. 

Slate Prairie Allotment 

The existing 5,896 acre allotment is currently managed using a five pasture deferred rotation 

system from 06/01 to 10/20 for 200 mature cattle (cow/calf) at a maximum of 1233 AUM’s. 

Existing structural improvements include 23 ponds, 3 water tanks, and approximately 13 

miles of fence. 

Alternative B would modify current management by removing the West Slate School 

Pasture and adding it onto the existing Rimmer Allotment, since it is underutilized by Slate 

Prairie permitted cattle, and always grazed late in season. Use with the Rimmer Allotment 

(same permittee) would allow for variation in season of use. This change would reduce the 

Slate Prairie Allotment by 77 acres and two days of use. Alternative B would maintain 

existing structural improvements, except as noted below where reconstruction or removal 

would be required. 

Reconstruction or removal of existing improvements include the following: reconstruct 

fence to protect spring from trampling in the north end of the Mystic Pasture; reconstruct 

spring exclosure in lower Daugherty Gulch, rebuild approximately 0.20 miles of drift fence 

in Crooked Creek at the junction with Castle Creek, and remove a remnant exclosure in the 

drainage east of Crooked Creek draw that is overgrown with brush and trees - all on the 

Whitetail Pasture; and use rock to reinforce the pond spillway on the Slate School Pasture. 

Tigerville Allotment 

The existing 5,825 acre allotment is currently managed using a six pasture deferred rotation 

system from 06/01 to 10/25 for 112 cow/calf at a maximum of 715 AUM’s. Existing 

structural improvements include: 4 spring developments, 19 ponds, and approximately19 

miles of fence. 

Alternative B would combine two pastures (Westside and Lena) and incorporate an 80 

acre portion a portion isolated from the adjacent allotment. 

Under Alternative B, the Lena and West Side Pastures would be combined and the 

common fence separating the two pastures would be removed. The fence is no longer 

functional and not needed for proper management. An existing spring exclosure fence 

would be reconstructed and enlarged in the northeast corner of the Tigerville Pasture. A 

portion of the Newton Fork Allotment east of Deerfield Road would be incorporated into 

the existing Mini Pasture. The Mini Pasture would be grazed once a year with either the 

Tigerville or Redfern Pasture for approximately 20 days per year or less. An existing 

water point access to Slate Creek in the Deer Park Pasture would be armored with gravel 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page x 

and rock. The old corral in the Marshall Pasture would be rebuilt into a small holding 

corral for removal of strays or injured livestock. Old corral materials would be removed. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Common to All Allotments 

Alternative C is designed to maintain or improve resource conditions using a full suite of 

options, including construction of new structural improvements such as fences, cattle guards 

and water developments. Existing improvements would be maintained or reconstructed, as 

needed. New “core” structures - those required under Alternative C - are intended to provide 

better resource protection, get better livestock distribution, and reduce the potential for 

livestock-vehicle collisions along higher speed roads. It also includes adaptive options to 

construct improvements if determined necessary after other measures are implemented. 

These adaptive improvements might not ever be constructed, but are considered here to 

provide flexibility in case they are needed. As with Alternative B, reconstruction activities 

are generally expected to occur within a 3-5 year timeframe. New structural improvements 

are generally expected to occur in 1-3 years. Adaptive improvements are more likely to be 

constructed in 5-10 years, if at all. Many or most may never be constructed. New and 

adaptive structural improvements, and those that need maintained or reconstructed are 

presented by allotment in Appendix F. 

Some tools for effecting change in condition and trend include the construction of new 

structural improvements to restrict and distribute livestock use, adjusting the timing and 

duration of livestock use, and moving to the next pasture before allowable proper use by 

weight guidelines and/or riparian stubble height requirements are exceeded. The permittee’s 

primary methods may be: 1) strategic salt and/or supplement placement, 2) range riding to 

influence animal behavior by working the livestock, and 3) culling animals that do not range 

out from riparian areas. The purpose of using these methods is to achieve grazing efficiency, 

and reduce adverse effects on soils, riparian areas, and upland vegetation within the

allotments that have specific areas that are not meeting desired conditions. 

Bald Horse Allotment 

Alternative C incorporates all the provisions of Alternative B. It also includes new structural 

improvements to improve riparian and other resource conditions, better livestock 

distribution, and removing livestock access from high speed roads. In total, this alternative 

proposes construction of approximately 3 miles of fence and four water developments. 

New structural improvements include constructing a small corral for stray round-up in the 

southeastern portion of the Lower Victoria Pasture, fencing off a pond and piping water 

to a tank in south half of the West Horse Pasture, and developing an alternative water 

source in the northwest portion of the Middle Victoria drainage to better distribute 

livestock. It would also require constructing approximately 2.5 miles of fence to restrict 

cattle from the Sheridan Lake Road ROW, Spring Creek and associated riparian area, and 

trailhead. A water source would be developed within the draw along Burnt Ranch 

Pasture to replace loss of access to Spring Creek. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page xi 

Alternative C also includes some adaptive options for structural improvements if resource 

conditions warrant their construction. This includes developing additional sources of 

water to better distribute livestock in the east side of the Middle Horse, North Bald Hills, 

and in the Lower Victoria Pastures. The spring source along FSR 677 at the common 

boundary with Redfern Allotment might also be developed for joint use. Other adaptive 

actions might be to reconstruct on a different alignment with the west boundary of the

West Horse Pasture. Also, the spring on the north side of the Middle Bald Hills Pasture 

against private property might require further protection.

Deerfield Allotment 

Alternative C includes the provisions contained in Alternative B, and also would eliminate 

use in the Lake Shore Pasture, thereby becoming a five pasture deferred rotation system. 

This would reduce actual use by six days on the allotment. Additional fencing would be 

constructed off the existing Gold Run boundary fence to one new cattleguard on the Ditch 

Creek Road (both on the north end of the pasture) to prevent livestock access to highway. 

Additional fencing would be constructed along the ridgeline between the Trap Pasture and 

Baseline Pasture boundary. An adaptive option that might be employed is constructing over 

four miles of fence to protect the Heely Creek riparian area, but is not likely to occur as the 

initial cost is very high. 

Palmer Gulch Allotment 

Alternative C would continue the split this allotment between north and south, and would 

formalize the split by dividing it into two separate allotments. Maintenance, reconstruction, 

and removal of existing improvements would occur as presented in Alternative B. New

structural improvements would be required under this alternative, and adaptive structures 

are included that might or might not be constructed in the future depending on need. There 

are also changes in some use and pastures as compared to Alternative B. Alternative C 

includes an adaptive option for constructing fences or otherwise excluding livestock use 

within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve, if needed, to provide for game animals and birds. 

North Half 

Alternative C would operate on four pastures instead of the currently permitted five. The 

Sawmill Pasture is currently not grazed due to lack of private land line fencing. It would be 

used only for trailing livestock west of Pink Cabin Road and east of the Dump Pasture. The 

Dump Pasture, currently in non-use status, would be authorized for use after the permittee 

works with the 1880 Train to install cattleguards to prevent cattle access along the train 

ROW (Alternative B does not authorize the cattleguards). Alternative C would operate on a 

four pasture deferred rotation system utilizing the existing Keystone, Ford, Dump, and 

Samalias Pastures. Non-use of the Sawmill Pasture would result in a reduction of 20 days of 

use on the allotment. 

New structural improvements to be constructed on the Keystone Pasture include fencing 

off cattle access to Old Hill City Highway and Palmer Creek with approximately 1 mile 

of fencing north of railroad ROW and installing one new cattleguard on Twin Springs 

Road, and building a water development in the southern end of the pasture. A ditch 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page xii 

would be re-contoured and reseeded near the Battle Creek drainage on the Ford Pasture. 

Alternative C contains an adaptive option for constructing approximately one mile of 

fence to exclude livestock use in the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve in the Ford Pasture. On 

the Samalias Pasture, livestock access would be fenced off to protect willows and a 

spring source located west of Samalias Trailhead, while providing a water access point 

for livestock; and an exclosure would be constructed around willows and a spring source 

located north of Rustic Ridge Guest Cabins. Approximately one half mile of fence would 

be built to prevent livestock use to Spring Creek in two locations. 

South Half 

Existing pastures would continue to be used on the South Half Palmer Gulch Allotment, 

except for the occasional winter use adjacent to private land on the Summit Pasture. 

Structural improvements would be made within the Norbeck Wildife Preserve to improve

conditions for game animals and birds. Otherwise, provisions for Alternative C would be 

similar to those of Alternative B. This includes the provision that no use would be 

allowed in the Palmer and Sunday Pastures before June 15 to avoid conflicts with bighorn 

sheep lambing use; and livestock would be removed from these pastures around August 1 

to allow grass/forb regrowth for winter use by wildlife. 

Grazing would be eliminated on the 20 acre incidental use on-off winter use Summit 

Pasture. Approximately one half mile private landline fence would be constructed to 

accommodate this change. The Summit Pasture would be combined into the Rabbit 

Pasture after the fence is constructed. A livestock exclosure would be constructed around 

the Fender Place pond and spring to meet Norbeck goals and objectives on the Rabbit 

Pasture; and an exclosure fence would be constructed around the spring in the north end 

of the East Zimmer Pasture. The Forest Service would install steel plates to raise the 

water table to reduce erosion and fill incisions in the Palmer Pasture. 

Adaptive options that might be pursued, if needed, would be to provide off-site temporary 

water tanks in drought years on the Rabbit Pasture, and fencing off riparian access to 

livestock if moving a temporary water tank in the Lower Bear Pasture is not effective in 

reducing impacts. For both the Lower and Upper Bear Pastures, an adaptive approach 

might be to increase pasture size to spread out grazing use by constructing approximately 

two miles of new fence on the east end of pastures. This would also re-locate one 

cattleguard and install a new cattleguard on each of these pastures. Alternative C contains 

the provision for constructing fence or otherwise excluding use within the Norbeck 

Wildlife Preserve if needed to provide for game animals and birds. This fencing could be 

approximately three miles in length and would reduce grazing on the Rabbit, Sunday, and 

Palmer Pastures. 

Porcupine Allotment 

This alternative would continue with the HM grazing system as proposed in Alternative B. 

It would also require construction of new structural improvements and provide the option 

to construct additional improvements if needed for resource management purposes. 

Required improvements include construction of a fence to exclude livestock from Wells 

Spring in the Wells Cabin Pasture, construction of a fence to exclude livestock from The
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page xiii 

Seeps in the South Wolf 1 Pasture, and construction of approximately 1.75 miles of pasture

boundary fence to better control livestock and regulate animal impact in the BabbingtonSouth Wolf 1 Pasture. It also includes installation of new water storage and water tanks in 

the northeast side of the Wildcat-North 1 Pasture. Approximately 0.75 miles of new 

pipeline would be extended from the Babbington Pasture to the new water development. 

Alternative C includes a number of adaptive options to construct additional improvements

if needed in keeping with Holistic Management objectives. This includes constructing 

approximately 1.7 miles of cross-fence to split the Antelope Springs Pasture in half on an 

east/west axis, along with a cattleguard on FSR 283; and constructing approximately 1 mile 

of cross-fence to split the South Wolf 1 Pasture in half on an north/south axis, along with a 

cattleguard on FSR 284. Adaptive options for the Wildcat-North Pasture consists of 0.60 

mile of temporary fence in the middle of the pasture to exclude livestock from the Wildcat 

Quarry, if it is developed; and increasing watering locations in the Signal Pasture by 

constructing 1.7 miles of new pipeline to two new water storage tanks, and add two new 

water tanks on the north and east sides of the pasture. Additional watering locations might 

also be desirable in South Exchange Pasture and would include constructing approximately 

1 mile of new pipeline to a new water tank on the north side of the pasture. If the 

permittee’s negotiated access to facilities on Cooper Ranch (State property) were 

terminated by land owner, an option would be to locate and construct a small corral for 

loading and unloading livestock on NFS lands on the South Exchange Pasture. Some 

temporary fencing might be used to confine livestock on the Yount Pasture and an option 

exists to add approximately 1.2 miles of new pipeline on the West Hells Canyon 1 Pasture. 

Approximately 5,300 acres of prescribed broadcast burning is proposed under this allotment 

to reduce fuel loading buildup from dead and down pine trees and improve forage and browse. 

Redfern Allotment 

This alternative also displays the anticipated change in the number of cow/calf pairs from 

195 to 177, as included in Alternative B. It also would maintain existing improvements and 

reconstruct or remove structural improvements as presented in Alternative B. In addition, 

Alternative C would require construction of some range improvements, and combine the

Redfern Holding Pasture with a newly fenced off portion of the Slate Creek Pasture. 

Specifically, Alternative C requires fencing off approximately one mile of Slate Creek along 

FSR 530 to Slate Creek Dam by building approximately 1.5 miles of new fence, and 

installing one cattleguard in FSR 530.1c where the fence crosses the road. The riparian 

acreage fenced off from the longer duration Slate Creek Pasture would be incorporated into 

the shorter duration Redfern Holding Pasture. Grazing would increase by two days in the 

Redfern Holding Pasture after the fence is constructed. 

Rimmer Allotment 

This alternative would incorporate the changes in pastures and slight increase in size for 

the Rimmer Allotment as proposed in Alternative B. It would also continue maintaining 

the existing improvements on the allotment. Refer to Alternative B description. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page xiv 

Alternative C includes some adaptive options and additional construction if needed to meet 

desired resource conditions or other purposes. Some of these options are made possible 

because the current permitee also runs on the adjacent Slate Prairie Allotment. Possible 

new construction includes extending existing fencing or connecting segments up to 1.75 

miles long if livestock stray off the north and east boundaries of the Rimmer Pasture. 

Another option would be to increase the size of the West School Pasture by adding the west 

third of Slate School Pasture (estimated 120 acres) from the Slate Prairie Allotment into the 

Rimmer Allotment. This would require installation of one cattleguard on NFSR 188 to 

control livestock. It also could be managed as a separate pasture within the Rimmer 

Allotment, and called the “188” Pasture. An existing, non-functional water development in 

the northeast corner of the pasture would need to be reconstructed. Another adaptive 

option may be to create a fourth additional pasture called the “187” Pasture. While the

probability of implementing this option is low because of cost, it might be considered. It 

would require the installation of one cattleguard and approximately 0.60 miles of new 

fence at T1N R3E S15 NWSESE. This action would split off an estimated 500 acres from 

the Rimmer Pasture. Additionally, access to a possible water source in the southeastern 

corner of the Rimmer Pasture would need to be reconstructed. 

Slate Prairie Allotment 

This alternative would incorporate the changes in pastures and slight reduction in size for 

the Slate Prairie Allotment as proposed in Alternative B. It would also complete the 

same reconstruction of needed improvements and removal of unneeded improvements. 

Refer to Alternative B description. 

In addition, Alternative C includes some adaptive options for additional construction, if 

needed. This includes development of the Browner Spring with the Bittersweet Allotment 

permittee (located on the west side of this pasture) and constructing up to 0.5 miles of drift 

fencing on the north boundary of this pasture to keep livestock within assigned area in the

Whitetail Pasture. Another option is to expand protection of Daugherty Gulch’s existing 

spring exclosure in the Hay Draw Pasture to improve the distribution of age classes of 

willows in this drainage. Another option would be to fence off a pond to livestock access, 

and pipe water to downstream stock water tank in the Slate School Pasture. 

Tigerville Allotment 

This alternative would incorporate the changes in pastures and slight expansion in size 

proposed by Alternative B, and would complete the same reconstruction of needed 

improvements and removal of unneeded improvements. Refer to Alternative B description. 

In addition, Alternative C includes some adaptive options for additional construction if 

needed to meet desired resource conditions or other purposes. This includes construction 

of protective fencing around breeched beaver dams and willow remnants in the southeast 

corner of the West Side Pasture. Also possible is construction of up to one third of a mile 

of highway ROW fencing off the southwest corner of the Mini Pasture. This fence would 

add approximately 80 acres to the pasture. An adaptive option for construction of a small 

corral may need to be exercised if use of a private, off NFS lands corral is no longer 

allowed in the Redfern Pasture. An exclosure may need to be constructed around a fen 

area located north of Gooseberry Trailer Park in the Deer Park Pasture. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page xv 

The public and decision maker can make a relative comparison between the alternative 

effects on the key issues based on measurement indicators developed for each issue. Table 0-

1-1 provides a comparative display of the alternative effects and/or outputs relative to the key 

issues in the Mystic Range Project Area. 

Table 0-1-1 Comparison of Alternatives 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Proposed Action) 

Implementation 

Schedule 

Implemented two 

years after decision. 

Implemented immediately upon 

decision. 

Implemented immediately upon 

decision. Required improvements 1-3 

years, other adaptive measures as 

needed (5-10 years). 

Grazing 

No Grazing. 

Permits cancelled in 

two years. 

Grazing re-authorized on all eight 

allotments. 

Grazing re-authorized on all eight 

allotments. 

Water Developments 

(Springs, Ponds, 

Tanks, Wells) 

All removed by 

Forest Service 

except those that 

benefit wildlife. 

Existing structures to be 

maintained or reconstructed as 

needed. 

Existing structures to be maintained or 

reconstructed as needed similar to 

Alternative B. A total of 11 new water 

developments to be constructed. 

Fences (miles) 

All removed except 

for those that benefit 

wildlife. 

Existing fences to be maintained or 

reconstructed as needed. 

Existing fences to be maintained or 

reconstructed as needed similar to 

Alternative B. Approximately 14 

miles of new fence to be constructed. 

Streams / Riparian 

Soils 

Eliminates all 

livestock effects to 

soils. 

Soil compaction would remain 

well within Forest Plan standards. 

Slight increase in soil compaction, but 

would remain well within Forest Plan 

standards. 

Water Quality 

Eliminates all 

livestock effects to 

water quality. 

Water quality standards relating to 

beneficial uses would be 

maintained. 

Similar to Alternative B 

Streambank Stability Streambanks would 

gradually stabilize. 

Streambank stability would be 

maintained or improved, but at a 

slower rate than Alternative A. 

Similar to Alternative B, except in 

those limited areas where livestock are 

excluded from riparian areas by new 

structural improvements. Streambank 

stability in those limited areas would 

be expected to improve similar to 

Alternative A. 

Riparian Vegetation 

Gradual recovery 

and expansion of 

riparian vegetation. 

Recovery and expansion of 

riparian vegetation would be 

expected to occur at a slower rate 

than Alternative A 

Similar to Alternative B, except in 

those limited areas where livestock are 

excluded from riparian areas by new 

structural improvements. Riparian 

vegetation in those limited areas 

would be expected to recover and 

expand similar to Alternative A. 

Upland Vegetation 

Bare Ground Bare ground would 

gradually decrease. 

Bare ground would decrease, but at 

a slower rate than Alternative A. Similar to Alternative B. 

Noxious Weeds and 

Non-Desirable 

Plants 

Noxious weeds and 

non-desirable plants 

may gradually 

decrease. 

Noxious weeds and non-desirable 

plants would gradually decrease, 

but at a slower rate than 

Alternative A. 

Similar to Alternative B. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page xvi 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Proposed Action) 

Desirable Plant 

Species Diversity 

Desirable plant 

species may 

gradually increase in 

diversity and 

abundance. 

Desirable plant species diversity 

and abundance would gradually 

increase, but at a slower rate than 

Alternative A. 

Similar to Alternative B. 

Social/Economics

Risk of LivestockVehicle Collision Eliminated Same as current risk. Substantially reduced risk. 

Potential For Actual 

Grazing Use 

Reduction 

Total elimination of 

grazing. 

Bald Horse: Low 

Deerfield: High 

Palmer (North): Moderate 

Palmer (South): Moderate 

Porcupine: Low 

Redfern: High 

Rimmer: Moderate 

Slate Prairie: High 

Tigerville: Low 

Similar to Alternative B, except 

reductions in actual use, where it 

occurs, may be less because of better 

livestock distribution and exclosures. 

Cost to Permittees 

Standard operation 

and maintenance 

costs (including 

grazing fees) for two 

years. Substantial 

replacement costs 

for cancelled 

grazing permits. 

Standard operation and 

maintenance cost (including 

grazing fees) along with 

reconstruction of some existing 

improvements. 

All costs included in Alternative B 

plus an approximate $175,000 in new 

improvements (fences, water 

developments, cattle guards). 

Cost to Forest 

Service 

Cost to administer 

for two years and 

costs to remove 

unneeded 

improvements 

Standard administration costs plus 

additional $57,000 in long-term 

monitoring costs over ten year 

period. 

Similar to Alternative B. 

The Mystic Range Project purpose and need (see Chapter I) provides the focus and scope of the 

proposal as related to National and Forest level policy and direction. Given the purpose and 

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

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

proposal and alternatives disclosed in the EIS. This forms the basis of the Deciding Official to 

make the following determinations: 

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

responsive to National policy/guidance/law and Forest Plan direction, and meet the 

purpose and need for action in the Mystic Range Project Area. 

• Whether or not the information in this analysis is sufficient to implement proposed 

activities. 

• Which action, if any, to approve (decide which alternative or mix of activities to 

implement). 

• Whether there is a need for site-specific amendments to existing Forest Plan direction. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page xvii 

Table of Contents 

SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... iii

CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED ACTION and PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ...21

DOCUMENT STRUCTURE.........................................................................................21

BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................................22

MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ....................................................................................24

Forest Plan Direction .................................................................................................24

Other Direction ..........................................................................................................26

PURPOSE OF and NEED FOR ACTION ....................................................................27

DESIRED CONDITION ...............................................................................................28

PROPOSED ACTION ...................................................................................................30

DECISION FRAMEWORK ..........................................................................................31

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...........................................................................................31

ISSUES ..........................................................................................................................32

1. Soil and Water/Stream/Riparian ...........................................................................33

2. Upland Vegetation ................................................................................................33

3. Social/Economics ..................................................................................................34

CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION .................35

INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................35

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL...........................................................35

ALTERNATIVE A – NO ACTION ..........................................................................35

ACTIONS COMMON TO BOTH ACTION ALTERNATIVES .............................36

ALTERNATIVE B ....................................................................................................37

COMMON TO ALL ALLOTMENTS ..................................................................37

ALTERNATIVE C ....................................................................................................41

COMMON TO ALL ALLOTMENTS ..................................................................41

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS ....................................................................46

DESIGN CRITERIA .....................................................................................................48

MONITORING ..............................................................................................................48

Other Resource Monitoring .......................................................................................58

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED but ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY 58

Holistic Management on All Allotments ...................................................................58

Current Management .................................................................................................58

Eliminate Livestock Grazing .....................................................................................59

Immediate Reduction in Grazing by Area .................................................................59

Immediate Reduction in Grazing by Numbers ..........................................................59

Immediate Reduction in Grazing by Timing .............................................................60

Establish Grass Banks ................................................................................................60

Develop a Drought Management Plan .......................................................................60

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................60

CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT and ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES ............................................................................................................63

INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................63

BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................65

RANGE ......................................................................................................................65
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page xviii 

WILDLIFE HABITAT ............................................................................................130

FISHERIES ..............................................................................................................197

BOTANY .................................................................................................................200

FIRE and FUELS .....................................................................................................217

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ....................................................................................220

WATERSHED, GEOLOGY, and SOILS ................................................................220

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT .........................................................................................258

HERITAGE..............................................................................................................258

SOCIAL / ECONOMICS ........................................................................................264

IRREVERSABLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES.272

SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY ................................273

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS ...................................................................273

CHAPTER 4 BIBLIOGRAPHY/REFERENCES ...........................................................275

CHAPTER 5 GLOSSARY ..............................................................................................293

CHAPTER 6 LIST OF PREPARERS .............................................................................311

CHAPTER 7 INDEX .......................................................................................................313

List of Tables 

Table 0-1-1 Comparison of Alternatives .......................................................................... xv

Table 1-1 Management Area Acres by Allotment ............................................................ 26

Table 1-2 Desired Conditions for Vegetative Communities within the Project. .............. 29

Table 2-1 Adaptive Options .............................................................................................. 47

Table 2-2 Implementation (short term) Monitoring common to all allotments (would take 

place annually): ......................................................................................................... 51

Table 2-3 Effectiveness (long term) Monitoring specific to individual allotments (would 

take place every 5-10 years): .................................................................................... 51

Table 2-4 Comparison of Alternatives .............................................................................. 61

Table 3-1 Current authorized livestock use - Mystic Range Project Allotments ............. 65

Table 3-2 Comparison of Rangeland Conditions.............................................................. 72

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

................................................................................................................................. 133

Table 3-4 MIS Species and Rationale for Mystic Range Project Analysis. ................... 133

Table 3-5 Species of Local Concern of the Black Hills .................................................. 160

Table 3-6 Focus Species, Norbeck Wildlife Preserve .................................................... 187

Table 3-7 Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species Which Occur or Have Potential Habitat 

Within The Project Area. ........................................................................................ 205

Table 3-8 Plant Species Of Local Concern With Potential Habitat in Mystic Range 

Project Area ............................................................................................................ 206

Table 3-9 Fire Hazard Conditions ................................................................................... 218

Table 3-10 Watershed Acres, Percentages Bald Horse Allotment. ................................ 221

Table 3-11 Watershed Acres, Percentages, Deerfield Allotment. .................................. 222

Table 3-12 Watershed Acres, Percentages Palmer Gulch Allotment. ............................ 222

Table 3-13 Watershed Acres, Percentages Porcupine Allotment. .................................. 223

Table 3-14 Watershed Acres, Percentages Redfern Allotment. ..................................... 223

Table 3-15 Watershed Acres, Percentages Rimmer Allotment. ..................................... 223
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page xix 

Table 3-16 Watershed Acres, Percentages Slate Prairie Allotment. ............................... 224

Table 3-17 Watershed Acres, Percentages Tigerville Allotment.................................... 224

Table 3-18 Soil Map Units .............................................................................................. 225

Table 3-19 Stream Miles ................................................................................................. 225

Table 3-20 Floodplains and Wetlands ............................................................................ 226

Table 3-21 Adaptive Options Effects to Soil and Water Resources ............................... 248

Table 3-22 Costs Associated with Alternative A. ........................................................... 267

Table 3-23 Costs Associated with Alternative B. ........................................................... 268

Table 3-24 Costs Associated with Alternative C. ........................................................... 268

Appendices 

Appendix A - Public Involvement............................................................. A-1 

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

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

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

Appendix E - Management Direction and Opportunities .................................. E-1 

Appendix F – Maps ..............................................................................F-1 

Vicinity 

Bald Horse Allotment 

Deerfield Allotment 

Palmer Gulch Allotment 

Porcupine Allotment 

Redfern Allotment 

Rimmer Allotment 

Slate Prairie Allotment 

Tigerville Allotment 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page xx 

This page intentionally left blank.
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 21 

CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED ACTION and PURPOSE OF 

AND NEED FOR ACTION 

DOCUMENT STRUCTURE 

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

Environmental Impact Statement in compliance with the National Environmental Policy 

Act and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This Environmental Impact 

Statement discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would 

result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into seven 

chapters followed by Appendices A – F. 

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

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

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

need. This section also details how the Forest Service involved the public, how the 

public responded and what issues were generated regarding the proposal. 

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

detailed description of the proposed action for achieving the stated purpose 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. This chapter also provides 

a discussion of design criteria and monitoring required. Finally, this section includes a 

summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative. 

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

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

analysis documentation is organized by resource area, e.g., Range, Wildlife Habitat, 

Watershed and Soils, etc. 

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

supporting the documentation in the EIS. 

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

and terminology used throughout the EIS. 

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

development of the environmental impact statement.

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

words. 

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

and analysis presented in the EIS. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 22 

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

found in the Project File located at Mystic Ranger District office in Rapid City, South Dakota. 

BACKGROUND 

Livestock grazing has been occurring on the Black Hills National Forest since the initial 

explorations of the Custer Expedition. In fact, the 1874 Black Hills Expedition included 

a prodigious number of cattle, horse, and mules to sustain the expedition. This was in 

addition to the native grazers of the time: bison, elk, deer, and bighorn sheep. 

The following history of grazing in the Black Hills is excerpted from “Historic and 

Contemporary Use of Occupation of the Black Hills” (USDA Forest Service 1994a) 

compiled during the 1997 Forest Plan revision process. This excerpt provides insight on 

the nature and intensity of historical grazing impacts in the Black Hills and provides a 

social perspective for the vegetative range conditions found in the Black Hills today: 

“With the 1870s gold rush, needs for meat, vegetables, dairy products and fodder 

for people and animals moving in to the Hills heightened. Over the next two 

decades, industries grew out of cattle and sheep production, both within and 

outside of the Hills (Cassells et al. 1984). 

By 1888, as many as 600,000 cattle were concentrated in the Black Hills region. 

Estimates from 1903 placed cattle at 300,000 head, sheep at 100,000 and horses at 

7,000 head (Cassells 1984). Plains ranchers also brought cattle into the Hills in 

the summer in search of grazing lands. Livestock numbers for this era are 

phenomenal given the number of cattle allowed today. Currently, 23,000 head of 

cattle graze on the Black Hills National Forest lands. 

Like other parts of the West, “range wars” erupted between sheep and cattle 

interests. Although Belle Fourche and Rapid City supported a thriving wool 

industry with wool warehouses used as hubs for wool exports, cattlemen lobbied 

hard to drive sheep from the Hills. ....After holding public meetings, (Gifford) 

Pinchot opted to close the Forest to sheep. He did so in large part to protect the 

Forest’s timber reserves, which were being degraded by sheep that often destroy 

pine saplings. Sheep were again allowed on the Forest in 1916, “probably 

because the price of wool was up and the price of beef was down” (Geores 1993). 

Sheep grazing on Forest System lands in the Black Hills has occurred since, but 

not to the scale it had early this century and late last century. 

At the turn of the century, Forest Reserve regulations were adopted that favored 

small grazing permittee over leases to large companies. The Forest’s 

administration felt that small operators would be better land stewards than large 

operators, who cared only for profits, and not the conditions their cattle operations 

created on the range (Geores 1993). 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 23 

Homesteading ceased for a time in the Black Hills as a result of the creation of the 

Black Hills National Forest Reserve in 1898. Those homesteads already 

established in the Hills were allowed to stay on. The Forest Homestead Act of 

1906 dissolved the 1898 moratorium on homesteading on Forest Reserves. 

Homesteaders again arrived in the Hills. ....Since many of the lower-elevation 

areas had already been homesteaded, a number of people tried to homestead in the 

higher valleys and draws within the Black Hills. The usual pattern was to claim a 

homestead along a stream bottom, which included a long strip of land along the 

stream. This process along with those who filed mining claims, scattered parcels 

of private land in the public lands of the Black Hills National Forest. ....In some 

instances, small grains were produced on meadows that were cleared of rocks. 

Hay was gathered from natural grasses. Nearly all of these early homesteads have 

been abandoned or subdivided. Because of climate, successful homesteading 

above about 6,000 feet proved virtually impossible (Cassells et al. 1984). 

A major effort was made in the Custer area to promote dairy farms...sometime in 

the 1930s the carrying capacity for grazing land was reached. As many applicants 

for grazing allotments were turned away as were accepted, so the grazing 

resource, which had seemed nearly endless a couple of decades before had finally 

reached an official saturation point. 

By the early 1940s, some range land on the Forest was severely overgrazed. ....As 

a result, the Forest Service reduced the number of grazing permits to allow the 

land to recuperate. ....Grass and forb species were in poor condition on many 

areas of the Forest and deciduous vegetation, like willows, berry bushes and aspen 

had been damaged by overgrazing. Big game, especially deer, were impacted. 

....Grazing permit cuts began again in 1951. ....Programs were implemented in 

the 1950s to improve range conditions, including rotational grazing systems and 

aerial spraying of weeds. These programs met with some success, and were 

undertaken cooperatively between the Forest Service and permittees.” 

Heavy grazing and agricultural development were not the only activities that have 

influenced vegetative components of the Black Hills. Other activities and programs have 

also contributed to the condition of uplands and riparian communities seen in the Hills 

today. The following experts from “The Range of Natural Variability for the Black Hills: 

A First Step” (USDA Forest Service 1994b) describes these effects over the last 100 years: 

“Forest Service management has led to a dramatic shift in forest conditions over

the past 120 years. Today mature ponderosa pine appears to be considerably 

more dense and extensive that what occurred prior to settlement....” 

“The area of non-forested land has decreased since 1874. Much of this change 

can be attributed to a decrease in fire frequency. This has allowed ponderosa pine 

to encroach into dry meadows and some historically wet meadows that have drier 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 24 

soils resulting from lower water tables in streams that historically supported 

beaver dam complexes....” 

“Not only has forest maturation during the past century influenced tree species

composition, but herbaceous and shrub species also have been affected. 

Herbaceous and shrub species as a group attain their best productivity in 

meadows, early forest seral stages, and the understory of aspen and open-canopy 

forests. In the Black Hills, the increase in the density and extent of mature 

ponderosa pine and, to a lesser extent, white spruce has resulted in a concomitant 

decline in herbaceous and shrub species abundance.” 

“Riparian areas adjacent to low-gradient channels have probably been modified 

most since settlement began due to their accessibility. As described by early 

explorers, these ecosystems historically had saturated soils that supported 

phreatophytic (ie.e water dependent) plant communities. Beaver colonies were a 

critical link in maintaining the integrity of these wet-meadow systems. ....Beaver 

were heavily trapped by early settlers leaving only a few in remote places far 

away from settlements by 1887 causing a break in the natural cycle. The residual

dam complexes failed or in many cases were breached by local landowners. This 

decline in beaver populations, along with other impacts to wet meadows such as 

draining, grazing, decreased fire frequency, and herbicide spraying resulted in 

lower water tables and a compositional shift to drier-site plants.” 

Thus over the last 100 years, there have been many social, economic, and ecological influences 

that have resulted in the vegetative communities that occur in the Black Hills today. 

Livestock grazing is still an authorized use of National Forest System lands on the Black 

Hills (USDA Forest Service 1997). Goal 3 of the Black Hills Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (the Forest Plan) states: “Provide for sustained commodity uses in an 

environmentally acceptable manner.” Commodities, including livestock, contribute to the 

economics of local and regional communities and support local people. Because sustained 

commodity production depends on sustainable ecosystems, the Forest Plan further directs 

that “....livestock grazing will occur without impairing the health of ecosystems and in a 

manner compatible with other Forest uses.” These allotments are managed in close 

cooperation with the range permittees. 

MANAGEMENT DIRECTION 

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

the Mystic Range Project. A more detailed summary of management direction and 

associated management opportunities is located in Appendix E of this EIS. 

Forest Plan Direction 

The Black Hills National Forest programmatic management direction document is the 1997 

Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP or Forest Plan), as amended by the 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 25 

Phase II Amendment (October 2005), and supported by the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) for the Phase II Amendment to the 1997 LRMP. The Forest Plan is 

required by the rules implementing the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 

1974 (RPA), as amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA). 

The Forest Plan, as amended, provides revised and new standards and guidelines focused on:

protecting communities, property, and forest values by reducing severe insect and fire hazards; 

conserving viable plant and animal species and habitats for the long term supported by the best 

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

of the existing forest products and infrastructure. 

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

sustained yield of goods and services from National Forest System lands in an environmentally 

sound manner. Moreover, the Forest Plan provides overall goals and objectives (FP Chapter I) 

as well as associated standard and guidelines (FP Chapter II) for management. 

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

management of the Forest. Goals 1-4, 10 and 11 are directed toward natural resource 

objectives for multiple use management of the Forest. Also, Goal 3 and 5-9 provide socioeconomic emphasis for management of the Forest. The goals and objectives, applicable to 

specific resource management issues needing resolution, provide the basic direction for 

defining the purpose and need and subsequently developing the project proposal. The eleven 

Forest Plan goals are discussed in Chapter I of the Forest Plan. The goals providing primary 

management emphasis and direction for the Mystic Range Project are Goals 1-3: 

Goal 1: Protect basic soil, air, water and cave resources 

 Irreversible soil losses and detrimental soil conditions would not exceed standards 

and guidelines 

 Riparian areas would support diverse plant species. 

 Healthy riparian areas and stream systems would affect stream flow regime. 

 Water conditions on the Forest would be of a quality and quantity to enable them to 

contribute to municipal water supplies, including those using the Madison Aquifer. 

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

ecosystems. 

 Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species would be conserved. 

 Habitat necessary for sensitive species would be conserved. 

 Course woody material would be provided for forest productivity and wildlife 

species habitat. 

 Forage, cover, and open road densities are key components and addressed at the 

project level. 

 Uncommon communities would be conserved to maintain their ecological function. 

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

manner. 

 Emphasize long-term sustainable production of commodities for economies, 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 26 

communities, and people in an environmentally acceptable manner. 

 Timber harvest and livestock grazing would occur without impairing the health of 

ecosystems and in a manner compatible with other Forest uses. Acres of land 

suitable and available for livestock grazing are displayed in Appendix I of the 

Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2006a). 

See Appendix E ‘Management Direction and Opportunities’ for more information on the 

above goals, objectives and opportunities. 

The Forest Plan also sets management allocations for specific uses of land (Management 

Areas) within the Forest to meet multiple use objectives (FP Chapter III). The Mystic Range 

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

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

MAs designated in the Forest Plan for the Project Area are listed below, in Table 1-1 and also 

displayed in Appendix F. 

MA 3.1 - Botanical Areas 

MA 3.7 - Late Successional Forest Landscape 

MA 4.1 - Limited Motorized Use and Forest Product Emphasis 

MA 4.2B - Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway 

MA 5.1 - Resource Production Emphasis 

MA 5.4 - Big Game Winter Range Emphasis 

MA 5.4A - Norbeck Wildlife Preserve 

MA 8.2 - Developed Recreation Complexes 

Table 1-1 Management Area Acres by Allotment 

Allotment 

Name 

Management Area Acres 

3.1 3.7 4.1 4.2B 5.1 5.4 5.4A 8.2 Total 

Acres 

Bald Horse - 3499 50 - - 23728 - 551 27828

Deerfield 160 - - - 6932 - - 782 7874

Palmer Gulch - - 3439 302 8386 36 2027 - 14190

Porcupine - - - - 6421 3437 - - 9858

Redfern - 94 - - 178 11301 - - 11573

Rimmer - - - - 2011 - - - 2011

Slate Prairie - - - - 1384 4512 - - 5896

Tigerville - - - - - 5825 - - 5825

Total Acres 160 3593 3489 302 25312 48839 2027 1333 85055

Other Direction 

Norbeck Wildlife Preserve 

The Norbeck Organic Act of June 5, 1920, authorized the establishment of the Custer State 

Park Game Sanctuary “for the protection of game animals and birds and to be recognized as a 

breeding place therefor.” The sanctuary was officially established by proclamation on October 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 27 

9, 1920, by President Woodrow Wilson. The name Custer State Park Game Sanctuary was 

changed to Norbeck Wildlife Preserve on October 6, 1949 (16 USC 675, 1998). 

In the 1927 Master Plan for the Protection and Administration of the Preserve, the Forest 

Service detailed events leading to the establishment of Norbeck. The Plan explained that 

then-Governor Peter Norbeck of South Dakota “desired to add this feature [the presence 

of game] to the Custer State Park.” (Master Plan, pg. 3). The Plan noted the Sanctuary 

had been withdrawn from mineral entry and homesteading, and then withdrawn again by 

the Act and Proclamation, and that “this second withdrawal is the dominant withdrawal.” 

The Plan concluded that “preference will be given to the use as a game sanctuary and its 

use for such other purpose will be restricted or denied....” (Master Plan, pg. 11). The 

Plan went on to allow for timber removals from the area, continued special uses (summer 

homes) and grazing (Master Plan, pg 50). 

Subsequent agency plans for Norbeck have followed the lead of the 1927 Master Plan in 

realizing that the primary use of Norbeck was for “game animals and birds”, and that all 

actions in the Preserve were to benefit these species. Management plans drawn up in 

1973, 1979, and 1989, and two generations of Forest Plans (1983 and 1997) have 

included grazing as suitable use. The current Forest Plan, as amended, provides direction 

for MA 5.4A. Permits may be reissued, but permitted livestock numbers are not to be 

increased. The Forest Service should take advantage of opportunities to transfer forage 

use from livestock to wildlife (pg III – 101 USDA Forest Service, 2006d). The Palmer 

Gulch Allotment contains approximately 14 percent (2027 acres) within the boundary of 

Norbeck (see Range section in Chapter 3 for further information). 

Peter Norbeck National Scenic Byway 

Established in 2001, the Peter Norbeck National Scenic Byway is a 70-mile corridor 

created to emphasize the scenic quality of the heart of the Black Hills granitic core. 

Portions of the Byway were designed by Peter Norbeck himself after searching the 

Harney Range for routes that would provide “the grandest view” and allow visitors to 

drive slowly and experience the area from their motor vehicles. The Byway is one of the 

major draws to the area and with its steep, winding route and pig-tail bridges, it leaves a 

lasting impression. Approximately 3 miles of the Palmer Allotment is within the Scenic 

Byway (see Range section in Chapter 3 for further information). 

PURPOSE OF and NEED FOR ACTION 

The purpose of this project is to re-authorize livestock grazing on all or part of the project 

area and to ensure livestock grazing occurs in an environmentally acceptable manner. The 

Forest Service rangeland allotment management process calls for periodic reviews of 

allotment conditions and management practices. All of these subject allotments are due for 

environmental review, and if necessary, revision to current rangeland management practices. 

This project will address Goals 1-3 of the Forest Plan – to protect basic soil, air, water, and 

cave resources; to provide for biologically diverse ecosystems; and to provide for sustained 

commodity uses, consistent with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 28 

The underlying needs for this proposal include: 

• Improve livestock management so that it is consistent with the goals, objectives, 

standards, and guidelines of the Forest Plan, as amended 

• Improve species composition of upland vegetation 

• Improve streambank stability 

• Improve riparian vegetation diversity and abundance 

• Reduce opportunities for cattle conflicts with vehicle traffic 

DESIRED CONDITION 

Desired condition is the specific condition of rangeland resources on a landscape that

meets management objectives as identified in the Forest Plan. Desired condition is based 

on ecological, social, and economic considerations. Goal 2 of the Forest Plan describes 

the desired condition of lands and resources and also describes standards and guidelines 

for various resources that are intended to guide management into meeting or trending

towards desired conditions. Appendix E includes Forest Plan direction that helped define 

the desired conditions for the Mystic Range Project. 

Desired plant community (DPC) selection is crucial to effective rangeland planning. DPC is 

part of the overall desired condition developed by the interdisciplinary team. DPC’s must 

currently exist in the general area in similar environmental settings, and are capable of 

occupying the site within a reasonable time period through management changes (R2 

Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide, USDA Forest Service 1996a). Much 

of the primary grazing areas in the Black Hills have been converted to non-native graminoid 

species through historic management practices. For example, numerous meadows were 

planted with timothy and/or smooth brome and managed as hay grounds (Graves, 1899; 

MacIntosh, 1928). These species have naturalized and easily spread to adjacent areas 

(Larson and Johnson 1999). It is not feasible for these areas to return to a “natural” state 

without major effort and expense. Many of these non-native species are acceptable for the 

current and proposed management of the project area. Non-native species such as Smooth 

Brome (Bromus inermis)provide valuable forage for wildlife and livestock, and also provide 

adequate watershed protection. Smooth brome has a resource value rating of “high” for elk 

and deer preference, as well as for watershed protection (USDA Forest Service 1996a). The 

ratings are based on the relish and degree of use shown by livestock and wildlife for a plant 

or plant part. The high reading indicates the plant is highly relished and consumed to a high 

degree and the moderate rating correlates to a plant that is consumed or relished to a 

moderate degree. Watershed protection is based on the growth rate, structure, biomass, or 

root system characteristics or individual plant species to reduce soil erosion. A plant with a 

moderate rating would exhibit moderately aggressive growth, a moderate degree of persistent 

plant structure, potential biomass or a moderate soil-binding root rhizome runner system. 

The overall desired condition for the project area that was developed by the IDT is described 

in Table 1-2. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 29 

Table 1-2 Desired Conditions for Vegetative Communities within the Project.

Community Type Desired Conditions 

Upland Grasslands Mixed native grass and forb communities provide a diverse 

mosaic of plant species, a variety of vegetative structures, and 

effective ground cover (not more than 5-15% bare ground 

depending on soil type) to maintain soil stability and provide 

wildlife habitat. Maintain quality of desired plant communities 

by managing for native species. Primary native graminoid 

species may include: Nassella viridula (green needlegrass), 

native wheatgrasses, Carex filifolia (threadleaf sedge), and 

Koeleria macrantha (prairie junegrass). Acceptable non-native 

species may include Poa pratensis (Kentucky bluegrass), 

Bromus inermis (smooth brome), and Phleum pratense 

(timothy). Forb species may include Vicia americana (American 

vetch), Achillea millefolium (common yarrow) Trifolium spp. 

(clovers), and Taraxacum officinale (dandelion). Noxious weeds 

and invasive plants should be less than 2% of the species 

composition. In high quality endemic Black Hills Montane 

Grassland communities, maintain diversity and canopy cover of 

native signature species which may include Stipa richardsonii 

(Richarson’s needlegrass), Sporobolis heterolepis (prairie 

dropseed), Geum triflorum (prairie smoke), Solidago spp. 

(goldenrod), and Potentilla spp. (cinquefoil). 

Riparian Communities 

(Including Seeps & Springs) Maintain riparian plant communities that provide overhanging 

vegetation and effective ground cover to help trap sediment and 

dissipate energy during peak flows, protect soils from erosion 

processes, maintain stream bank stability and reduce alteration, 

and effective ground cover (not more than 5-10% bare ground 

depending on soil type) and provide wildlife habitat. Plant 

species may include Carex spp. (sedges), Juncus spp. and 

Scirpus spp. (rushes), and desirable riparian grass species (ex: 

Glyceria spp. (mannagrass), and Calamagrostis canadensis 

(bluejoint reedgrass)). In shrubland systems, plant species may 

include black hawthorn and Salix spp. (willows). Tree species 

may include Betula papyrifera (paper birch), Betula occidentalis

(water birch), Acer negundo (boxelder), Quercus macrocarpa 

(bur oak) Cornus sericea (redosier dogwood), and Picea glauca 

(white spruce). Class structure in willow communities should 

have a distribution of age classes. New shrubs are establishing 

and are increasing in size and cover. Stream banks should be 

rated mostly stable (equal to or greater than 74% of all measured 

banks). High quality habitat for sensitive species will be 

maintained in the McIntosh Fen; livestock grazing is not 

authorized in the Fen at this time. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 30 

Community Type Desired Conditions 

Aspen In landscapes with multiple aspen clones, maintain aspen 

communities with diverse age structures including old growth 

communities, regeneration, openings, standing snags and down 

woody debris across aspen areas: vigorous and diverse native 

grass and forb understory present. Aspen shoots are present and 

develop into saplings over time. 

Ponderosa pine Maintain diverse understory of native grasses including Nassella 

viridula (green needle grass), native wheatgrasses, Carex inops 

ssp. heliophila (sun sedge), Schizachyrium scoparium (little 

bluestem), and Koeleria macrantha (prairie junegrass). 

Maintain effective ground cover (not more than 10% bare 

ground) to maintain soil stability and provide wildlife habitat. 

Acceptable non-native species may include Kentucky bluegrass, 

smooth brome, and timothy. Forb species may include Vicia 

americana (American vetch), Achileia millefolium (common 

yarrow), Trifolium spp. (clovers), and Taraxacum officinale

(dandelion). Noxious weeds should be less than 2% of the 

species composition. 

Botanical Areas (MA 3.1) & 

Sensitive and SOLC Plant 

Occurrences 

Maintain current extent of known sensitive and SOLC plant 

occurrences. Impacts by livestock (utilization, trampling, 

trailing) on sensitive and SOLC plant species and suitable 

habitat will be incidental. Vegetation, habitat, soil productivity 

and water quality are generally not impacted by livestock since 

their use is not authorized at this time in the McIntosh Fen. 

PROPOSED ACTION 

The Proposed Action, Alternative C, is designed to maintain or improve resource conditions

using a full suite of options, including construction of new structural improvements such as 

fences, cattleguards, and water developments. Existing improvements would be maintained 

or reconstructed, as needed. New “core” structures - those required under the Proposed 

Action - are intended to provide better resource protection, get better livestock distribution, 

and reduce the potential for livestock-vehicle collisions along higher speed roads. It also 

includes adaptive options to construct improvements if determined necessary after other 

measures are implemented. These adaptive improvements might not ever be constructed, but 

are considered here to provide flexibility in case they are needed. Reconstruction activities are 

generally expected to occur within a 3-5 year timeframe. New structural improvements are 

generally expected to occur in 1-3 years. Adaptive improvements are more likely to be 

constructed in 5-10 years, if at all. Many or most may never be constructed. New and 

adaptive structural improvements, and those that need maintained or reconstructed are 

presented by allotment in Appendix F. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 31 

For all allotments: livestock would be moved by the permittee when proper use criteria for upland 

rangelands and riparian areas are reached and before continued use would exceed standards and 

guidelines. Adaptive Management Options that may also be considered are displayed in Table 2-1.

Refer to “Alternatives Considered in Detail” in Chapter 2 of this document for a detailed 

description of the Proposed Action and other Alternatives. 

DECISION FRAMEWORK 

The Mystic Range Project purpose and need provides the focus and scope for the proposal as 

related to the programmatic goals of the Forest Plan and the Phase II Amendment. Given the 

purpose and need, the Deciding Official (District Ranger) reviews the proposed action, the 

issues identified during scoping, the alternatives, the environmental consequences of

implementing the proposal and alternatives, and public comments on the Final EIS. 

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

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

responsive to National policy/guidance/law and Forest Plan direction, and meet the 

purpose and need for action in the Mystic Range Project Area. 

• Whether or not the information in this analysis is sufficient to implement proposed 

activities. 

• Which action, if any, to approve (decide which alternative or mix of activities to 

implement). 

• Whether there is a need for site-specific amendments to existing Forest Plan direction. 

If any action alternative is selected, project implementation could begin as early as the 

Fall 2010. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

During project development and analysis period, an effort was made to involve, interact, 

and cooperate with individuals and groups interested in the Mystic Range Project. Part of 

this effort included public scoping as discussed below. 

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

determine the breadth of issues to be addressed. Comments on the proposed action, 

potential concerns, and opportunities for managing the Mystic Range Project Area were 

solicited from members of the public, American Indian Tribes, other public agencies, 

organizations, and Forest Service specialists. 

A scoping letter was mailed to approximately 91 interested parties, on June 5, 2009. This 

letter included a description of the project area, and a general explanation of the actions 

proposed, and an invitation to comment. During the public scoping period and throughout 

the project development and analysis period an effort was made to involve and interact 

with individuals and groups interested in the Mystic Range Project. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 32 

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

South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks, members of the Holistic Management Team, and the 

eight allotment permittees. An effort was made to engage in consultation regarding the 

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

The project was entered into the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) in February 2009. 

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

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

can become aware of and indicate interest on specific proposals (www.fs.fed.us/sopa). 

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

Friday, June 12, 2009. This provided official notification that the public comment period 

for the Mystic Range Project Area would last for 30-days concluding July 13, 2009. 

During the scoping period, the Forest Service received considerable public response 

supporting the proposal and rationale for action. 

ISSUES 

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

period for the Mystic Range Project. Comments received during scoping were used to help in 

defining issues, develop alternatives and mitigation measures, and analyze effects. A total of 

177 comments were received via letters, faxes, personal-delivery, or email during the formal 

scoping process. Through review and analysis of scoping comments and input, the Mystic 

Range Project Core ID Team identified three prevailing or key issues related to the proposed 

activities. Comments received and the agency ‘response to comments’ are summarized in the 

Mystic Range Project File located at the Mystic Ranger District, Rapid City office. 

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

into significant [as directed by the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations 

(40 CFR 1500.4(g) and 1501.7)] and non-significant issues. Significant issues are defined 

as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Nonsignificant issues are defined as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) 

already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant 

to the decision to be made ; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual 

evidence. The Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations explain this 

delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “...identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which 

are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 

1506.3)...” A list of non-significant issues and rationale regarding their categorization as 

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

issues follows below: 

A concern raised during the scoping period was the effect of grazing on wildlife, specifically 

for those species that utilize or depend on primarily on riparian, but also upland plant 

communities. Effects of livestock grazing on wildlife was not included as a significant issue 

because those effects are largely a function riparian and upland vegetation conditions, and 

these resources are included in the three main issues. Even though wildlife is not listed as a 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 33 

significant issue, this DEIS includes substantial information on the effects of grazing to 

wildlife (see Chapter 3). 

A brief description of the three key issues follows below. Following each key issue category 

below is a list of issue measurement indicators. Use of measurement indicators applicable to 

the respective issues provides a means to make a relative comparison between each 

alternative based on their effects on each issue. 

1. Soil and Water/Stream/Riparian 

Comments received during scoping and internal review indicate a concern that livestock 

have adverse impacts to soil and water, streams, and riparian areas. Specifically, there are 

concerns that livestock grazing results in compacted soils, lowered water quality from 

livestock use in and near streams, trampling of stream banks with associated bank alteration 

and stream bank destabilization, and loss of riparian habitat and vegetative diversity. 

The Proposed Action is designed to reduce livestock grazing effects on soils, water, stream 

and riparian resources. It includes a new riparian stubble height requirement that would limit 

the amount of time livestock spend within riparian areas and next to streams, builds fences to 

exclude livestock from some riparian/stream/spring areas and obtain better distribution, and 

constructs water developments in the uplands to encourage cattle use away from streams and 

riparian vegetation. It also includes new long-term effectiveness monitoring along 

stream/riparian habitat to determine if these actions are successfully maintaining or moving 

towards desired resource conditions, along with stricter requirements if the proposed actions 

are not being effective. 

Measurement Indicators for Soil and Water/Stream/Riparian: 

Soil compaction 

Water quality 

Streambank Stability 

Riparian vegetation 

2. Upland Vegetation 

Comments received during scoping and internal review indicate a concern that livestock 

have adverse impacts on upland vegetation. Specifically, there are concerns that 

livestock grazing will result in areas of bare ground devoid of vegetation, increased 

noxious weed infestations, and lack of native and desirable non-native vegetation species. 

The Proposed Action is designed to reduce effects of livestock grazing on upland vegetation. 

It requires movement of livestock before reaching upland utilization standards, construction 

of fences and water developments to gain better livestock distribution, and utilizes livestock 

as appropriate to reduce weed infestations in combination with other integrated pest 

management options. It also includes new long-term effectiveness monitoring of upland 

vegetation to determine if these actions are successfully maintaining or moving towards 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 34 

desired resource conditions, along with stricter requirements if the proposed actions are not 

being effective. 

Measurement Indicators for Upland Vegetation: 

Bare ground 

Noxious weeds and undesirable plants 

Desirable upland plant species diversity 

3. Social/Economics 

Comments received during scoping and internal review indicate a concern about economic 

effects on permittees and the Forest Service from livestock operations on the allotments, and 

concern about the risk to livestock-vehicle collisions along high speed roads. Specifically, 

there are concerns that any changes in operating standards and costs could negatively affect 

the economics of the livestock operations, potentially to the point where permittees would 

no longer have a viable operation; and that the Forest Service is not adequately funded to 

administer the permits. Also, there is a risk on the Sheridan Lake, Deerfield, Old Hill City 

Highway, and Twin Spring roads for livestock-vehicle collisions because the cattle are not 

fenced off of the road right-of-way. This is especially a concern along the Sheridan Lake 

Road which is scheduled to be reconstructed and straightened out, thereby resulting in 

higher speeds and traffic; and the Deerfield Road which will likely see increased traffic after 

the scheduled upgrade and paving of the South Rochford Road is completed. 

The Proposed Action is designed to continue livestock grazing, subject to Forest Plan 

direction and desired resource conditions, and to fence off the rights-of-way along the listed 

roads. The Proposed Action includes additional costs to the permittee, varying by allotment, 

for reconstruction of existing improvements and construction of new fences, water 

developments and cattle guards. These actions could affect the economics of the livestock 

operations. In addition, in order to meet Forest Plan standards and desired resource 

conditions in stream/riparian and upland areas, actual use on some allotments might be less 

than currently allowed. The Forest Service will see additional costs for long-term 

monitoring on stream/riparian and upland areas. 

Measurement Indicators for Social/Economic: 

Risk of livestock-vehicle collisions 

Potential for actual grazing use reductions 

Cost to Permittees 

Cost to Forest Service 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 35 

CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE 

PROPOSED ACTION 

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter provides a detailed description of the proposed action (Alternative C), another 

action alternative to the proposed action (Alternative B), as well as No Action alternative 

(Alternative A) for the Mystic Range Project. Maps of the proposed action and alternatives 

are located in Appendix F of this EIS. 

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

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

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

considering the environment consequences (effects) of implementing each alternative as 

disclosed in Chapter 3 of this EIS. 

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

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

study. The last section of the chapter contains a comparative table that summarizes each 

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

alternative relative to the issues presented in Chapter 1. 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL 

The Forest Service analyzed three alternatives, Alternative A No Action, Alternative B, 

and Alternative C the Proposed Action. 

ALTERNATIVE A – NO ACTION 

Alternative A (No Action) – Alternative A is the no action alternative. Under this 

alternative, grazing would not be reauthorized and the current permit holders would be 

notified that their term grazing permits would be cancelled. All term grazing permits would 

be cancelled after two years, pursuant to Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2209.13 part 16.24, 

and Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 36 CFR 222.4(4)(1). The FSH and CFR regulations 

indicate that a two-year notification is required prior to cancelling a permit, except in 

emergency situations. 

The no action alternative would close eight allotments, eliminating livestock grazing from 

85,055 acres of National Forest System lands. Permits would not be issued for any of the

eight affected allotments unless a subsequent NEPA analysis and decision to restock the 

allotments was made. 

Maintenance of range developments on the allotments would no longer be the responsibility 

of the permittees. Developments built to facilitate livestock management, including 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 36 

allotment and pasture fences, livestock enclosures, and stock water ponds and water 

developments would be abandoned. Permittees who participated in the development of range 

improvements would be reimbursed for their amortized share, consistent with direction in 

FSH 2209.13, Chapter 70. Developments built that would benefit wildlife or reduce wildlife 

effects to resources, such as water developments and big game enclosures would remain in 

place and would continue to be maintained by the Forest Service and/or cooperators. 

Maintenance of unassigned allotment boundary fences would be assigned to the adjacent 

permittee, if one is present. 

The following structural improvements would be abandoned: 

• Approximately 145 miles of fence. 

• Approximately 219 water developments. 

• Approximately 9 miles of pipeline 

Spring boxes and underground pipes associated with water developments would be 

abandoned; pipes would be disconnected. If left in place, pipes would be capped on one or 

both ends to prevent water from flowing through the pipes. Unused fences would be 

removed as funds permit or as opportunities become available to utilize human resource

labor programs such as the Youth Conservation Corp or other similar programs. All salvage 

materials would be stored for re-use, disposed of in a landfill, or recycled. 

ACTIONS COMMON TO BOTH ACTION ALTERNATIVES 

Both Alternatives B and C are designed to improve resource conditions in rangeland 

health, vegetation, watershed conditions, designated Botanical Areas, and wildlife habitat 

relative to livestock grazing. Both respond, to varying degrees, to the purpose and need 

for this project and the issues presented in Chapter 1 of this EIS. 

Both alternatives would reauthorize grazing on all eight allotments. Changes would be made 

to some of the allotments. Structural range improvements would continue to be maintained 

annually, and reconstructed as needed. The permittee would be responsible for maintenance 

and reconstruction. The Forest Service would assist in funding material costs for 

reconstruction, as funding allows. Both alternatives include maintenance and reconstruction 

if some existing improvements and removal of others that are no longer needed. 

Reconstruction should generally be completed within the next 3-5 years. Removal of 

improvements that are no longer needed should be accomplished within the next 5-10 years. 

Individual Allotment Management Plans (AMP’s) would be assembled from the EIS 

record of decision summarizing directions for season of use, numbers, class and type of

livestock, applicable Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, anticipated rotation of 

livestock, and monitoring requirements.

Residual levels (or remaining height of key plant species) would be prescribed for riparian 

areas in Annual Operating Instructions. Initially this would be 4” for key specie(s) 

(University of Idaho, 2004). Proper allowable use by percent weight is 50% for uplands. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 37 

Livestock would be moved to the next pasture before thresholds for upland and riparian 

triggers are reached, based on adherence to Forest Plan Standard 2505. Permittees are 

responsible for monitoring these conditions. 

Alternatives B and C also have a long-term effectiveness monitoring plan to assess upland 

and riparian conditions and trends (see Chapter 2 Monitoring). The Forest Service is 

responsible for this effectiveness monitoring. If monitoring does not indicate progress 

towards desired conditions, it may be necessary to change proper allowable use percent 

utilization by weight from 50% to 45%, and/or increase residual riparian stubble height to six 

inches. 

The actual number of livestock and season of use would be determined each year prior to 

grazing and would be outlined in the Annual Operating Instructions (AOI). Factors such as 

drought, fire, or other specific management objectives could all influence annual livestock 

numbers and season of use. These variables are considered during winter meetings with 

each permittee to determine the upcoming grazing season’s permitted use. The degree to 

which drought impairs the range’s potential for future forage production depends on the 

intensity, frequency, and timing of grazing. Design criteria include development of a 

drought management strategy. 

Both alternatives include adaptive management options that could be implemented if needed 

to meet desired resource conditions. Adaptive management options are presented in Table 

2-1. The main difference between the two alternatives is that Alternative C includes new 

structural improvements and prescribed burning, while Alternative B does not. 

ALTERNATIVE B 

COMMON TO ALL ALLOTMENTS 

Alternative B is designed to maintain or improve resource conditions without construction of 

any new structural improvements such as fences, cattleguards, and water developments. 

Existing improvements would be maintained or reconstructed, as needed. Structural 

improvements that need maintained or reconstructed are presented by allotment in Appendix F. 

Some tools for effecting change in condition and trend are adjusting the timing and duration 

of livestock use, and moving to the next pasture before allowable proper use by weight 

guidelines and/or riparian stubble height requirements are exceeded. The permittee’s 

primary methods may be: 1) strategic salt and/or supplement placement, 2) range riding to 

influence animal behavior by working the livestock, and 3) culling animals that do not range 

out from riparian areas. The purpose of using these methods is to achieve grazing efficiency, 

and reduce adverse effects on soils, riparian areas, and upland vegetation within the

allotments that have specific areas that are not meeting desired conditions. 

Bald Horse Allotment 

The current 27,828 acre Bald Horse Allotment is grazed using a nine pasture deferred 

rotation system from 06/01 to 10/26 each year, for 299 mature cattle (cow/calf pair) and a 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 38 

maximum of 1921 AUM's. Existing structural improvements include 20 spring 

developments, 3 ponds, 14 water tanks, and approximately 37 miles of fence. 

Alternative B would continue the existing nine pasture deferred rotation system on the 

Bald Horse Allotment. This alternative would continue the practice of non-use (no 

grazing) within the Buzzards Roost Pasture. Limited grazing could be allowed in the 

future if it is determined that such grazing would benefit other resource objectives. This 

alternative varies the order of pasture use each season. It reduces the number of days in 

the Middle Horse Pasture in order to improve riparian conditions. It would temporarily

increase the number of days in the Prairie Creek Pasture to help offset this reduction. No 

use would be allowed before June 15 in the Prairie Creek Pasture to avoid conflicts with 

bighorn sheep lambing use. 

Some existing improvements would be reconstructed to ensure their effectiveness and others 

that are no longer needed would be removed. This includes reconstructing the spring 

exclosure and repairing a pipeline to the water tank at Van Pelt Spring in the Lower Victoria 

Pasture, reconstructing or relocating the water development in the north half of the West 

Horse Pasture, improving drainage around the existing water tank (south of Twin Sisters) 

increasing exclosure protection in the South Bald Hills Pasture, and reconstructing and 

enlarging the spring exclosure on the northwest end of the Middle Bald Hills Pasture. To 

prevent cattle from straying into Pactola Basin, Alternative B removes an unused cattleguard 

from FSR 164 and uses the materials to install a cattleguard in FSR 165 to replace the 

existing steel gate; and repairs fencing along the Centennial Trail as needed in the Prairie 

Creek Pasture. Alternative B also would remove any interior fencing in the Buzzard’s Roost 

Pasture, and remove a defunct water development on southwest corner of the Prairie Pasture. 

Deerfield Allotment 

The current 7,874 acre Deerfield Allotment is grazed using a six pasture system from 06/06 

to 10/25 each year, for 102 mature cattle (cow/calf pair) and a maximum of 631 AUM's. 

Existing structural improvements include 9 ponds and approximately 26 miles of fence. 

Alternative B would continue the current six pasture grazing system, and maintain existing 

structural improvements. It recommends continued use of a range rider in the Heely Pasture. 

It would reconstruct the pond at the FSR 691.1J/691.1G junction for an improved watering 

source in the Gold Run Pasture. No improvements need removal at this time. As with the 

current practice, Alternative B would maintain the protective boundary and not allow grazing 

within the McIntosh Pasture. Some limited grazing could be conducted within the McIntosh 

Pasture if it is determined to be beneficial for weed control or other botanical purposes. This 

would require development of a separate management plan. 

Palmer Gulch Allotment 

The current 14,190 acre Palmer Gulch Allotment has two permittees and is split into two 

separate grazing rotations: five pastures on the north half and six pastures on the south half. 

The north half is 4,843 acres in size and utilizes a five pasture deferred rotation system. 

Current permitted use on the north half is from 06/01 to 10/31 for 74 cow/calf pair and a 

maximum of 491 AUM’s. The south half is about 9,327 acres in size and utilizes a six pasture
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 39 

deferred rotation system. Current permitted use is from 06/01 to 10/21 for 67 cow/calf pair 

and a maximum of 445 AUM’s. It includes a small (20 acre) on/off winter use pasture 

adjacent to private land. Existing structural improvements include 3 spring developments, 18 

ponds, 1 water tank, and approximately 27 miles of fence for both halves of the allotment. 

Alternative B would continue the split between north and south for this allotment, and would 

formalize the split by dividing it into two separate allotments. For this evaluation, reference 

will be made to the “North Half Palmer Gulch” and the “South Half Palmer Gulch”. 

North Half 

Alternative B would operate on three pastures instead of five currently permitted because 

two of the pastures – Sawmill and Dump – are currently unusable. The Sawmill Pasture 

is currently not grazed due to lack of private land fencing. The Dump Pasture has not 

been grazed since 2003 because there are no railroad cattleguards in place to control 

cattle access onto the railroad right-of-way. In total, non-use in these two pastures would 

result in a total of 44 days reduction in actual grazing use. 

Alternative B includes reconstruction of the Joe Dollar Mine water tank and spring

development in the Samalius Pasture. This alternative would also remove approximately 

one half mile of unneeded ROW fence in the Keystone Pasture and one third mile of 

unused fence on the Sawmill Pasture. Alternative B would also maintain two ponds in the 

north half of the Ford Pasture and three ponds in the south half of the Samelius Pasture. 

South Half 

Existing pastures would continue to be used on the South Half Palmer Gulch Allotment. 

Current permitted use is from 06/01 to 10/21 for 67 cow/calf pair and a maximum of 445 

AUM’s, including the grazing of 3 cow/calf pair of occasional winter use on a 20 acre 

pasture from 10/22 to 5/31 for a maximum of 29 AUM’s. 

A cooperative effort may be made with the Hell Canyon RD and the permittee in the design 

and implementation of an aspen regeneration project (Norbeck FEIS) to ensure livestock 

trailing to adjacent pastures is possible after project completion. No use would be allowed in 

the Palmer and Sunday Pastures before June 15 to avoid conflicts with bighorn sheep 

lambing use. Livestock would be removed from these pastures around August 1 to allow 

grass/forb regrowth for winter use by wildlife. Alternative B would remove the unused FS 

horse pasture fence in the East Zimmer Pasture and allow cattle grazing, and relocate the 

temporary water tank, when used, on the Lower Bear Pasture. 

Porcupine Allotment 

The Porcupine Allotment currently uses a Holistic Management (HM) team approach, which 

has been in effect since 1988. The allotment totals 9,858 acres and utilizes a 12 pasture rest 

rotation system from 06/09 to 09/30 and average 334 cattle (cow/calf with some yearlings) 

and an average 1653 AUM’s. Variable numbers and season allowed each year for this HM 

allotment. Existing structural improvements include 3 vertical wells, 5 spring developments, 

19 ponds, 8 water tanks, 9 miles of pipeline, and approximately 34 miles of fence 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 40 

Alternative B would continue the existing HM grazing system and permitted average AUMs. 

It also proposes to bury all existing exposed pipelines for protection from wildfire,

equipment, and sunlight damage; reconstruct exclosure of North Antelope Springs, and 

may rest one pasture per year over a twelve year cycle unless specific reasons indicate 

grazing treatment is necessary. Grazing would generally be conducted early or late season 

in the Signal and South Exchange Pastures to favor consumption of noxious weeds. 

Redfern Allotment 

The current 11,573 acres Redfern Allotment utilizes a five pasture deferred rotation system 

from 06/11 to 10/25, for 195 cow/calf pairs at a maximum of 1159 AUMs. Existing 

structural improvements include 6 spring developments, 26 ponds, 3 water tanks, and 

approximately 18 miles of fence. 

The total permitted use under Alternative B would be 177 cow/calf pairs, based on a 

reduction of 18 pair from the existing permit because of a pending term grazing permit 

waiver. This alternative would maintain the existing structural improvements. It would 

also relocate or reconstruct two water sources in the west central, upland portion of the 

Slate Creek Pasture, remove a defunct water development located approximately 0.75 

miles east of Queen Bee Mine property on the Queen Bee Pasture, and determine if the 

horse pasture is necessary and resolve maintenance issues, also on the Queen Bee Pasture. 

Rimmer Allotment 

The Rimmer Allotment currently includes 2,011 acres split between two pastures operating 

from 06/11 to 10/10, for 33 cow/calf pairs and a maximum of 175 AUM’s. Existing 

structural improvements include 1 spring development, 2 ponds, and approximately 5 miles

of fence. 

Alternative B would modify the allotment by incorporating the underutilized West 

School Pasture from the Slate Prairie Allotment into the Rimmer Allotment to form a 

third pasture. The number of days would be reduced to lessen the duration of use in the 

Rimmer Pasture. Initially, the Rimmer Pasture use would be reduced by 10 days and the 

Grandad Pasture reduced by four days. These reductions would be made up by the added 

West School Pasture. The allotment would increase in size by approximately 77 acres 

with the addition of the West School Pasture. 

Alternative B would reconstruct the exclosure at Lost Park Springs and repair two gates 

along the Deerfield Trail 40. 

Slate Prairie Allotment 

The existing 5,896 acre allotment is currently managed using a five pasture deferred rotation 

system from 06/01 to 10/20 for 200 mature cattle (cow/calf) at a maximum of 1233 AUM’s. 

Existing structural improvements include 23 ponds, 3 water tanks, and approximately 13 

miles of fence. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 41 

Alternative B would modify current management by removing the West Slate School 

Pasture and adding it onto the existing Rimmer Allotment, since it is underutilized by Slate 

Prairie permitted cattle, and always grazed late in season. Use with the Rimmer Allotment 

(same permittee) would allow for variation in season of use. This change would reduce the 

Slate Prairie Allotment by 77 acres and two days of use. Alternative B would maintain 

existing structural improvements, except as noted below where reconstruction or removal 

would be required. 

Reconstruction or removal of existing improvements include the following: reconstruct 

fence to protect spring from trampling in the north end of the Mystic Pasture; reconstruct 

spring exclosure in lower Daugherty Gulch, rebuild approximately 0.20 miles of drift fence 

in Crooked Creek at the junction with Castle Creek, and remove a remnant exclosure in the 

drainage east of Crooked Creek draw that is overgrown with brush and trees - all on the 

Whitetail Pasture; and use rock to reinforce the pond spillway on the Slate School Pasture. 

Tigerville Allotment 

The existing 5,825 acre allotment is currently managed using a six pasture deferred rotation 

system from 06/01 to 10/25 for 112 cow/calf at a maximum of 715 AUM’s. Existing 

structural improvements include: 4 spring developments, 19 ponds, and approximately19 

miles of fence. 

Alternative B would combine two pastures (Westside and Lena) and incorporate an 80 

acre portion a portion isolated from the adjacent allotment. 

Under Alternative B, the Lena and West Side Pastures would be combined and the 

common fence separating the two pastures would be removed. The fence is no longer 

functional and not needed for proper management. An existing spring exclosure fence 

would be reconstructed and enlarged in the northeast corner of the Tigerville Pasture. A 

portion of the Newton Fork Allotment east of Deerfield Road would be incorporated into 

the existing Mini Pasture. The Mini Pasture would be grazed once a year with either the 

Tigerville or Redfern Pasture for approximately 20 days per year or less. An existing 

water point access to Slate Creek in the Deer Park Pasture would be armored with gravel 

and rock. The old corral in the Marshall Pasture would be rebuilt into a small holding 

corral for removal of strays or injured livestock. Old corral materials would be removed. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

COMMON TO ALL ALLOTMENTS 

Alternative C is designed to maintain or improve resource conditions using a full suite of 

options, including construction of new structural improvements such as fences, cattle guards 

and water developments. Existing improvements would be maintained or reconstructed, as 

needed. New “core” structures - those required under Alternative C - are intended to provide 

better resource protection, get better livestock distribution, and reduce the potential for 

livestock-vehicle collisions along higher speed roads. It also includes adaptive options to 

construct improvements if determined necessary after other measures are implemented. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 42 

These adaptive improvements might not ever be constructed, but are considered here to 

provide flexibility in case they are needed. As with Alternative B, reconstruction activities 

are generally expected to occur within a 3-5 year timeframe. New structural improvements 

are generally expected to occur in 1-3 years. Adaptive improvements are more likely to be 

constructed in 5-10 years, if at all. Many or most may never be constructed. New and 

adaptive structural improvements, and those that need maintained or reconstructed are 

presented by allotment in Appendix F. 

Some tools for effecting change in condition and trend include the construction of new 

structural improvements to restrict and distribute livestock use, adjusting the timing and 

duration of livestock use, and moving to the next pasture before allowable proper use by 

weight guidelines and/or riparian stubble height requirements are exceeded. The permittee’s 

primary methods may be: 1) strategic salt and/or supplement placement, 2) range riding to 

influence animal behavior by working the livestock, and 3) culling animals that do not range 

out from riparian areas. The purpose of using these methods is to achieve grazing efficiency, 

and reduce adverse effects on soils, riparian areas, and upland vegetation within the

allotments that have specific areas that are not meeting desired conditions. 

Bald Horse Allotment 

Alternative C incorporates all the provisions of Alternative B. It also includes new structural 

improvements to improve riparian and other resource conditions, better livestock 

distribution, and removing livestock access from high speed roads. In total, this alternative 

proposes construction of approximately 3 miles of fence and four water developments. 

New structural improvements include constructing a small corral for stray round-up in the 

southeastern portion of the Lower Victoria Pasture, fencing off a pond and piping water 

to a tank in south half of the West Horse Pasture, and developing an alternative water 

source in the northwest portion of the Middle Victoria drainage to better distribute 

livestock. It would also require constructing approximately 2.5 miles of fence to restrict 

cattle from the Sheridan Lake Road ROW, Spring Creek and associated riparian area, and 

trailhead. A water source would be developed within the draw along Burnt Ranch 

Pasture to replace loss of access to Spring Creek. 

Alternative C also includes some adaptive options for structural improvements if resource 

conditions warrant their construction. This includes developing additional sources of 

water to better distribute livestock in the east side of the Middle Horse, North Bald Hills, 

and in the Lower Victoria Pastures. The spring source along FSR 677 at the common 

boundary with Redfern Allotment might also be developed for joint use. Other adaptive 

actions might be to reconstruct on a different alignment with the west boundary of the

West Horse Pasture. Also, the spring on the north side of the Middle Bald Hills Pasture 

against private property might require further protection.

Deerfield Allotment 

Alternative C includes the provisions contained in Alternative B, and also would eliminate 

use in the Lake Shore Pasture, thereby becoming a five pasture deferred rotation system. 

This would reduce actual use by six days on the allotment. Additional fencing would be 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 43 

constructed off the existing Gold Run boundary fence to one new cattleguard on the Ditch 

Creek Road (both on the north end of the pasture) to prevent livestock access to highway. 

Additional fencing would be constructed along the ridgeline between the Trap Pasture and 

Baseline Pasture boundary. An adaptive option that might be employed is constructing over 

four miles of fence to protect the Heely Creek riparian area, but is not likely to occur as the 

initial cost is very high. 

Palmer Gulch Allotment 

Alternative C would continue the split this allotment between north and south, and would 

formalize the split by dividing it into two separate allotments. Maintenance, reconstruction, 

and removal of existing improvements would occur as presented in Alternative B. New

structural improvements would be required under this alternative, and adaptive structures 

are included that might or might not be constructed in the future depending on need. There 

are also changes in some use and pastures as compared to Alternative B. Alternative C 

includes an adaptive option for constructing fences or otherwise excluding livestock use 

within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve, if needed, to provide for game animals and birds. 

North Half 

Alternative C would operate on four pastures instead of the currently permitted five. The 

Sawmill Pasture is currently not grazed due to lack of private land line fencing. It would be 

used only for trailing livestock west of Pink Cabin Road and east of the Dump Pasture. The 

Dump Pasture, currently in non-use status, would be authorized for use after the permittee 

works with the 1880 Train to install cattleguards to prevent cattle access along the train 

ROW (Alternative B does not authorize the cattleguards). Alternative C would operate on a 

four pasture deferred rotation system utilizing the existing Keystone, Ford, Dump, and 

Samalias Pastures. Non-use of the Sawmill Pasture would result in a reduction of 20 days of 

use on the allotment. 

New structural improvements to be constructed on the Keystone Pasture include fencing 

off cattle access to Old Hill City Highway and Palmer Creek with approximately 1 mile 

of fencing north of railroad ROW and installing one new cattleguard on Twin Springs 

Road, and building a water development in the southern end of the pasture. A ditch 

would be re-contoured and reseeded near the Battle Creek drainage on the Ford Pasture. 

Alternative C contains an adaptive option for constructing approximately one mile of 

fence to exclude livestock use in the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve in the Ford Pasture. On 

the Samalias Pasture, livestock access would be fenced off to protect willows and a 

spring source located west of Samalias Trailhead, while providing a water access point 

for livestock; and an exclosure would be constructed around willows and a spring source 

located north of Rustic Ridge Guest Cabins. Approximately one half mile of fence would 

be built to prevent livestock use to Spring Creek in two locations. 

South Half 

Existing pastures would continue to be used on the South Half Palmer Gulch Allotment, 

except for the occasional winter use adjacent to private land on the Summit Pasture. 

Structural improvements would be made within the Norbeck Wildife Preserve to improve

conditions for game animals and birds. Otherwise, provisions for Alternative C would be 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 44 

similar to those of Alternative B. This includes the provision that no use would be 

allowed in the Palmer and Sunday Pastures before June 15 to avoid conflicts with bighorn 

sheep lambing use; and livestock would be removed from these pastures around August 1 

to allow grass/forb regrowth for winter use by wildlife. 

Grazing would be eliminated on the 20 acre incidental use on-off winter use Summit 

Pasture. Approximately one half mile private landline fence would be constructed to 

accommodate this change. The Summit Pasture would be combined into the Rabbit 

Pasture after the fence is constructed. A livestock exclosure would be constructed around 

the Fender Place pond and spring to meet Norbeck goals and objectives on the Rabbit 

Pasture; and an exclosure fence would be constructed around the spring in the north end 

of the East Zimmer Pasture. The Forest Service would install steel plates to raise the 

water table to reduce erosion and fill incisions in the Palmer Pasture. 

Adaptive options that might be pursued, if needed, would be to provide off-site temporary 

water tanks in drought years on the Rabbit Pasture, and fencing off riparian access to 

livestock if moving a temporary water tank in the Lower Bear Pasture is not effective in 

reducing impacts. For both the Lower and Upper Bear Pastures, an adaptive approach might 

be to increase pasture size to spread out grazing use by constructing approximately two 

miles of new fence on the east end of pastures. This would also re-locate one cattleguard 

and install a new cattleguard on each of these pastures. Alternative C contains the provision 

for constructing fence or otherwise excluding use within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve if 

needed to provide for game animals and birds. This fencing could be approximately three 

miles in length and would reduce grazing on the Rabbit, Sunday, and Palmer Pastures. 

Porcupine Allotment 

This alternative would continue with the HM grazing system as proposed in Alternative B. 

It would also require construction of new structural improvements and provide the option 

to construct additional improvements if needed for resource management purposes. 

Required improvements include construction of a fence to exclude livestock from Wells 

Spring in the Wells Cabin Pasture, construction of a fence to exclude livestock from The

Seeps in the South Wolf 1 Pasture, and construction of approximately 1.75 miles of pasture

boundary fence to better control livestock and regulate animal impact in the BabbingtonSouth Wolf 1 Pasture. It also includes installation of new water storage and water tanks in 

the northeast side of the Wildcat-North 1 Pasture. Approximately 0.75 miles of new 

pipeline would be extended from the Babbington Pasture to the new water development. 

Alternative C includes a number of adaptive options to construct additional improvements

if needed in keeping with Holistic Management objectives. This includes constructing 

approximately 1.7 miles of cross-fence to split the Antelope Springs Pasture in half on an 

east/west axis, along with a cattleguard on FSR 283; and constructing approximately 1 mile 

of cross-fence to split the South Wolf 1 Pasture in half on an north/south axis, along with a 

cattleguard on FSR 284. Adaptive options for the Wildcat-North Pasture consists of 0.60 

mile of temporary fence in the middle of the pasture to exclude livestock from the Wildcat 

Quarry, if it is developed; and increasing watering locations in the Signal Pasture by 

constructing 1.7 miles of new pipeline to two new water storage tanks, and add two new 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 45 

water tanks on the north and east sides of the pasture. Additional watering locations might 

also be desirable in South Exchange Pasture and would include constructing approximately 

1 mile of new pipeline to a new water tank on the north side of the pasture. If the 

permittee’s negotiated access to facilities on Cooper Ranch (State property) were 

terminated by land owner, an option would be to locate and construct a small corral for 

loading and unloading livestock on NFS lands on the South Exchange Pasture. Some 

temporary fencing might be used to confine livestock on the Yount Pasture and an option 

exists to add approximately 1.2 miles of new pipeline on the West Hells Canyon 1 Pasture. 

Approximately 5,300 acres of prescribed broadcast burning is proposed under this allotment 

to reduce fuel loading buildup from dead and down pine trees and improve forage and browse. 

Redfern Allotment 

This alternative also displays the anticipated change in the number of cow/calf pairs from 

195 to 177, as included in Alternative B. It also would maintain existing improvements 

and reconstruct or remove structural improvements as presented in Alternative B. In 

addition, Alternative C would require construction of some range improvements, and 

combine the Redfern Holding Pasture with a newly fenced off portion of the Slate Creek 

Pasture. Specifically, Alternative C requires fencing off approximately one mile of Slate 

Creek along FSR 530 to Slate Creek Dam by building approximately 1.5 miles of new 

fence, and installing one cattleguard in FSR 530.1c where the fence crosses the road. The 

riparian acreage fenced off from the longer duration Slate Creek Pasture would be 

incorporated into the shorter duration Redfern Holding Pasture. Grazing would increase 

by two days in the Redfern Holding Pasture after the fence is constructed. 

Rimmer Allotment 

This alternative would incorporate the changes in pastures and slight increase in size for 

the Rimmer Allotment as proposed in Alternative B. It would also continue maintaining 

the existing improvements on the allotment. Refer to Alternative B description. 

Alternative C includes some adaptive options and additional construction if needed to meet 

desired resource conditions or other purposes. Some of these options are made possible 

because the current permitee also runs on the adjacent Slate Prairie Allotment. Possible 

new construction includes extending existing fencing or connecting segments up to 1.75 

miles long if livestock stray off the north and east boundaries of the Rimmer Pasture. 

Another option would be to increase the size of the West School Pasture by adding the west 

third of Slate School Pasture (estimated 120 acres) from the Slate Prairie Allotment into the 

Rimmer Allotment. This would require installation of one cattleguard on NFSR 188 to 

control livestock. It also could be managed as a separate pasture within the Rimmer 

Allotment, and called the “188” Pasture. An existing, non-functional water development in 

the northeast corner of the pasture would need to be reconstructed. Another adaptive 

option may be to create a fourth additional pasture called the “187” Pasture. While the

probability of implementing this option is low because of cost, it might be considered. It 

would require the installation of one cattleguard and approximately 0.60 miles of new 

fence at T1N R3E S15 NWSESE. This action would split off an estimated 500 acres from 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 46 

the Rimmer Pasture. Additionally, access to a possible water source in the southeastern 

corner of the Rimmer Pasture would need to be reconstructed. 

Slate Prairie Allotment 

This alternative would incorporate the changes in pastures and slight reduction in size for 

the Slate Prairie Allotment as proposed in Alternative B. It would also complete the 

same reconstruction of needed improvements and removal of unneeded improvements. 

Refer to Alternative B description. 

In addition, Alternative C includes some adaptive options for additional construction, if 

needed. This includes development of the Browner Spring with the Bittersweet Allotment 

permittee (located on the west side of this pasture) and constructing up to 0.5 miles of drift 

fencing on the north boundary of this pasture to keep livestock within assigned area in the

Whitetail Pasture. Another option is to expand protection of Daugherty Gulch’s existing 

spring exclosure in the Hay Draw Pasture to improve the distribution of age classes of 

willows in this drainage. Another option would be to fence off a pond to livestock access, 

and pipe water to downstream stock water tank in the Slate School Pasture. 

Tigerville Allotment 

This alternative would incorporate the changes in pastures and slight expansion in size 

proposed by Alternative B, and would complete the same reconstruction of needed 

improvements and removal of unneeded improvements. Refer to Alternative B description. 

In addition, Alternative C includes some adaptive options for additional construction if 

needed to meet desired resource conditions or other purposes. This includes construction 

of protective fencing around breeched beaver dams and willow remnants in the southeast 

corner of the West Side Pasture. Also possible is construction of up to one third of a mile 

of highway ROW fencing off the southwest corner of the Mini Pasture. This fence would 

add approximately 80 acres to the pasture. An adaptive option for construction of a small 

corral may need to be exercised if use of a private, off NFS lands corral is no longer 

allowed in the Redfern Pasture. An exclosure may need to be constructed around a fen 

area located north of Gooseberry Trailer Park in the Deer Park Pasture. 

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS 

Both Alternative B and C exercise “adaptive management” as warranted by monitoring results. 

Adaptive management is defined as a process where land managers implement management 

practices that are designed to meet LRMP standards and guidelines, and would likely achieve 

the desired conditions in a timely manner. If monitoring shows that desired conditions, as 

described by LRMP Direction, are not being met, then an alternate set of management actions, 

the effects of which are analyzed in this EIS, may be implemented to achieve the desired 

results. Management practices that are possible options are shown in Table 2-1 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 47 

Table 2-1 Adaptive Options 

Common to Alternatives B and C 

Change percentage allowable use and/or residual riparian stubble heights 

Increase or decrease stocking rate to vary grazing impacts. 

Vary timing and duration of use based on riparian conditions. 

Use salt or supplement to draw livestock toward or away from specific areas. 

Incorporate a range rider to move livestock (herding). 

Change season of use. 

Change animal numbers. 

Change animal class. 

Change days of use per pasture. 

Change number of pastures per allotment. 

Split, combine, or change boundaries of allotments and/or pastures. 

Adjust permitted AUMs. 

Adjust livestock turn-out date. 

Adjust livestock end of season date. 

Designate Forage Reserve allotments. 

Rest pasture and/or allotment from livestock grazing for one or more seasons. 

Do not allow livestock grazing. 

Control and distribute livestock using water. 

Reconstruct livestock water development (i.e. springs, pipelines, tanks, windmill, sediment traps, 

wells, stock dams, submersible pumps, solar). 

Utilize brush barriers to control livestock distribution. 

Remove existing water development. 

Remove existing fence line. 

Implement a high-intensity/short duration grazing system. 

Implement deferred or rest-rotation grazing system. 

Restore or enhance native grass, forb, and shrub species. 

Brush and clean cattle trails and fences to improve livestock access and distribution. 

Change animal behavior. 

Utilize temporary grazing permits to meet specific resource needs (fuels reduction, thistle control, 

reduce density of smooth brome, etc). 

Reduce undesirable plant species by mechanical, chemical, and biological means (i.e. fringed 

sage, snowberry, smooth brome, cheatgrass, thistle, etc). 

Common to Alternative C 

Construct fence to create riparian pasture. 

Construct fence to exclude livestock. 

Construct fence to control livestock distribution (temporary, permanent, electric, etc.). 

Construct livestock water development (i.e. springs, pipelines, tanks, windmill, sediment traps, 

wells, stock dams, submersible pumps, solar). 

Use prescribed fire to improve resource conditions. 

Utilize Holistic Management. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 48 

DESIGN CRITERIA 

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

Management Practices, and others. They are actions that are applicable and expected to be 

implemented as a matter of standard operating procedures consistent with the theme of a 

given alternative. Design criteria are applied in order to protect resources and forest users, as 

well as minimize impacts resulting from implementing action alternatives (See Appendix B). 

MONITORING 

Monitoring and evaluation are key elements of adaptive management. Monitoring helps 

determine how LRMP and NEPA decisions are being implemented, whether 

implementation is achieving the desired outcome, or whether changes in management are 

needed. Through monitoring, the Forest Service can measure whether or not, desired 

conditions are being achieved in an appropriate timeframe. Through adaptive 

management, allotment management plans can remain dynamic, relevant, and useful 

documents over many years. 

Two types of monitoring are associated with allotment management plans: 

implementation monitoring and effectiveness monitoring. Implementation monitoring 

(short-term) measure whether or not Forest Plan standards and guidelines are being met, 

while effectiveness monitoring (long-term) evaluate how effective management actions 

are at moving toward or achieving the desired conditions. 

Budgets, personnel, and resource condition would determine the scope and degree of 

rangeland monitoring activities. A realistic implementation monitoring strategy would be 

to monitor all of the allotments using both Forest Service and permittee monitoring. 

Much of the implementation monitoring is actually the responsibility of the permittee. 

However, Forest Service range managers and other specialists, such as botanists, wildlife 

biologists, and archeologists, also monitor compliance with FP standards and guidelines. 

Upland and riparian monitoring areas would be the focus of effectiveness monitoring

which is primarily the responsibility of Forest Service personnel. However, range 

permittees are always welcome to participate in effectiveness monitoring. 

Rangeland Implementation (Short-term) Monitoring 

Short-term range monitoring techniques will vary depending on the resources being 

monitored. Monitoring will take place annually at key areas of livestock use on each 

allotment. All agency monitoring methods can be used in monitoring efforts. The 

following monitoring techniques will generally be used alone or in combination: 

• Range Readiness: Indicators used to determine rangeland readiness are soils and 

vegetation conditions. Rangelands are generally ready for grazing when soils have 

become firm after winter and spring precipitation, and when plants have reached 

the defined stage of growth at which grazing many begin under the specific 

management plan without long-lasting damage. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 49 

• Ocular Utilization Estimate: Ocular estimates provide a visual estimate of 

utilization of riparian and upland herbaceous or browse species. Estimates are 

based on a description representing a broad range (class) of utilization rather than 

a precise amount (U.S. Forest Service 1996b). 

• Stubble Height: Adequate stubble height on streamside areas is needed at the end 

of the grazing period or at the end of the grazing season, for maintenance of plant 

vigor and stream bank protection and to aid in holding sediments for rebuilding 

degraded stream banks. Measurements of the residual amount of Carex spp. are 

taken along the greenline. Specifically, 3-4 inches of residual Carex spp. are 

required for spring pastures and 4-6 inches for summer and fall pastures (U.S. 

Forest Service 1996b). 

• Photographs and Photo-points: Photographs are extremely useful in documenting 

change on the landscape. Photos should capture the essence of the plot, point or 

transect, including important characteristics and features of the site. Photos need 

to include enough of the horizon-line to allow the photographer to easily repeat 

the photograph from the same angle at a different time. 

Rangeland Effectiveness (Long-term) Monitoring 

Probably the most important role of monitoring is to determine whether management is

successful at maintaining or moving rangeland resources towards desired conditions. 

Determining trend toward or away from allotment objectives allows rangeland managers to 

accurately determine the relative success of the management system and to adjust 

management to speed the accomplishment of objectives. Trend for a variety of rangeland 

resource parameters may need to be monitored. 

The long-term condition of riparian and upland grass and forb resources will be 

monitored at benchmark areas on each allotment. All agency monitoring methods can be 

used in monitoring efforts. The following monitoring techniques will generally be used as 

needed: 

• Cover-Frequency: The Cover-Frequency transect is commonly used to provide 

quantitative measurements of canopy cover and frequency by plant species, 

ground cover, and production by life form for inventory and monitoring purposes 

(U.S. Forest Service 1996b). 

• Green Line/Cross Section: Green Line/Cross Section’s are used to describe and 

quantify the distribution of riparian communities within the riparian area. A series 

of paced transects are established both perpendicular and parallel to the stream in 

order to measure the intercept of plant communities within the riparian area (U.S. 

Forest Service 1996b). 

• Photographs and Photo-points: Photographs are extremely useful in documenting 

change on the landscape. Photos should capture the essence of the plot, point, or 

transect, including important characteristics and features of the site. Photos need 

to include enough of the horizon-line to allow the photographer to easily repeat 

the photograph from the same angle at a different time. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 50 

• Streambank Alteration: Monitoring stream bank alteration consists of walking the 

green line of a riparian area and determining the percentage of stream bank

altered by livestock during the current grazing season. The overriding concept 

behind this procedure is ensuring stream bank stability. The current WCP 

Handbook (2006) does not provide any guidance on acceptable levels of stream 

bank alteration. An acceptable level of alteration that will maintain or promote

stream bank stability is dependent upon many factors such as, stream type, water 

quantity, and riparian composition and condition. The IDT chose 26% as the 

preliminary guideline for bank alteration. This trigger point has not been 

validated on the various stream types in the Black Hills, and may be adjusted over 

time to ensure that the long term desired condition of stream bank stability is 

achieved and maintained. 

• Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM): This protocol combines observations of up 

to ten indicators (including greenline, streambank stability, livestock use on 

woody plants, woody species regeneration, stubble height, and streambank 

alteration) along the same transect. These indicators provide quantitative data to 

assess the current condition and trend of the streambanks, channels, and 

vegetation, as well as provide data needed to refine and make annual changes to 

livestock management in order to meet long-term management objectives. 

(Burton, Cowley, Smith, 2007) 

Tables 2-2 and 2-3 identify the specific short term and long-term monitoring plans for each 

allotment. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 51 

Table 2-2 Implementation (short term) Monitoring common to all allotments (would take place annually):

Monitoring Site Desired Conditions (also see Table X) Method Frequency Trigger Point 

Key Upland Grazing Areas

<50% utilization by weight by livestock and wild herbivores of forage

Ocular Utilization

Generally every one to three years; conduct periodically throughout the grazing season.

>50% 

utilization

RelocaaffecteAdjust Instrucachievor mai

Key Riparian Grazing Areas

>4” plant stubble height (reference WCP handbook 3h) left after livestock and wild herbivore use.

Stubble height measurement or ocular estimate of selected specie(s).

Generally every year; conduct periodically throughout the grazing season.

<4”stubble 

height

RelocaaffecteAdjust Instrucachievor mai

Key Upland and Riparian Areas - Utilization of woody species(FP standard 2505)

<40% of total individual leaders produced that year used by livestock and wild herbivores.

Ocular estimate of use of affected plant species 

Generally every one to three years; conduct periodically throughout the grazing season.

>40% of total 

individual leaders used

RelocaaffecteAdjust Instrucachievor mai

Table 2-3 Effectiveness (long term) Monitoring specific to individual allotments (would take place every 5-10 years): 

Bald Horse Allotment

Monitoring Site Desired Conditions (also see Table X) Method Chang

Lower Victoria #2 Maintain existing condition. Manage by providing 

for diversity of desirable plant species, <5% bare ground, < 2% noxious weeds.

Cover Frequency* Adjust Annual Oper

implement an adapti

Middle Horse MIMS Increase riparian vegetation. Achieve and maintain 

diverse riparian plant community with stable streambanks (>74% are rated stable); achieve and maintain <5% bare ground; <40% of current years willow leaders browsed; >80% plots contain hydric 

MIMS with assessment of bare ground percentage**

Adjust Annual Operimplement an adapti
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 52 

Bald Horse Allotment

plant species.Well-distributed willow age classes reflected by seedlings and young of >25%, mature of >25%, and 

decadent < 10%

Middle Horse #4 Reduce bare ground. Manage by providing for 

diversity of desirable plant species, <5% bare ground, < 2% noxious weeds.

Cover frequency* Adjust Annual Oper

implement an adapti

Middle Victoria MIMS DMA #8

Increase riparian vegetation. Achieve and maintain diverse riparian plant community with stable streambanks (>74% are rated stable); achieve and 

maintain <5% bare ground; <40% of current years willow leaders browsed; >80% plots contain hydric plant species.Well-distributed willow age classes reflected by seedlings and young of >25%, mature of >25%, and 

decadent < 10%

MIMS with assessment of bare ground percentage**

Adjust Annual Operimplement an adapti

South Bald Hills #2 Maintain existing condition. Manage by providing 

for diversity of desirable plant species, <5% bare ground, < 2% noxious weeds.

Cover frequency* Adjust Annual Oper

implement an adapti

*Frequency: Generally every four to eight years. Trigger Point for Cover Frequency: Declining trend in frequency of native plant species. OR >5% baweeds and invasive species **Frequency: Generally every three to six years. Trigger Point for MIMS: <74% streambank stability OR >5% bare ground OR > 40% use of current 

Declining trend in percentage of plots containing hydric plant species OR Declining trend in percentage of plots containing willows or skewed distribu(decadent dominant with lack of recruitment).

Deerfield Allotment

Monitoring Site Desired Conditions (also see Table X) Method Chang

Gold Run #5 Reduce noxious weeds. Manage by providing for 

diversity of desirable plant species, <5% bare ground, < 2% noxious weeds.

Cover frequency* Adjust Annual Oper

implement an adapti

Heely Creek MIMS DMA #4

Increase riparian vegetation. Achieve and maintain diverse riparian plant community with stable streambanks (>74% are rated stable); achieve and 

MIMS with assessment of bare ground percentage**

Adjust Annual Operimplement an adapti
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 53 

Deerfield Allotment

maintain <5% bare ground; <40% of current years willow leaders browsed; >80% plots contain hydric plant species.Well-distributed willow age classes reflected by seedlings and young of >25%, mature of >25%, and 

decadent < 10%

*Frequency: Generally every four to eight years. Trigger Point for Cover Frequency: Declining trend in frequency of native plant species. OR >5% baweeds and invasive species **Frequency: Generally every three to six years. Trigger Point for MIMS: <74% streambank stability OR >5% bare ground OR > 40% use of current 

Declining trend in percentage of plots containing hydric plant species OR Declining trend in percentage of plots containing willows or skewed distribu(decadent dominant with lack of recruitment).

Palmer Gulch Allotment (North Half)

Monitoring Site Desired Conditions (also see Table 4) Method Chang

Keystone #2 Reduce noxious weeds. Manage by providing for 

diversity of desirable plant species, <5% bare ground, < 2% noxious weeds.

Cover frequency* Adjust Annual Oper

implement an adapti

*Frequency: Generally every four to eight years. Trigger Point for Cover Frequency: Declining trend in frequency of native plant species. OR >5% baweeds and invasive species 

Palmer Gulch Allotment (South Half)

Monitoring Site Desired Conditions (also see Table 4) Method Chang

Rabbit #3 Reduce noxious weeds. Manage by providing for 

diversity of desirable plant species, <5% bare ground, < 2% noxious weeds.

Cover frequency* Adjust Annual Oper

implement an adapti

Bear Gulch MIMS DMA #6

Increase riparian vegetation. Achieve and maintain diverse riparian plant community with stable streambanks (>74% are rated stable); achieve and 

maintain <5% bare ground; <40% of current years willow leaders browsed; >80% plots contain hydric plant species.Well-distributed willow age classes reflected by seedlings and young of >25%, mature of >25%, and 

MIMS with assessment of bare ground percentage**

Adjust Annual Operimplement an adapti
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 54 

Palmer Gulch Allotment (South Half)

decadent < 10%

*Frequency: Generally every four to eight years. Trigger Point for Cover Frequency: Declining trend in frequency of native plant species. OR >5% baweeds and invasive species **Frequency: Generally every three to six years. Trigger Point for MIMS: <74% streambank stability OR >5% bare ground OR > 40% use of current 

Declining trend in percentage of plots containing hydric plant species OR Declining trend in percentage of plots containing willows or skewed distribu(decadent dominant with lack of recruitment).

Porcupine Allotment

Monitoring Site Desired Conditions (also see Table 4) Method Chang

Antelope #1 Reduce bare ground. Manage by providing for 

diversity of desirable plant species, <5% bare ground, < 2% noxious weeds.

Cover frequency* Adjust Annual Oper

implement an adapti

Babbington #2 Maintain existing condition. Manage by providing 

for diversity of desirable plant species, <5% bare ground, < 2% noxious weeds.

Cover frequency* Adjust Annual Oper

implement an adapti

Signal #3 Reduce noxious weeds. Manage by providing for 

diversity of desirable plant species, <5% bare ground, < 2% noxious weeds.

Cover frequency* Adjust Annual Oper

implement an adapti

Yount #2 Improve site productivity. Manage by providing for 

diversity of desirable plant species, <5% bare ground, < 2% noxious weeds.

Cover frequency* Adjust Annual Oper

implement an adapti

*Frequency: Generally every four to eight years. Trigger Point for Cover Frequency: Declining trend in frequency of native plant species. OR >5% baweeds and invasive species 

Redfern

Monitoring Site Desired Conditions (also see Table 4) Method Chang

White Earth #1 Reduce noxious weeds. Manage by providing for 

diversity of desirable plant species, <5% bare ground, < 2% noxious weeds.

Cover frequency* Adjust Annual Oper

and/or implement an option.

Slate Creek MIMS DMA #3

Restore stream channel so that year-round flows may occur. Increase riparian vegetation. Achieve and maintain diverse riparian plant community with stable streambanks (>74% are rated stable); achieve 

MIMS with assessment of bare ground percentage**

Adjust Annual Operand/or implement an option.
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 55 

Redfern

and maintain <5% bare ground; <40% of current years willow leaders browsed; >80% plots contain hydric plant species.Well-distributed willow age classes reflected by seedlings and young of >25%, mature of >25%, and 

decadent < 10%

*Frequency: Generally every four to eight years. Trigger Point for Cover Frequency: Declining trend in frequency of native plant species. OR >5% bweeds and invasive species **Frequency: Generally every three to six years. Trigger Point for MIMS: <74% streambank stability OR >5% bare ground OR > 40% use of current 

Declining trend in percentage of plots containing hydric plant species OR Declining trend in percentage of plots containing willows or skewed distribu(decadent dominant with lack of recruitment).

Rimmer Allotment

Monitoring Site Desired Conditions (also see Table 4) Method Chang

Rimmer #2 Reduce bare ground in overused areas. Manage by 

providing for diversity of desirable plant species, <5% bare ground, < 2% noxious weeds.

Cover frequency* Adjust Annual Oper

and/or implement an option.

Rimmer #3 Reduce bare ground in overused areas. Manage by 

providing for diversity of desirable plant species, <5% bare ground, < 2% noxious weeds.

Cover frequency* Adjust Annual Oper

and/or implement an option.

CC1B MIMS DMA #5

Increase riparian vegetation. Achieve and maintain diverse riparian plant community with stable streambanks (>74% are rated stable); achieve and 

maintain <5% bare ground; <40% of current years willow leaders browsed; >80% plots contain hydric plant species.Well-distributed willow age classes reflected by seedlings and young of >25%, mature of >25%, and 

decadent < 10%

MIMS with assessment of bare ground percentage**

Adjust Annual Operand/or implement an option.

*Frequency: Generally every four to eight years. Trigger Point for Cover Frequency: Declining trend in frequency of native plant species. OR >5% bweeds and invasive species **Frequency: Generally every three to six years. Trigger Point for MIMS: <74% streambank stability OR >5% bare ground OR > 40% use of current 

Declining trend in percentage of plots containing hydric plant species OR Declining trend in percentage of plots containing willows or skewed distrib(decadent dominant with lack of recruitment).
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 56 

Slate Prairie Allotment

Monitoring Site Desired Conditions (also see Table 4) Method Chang

Mystic #2 Reduce bare ground. Manage by providing for 

diversity of desirable plant species, <5% bare ground, < 2% noxious weeds.

Cover frequency* Adjust Annual Oper

implement an adapti

Whitetail #3 Historic Photo Point Camera Continuing need to d

changes over time.

Whitetail #4 Reduce bare ground. Manage by providing for 

diversity of desirable plant species, <5% bare ground, < 2% noxious weeds.

Cover frequency* Adjust Annual Oper

implement an adapti

Slate Creek MIMS DMA #9

Increase riparian vegetation. Achieve and maintain diverse riparian plant community with stable streambanks (>74% are rated stable); achieve and 

maintain <5% bare ground; <40% of current years willow leaders browsed; >80% plots contain hydric plant species.Well-distributed willow age classes reflected by seedlings and young of >25%, mature of >25%, and 

decadent < 10%

MIMS with assessment of bare ground percentage**

Adjust Annual Operimplement an adapti

Whitetail/Crooked Creek MIMS DMA #2

Increase riparian vegetation. Achieve and maintain diverse riparian plant community with stable streambanks (>74% are rated stable); achieve and 

maintain <5% bare ground; <40% of current years willow leaders browsed; >80% plots contain hydric plant species.Well-distributed willow age classes reflected by seedlings and young of >25%, mature of >25%, and 

decadent < 10%

MIMS with assessment of bare ground percentage**

Adjust Annual Operimplement an adapti

*Frequency: Generally every four to eight years. Trigger Point for Cover Frequency: Declining trend in frequency of native plant species. OR >5% baweeds and invasive species **Frequency: Generally every three to six years. Trigger Point for MIMS: <74% streambank stability OR >5% bare ground OR > 40% use of current 

Declining trend in percentage of plots containing hydric plant species OR Declining trend in percentage of plots containing willows or skewed distribu(decadent dominant with lack of recruitment).
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 57 

Tigerville Allotment

Monitoring Site Desired Conditions (also see Table 4) Method Chang

Lena #3 Maintain existing conditions. Manage by providing 

for diversity of desirable plant species, <5% bare ground, < 2% noxious weeds.

Cover frequency* Adjust Annual Oper

implement an adapti

Redfern #1 Reduce bare ground. Manage by providing for 

diversity of desirable plant species, <5% bare ground, < 2% noxious weeds.

Cover frequency* Adjust Annual Oper

implement an adapti

Mini Pasture MIMS DMA #1

Increase riparian vegetation. Achieve and maintain diverse riparian plant community with stable streambanks (>74% are rated stable); achieve and 

maintain <5% bare ground; <40% of current years willow leaders browsed; >80% plots contain hydric plant species.Well-distributed willow age classes reflected by seedlings and young of >25%, mature of >25%, and 

decadent < 10%

MIMS with assessment of bare ground percentage**

Adjust Annual Operimplement an adapti

*Frequency: Generally every four to eight years. Trigger Point for Cover Frequency: Declining trend in frequency of native plant species. OR >5% baweeds and invasive species **Frequency: Generally every three to six years. Trigger Point for MIMS: <74% streambank stability OR >5% bare ground OR > 40% use of current 

Declining trend in percentage of plots containing hydric plant species OR Declining trend in percentage of plots containing willows or skewed distribu(decadent dominant with lack of recruitment).
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 58 

Other Resource Monitoring 

The following methods will be used to ensure that livestock grazing is compatible with 

other resource objectives in accordance with Forest Plan direction and other laws: 

• Heritage Site Monitoring: All National Register of Historic Places eligible sites will 

be monitored on a 1-5 year basis in accordance with the SHPO concurrence letters 

for livestock grazing to verify that management practices are being implemented. 

• R2 Sensitive Plant and BHNF Plant SOLC Monitoring: Certain plant populations 

with known impacts or those adjacent to primary grazing areas will be monitored 

to determine level of impacts and to decide what adaptive management actions 

should be taken. 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED but ELIMINATED FROM 

DETAILED STUDY 

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

reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the 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 proposed action, 

duplicative of the alternatives considered in detail, or could be incorporated into design and 

mitigation measures included in the proposed action. The following provides an overview of 

alternatives that were considered, but eliminated from detailed study. 

Holistic Management on All Allotments - One commenter suggested an 

alternative incorporating Holistic Management (HM) for all of the allotments. The only 

allotment currently under Holistic Management is the Porcupine Allotment. Holistic 

Management is an intensive process that requires the permittee to embrace this approach for 

their entire livestock enterprise. Holistic Goals are defined for their enterprise, of which the 

permitted area on the National Forest is part of this scope. Such goals recognize Forest Plan 

Standards and Guidelines, and emphasize working with the ecosystem processes and effects 

of energy flow, mineral cycle, water cycle, and community dynamics in response to livestock 

grazing, and to move towards desired conditions (Savory, 1999). The Forest requires the 

development of a holistic team with members from the agency’s specialists, the permittee, 

state game and fish department, university expertise, and environmental interests to guide 

goals, annual projects, and monitoring. The Forest Service cannot require permittees to 

utilize holistic management, but supports its use. Using HM is incorporated as an option 

under adaptive management (Table 2-1) for Alternative C. Therefore, requiring HM for all 

allotments was considered but eliminated from detail study. 

Current Management – An alternative was considered that would essentially 

continue with the existing management of the subject allotments. This should not be 

confused with the approach presented in Alternative B of this EIS, which includes 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 59 

additional implementation and effectiveness monitoring practices. Current management 

was considered but eliminated from detailed study primarily because it does not provide 

for this enhanced level of monitoring to determine if management approaches are 

meeting or exceeding desired resource conditions. 

Eliminate Livestock Grazing – Several responses suggested eliminating 

livestock grazing to solely support wildlife. This proposal is included in Alternative A, 

the No Action/No Grazing Alternative. 

Immediate Reduction in Grazing by Area– A few responses recommended 

an immediate reduction in livestock use within core/key sensitive areas, or excluding 

livestock from steep canyon areas. Livestock are currently excluded from the McIntosh 

Fen; this would not change under any of the alternatives under consideration. The analysis 

did not find any serious issues with grazing in steep areas; capability assessments did not 

use forage production from slopes greater than 30%. Steep terrain naturally limits 

livestock use, although some steep canyon bottoms do receive livestock use. Alternative C 

was designed to restrict or reduce livestock use where needed for resource protection 

through additional fence construction, other structural improvements, or reduced days of 

grazing use. A separate alternative restricting livestock use was therefore not considered 

necessary to address the issues raised by these comments. 

Immediate Reduction in Grazing by Numbers – Several responses 

suggested immediately reducing livestock numbers; one response recommended an 

immediate 30-50 percent reduction. These comments reflect a concern about poor 

resource conditions on some pastures and allotments. There are several reasons for these 

observed resource conditions. This includes too many livestock on an allotment, staying 

too long in a pasture, poor livestock distribution, not restricting use in sensitive areas, and 

weather conditions such as drought. Reductions in livestock numbers may well be 

required to meet desired resource conditions. Both Alternatives B and C are designed to 

ensure that allotments are not overstocked. Alternative B requires: 1) implementation 

monitoring to track that livestock are moved when or before utilization limits are

exceeded, and 2) effectiveness monitoring to ensure that progress towards or maintenance 

of desired conditions is being verified. Alternative C uses these provisions and also 

includes additional measures (structural improvements and adaptive measures) to ensure 

that the allotments are not overstocked. By adhering to the required utilization standards, 

both Alternatives B and C could result in reduced livestock use immediately, and in the 

long term lower livestock numbers. Immediately reducing livestock numbers may not 

directly address the underlying reason for poor resource conditions, such as poor 

distribution. A separate alternative immediately reducing grazing numbers (cow/calf 

pairs) was considered but eliminated from detailed study because Alternatives B and C 

address the issue in a way that better determines the underlying reason for poor resource 

conditions in certain pastures and allotments. Both alternatives may lead to a reduction 

in cow/calf pairs, where appropriate. The process which re-evaluates grazing capacity, 

that is, the amount of livestock forage use that can be allowed while meeting basic 

resource needs and objectives is outlined in the Rocky Mountain Region’s Rangeland 

Analysis and Management Training Guide (1996). 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 60 

Immediate Reduction in Grazing by Timing – One response proposed 

reducing the time livestock are allowed on the range - not before June 15 or after 

September 1 of each year. Livestock use periods are typically determined by range 

readiness conditions and end of season utilization levels, using the grazing permit’s stated 

period of use as a starting point for discussions each season. Season of use varies by

allotment. For example, lower elevation range is ready earlier in the season than higher 

elevation range. Range readiness depends on several factors that can vary from year to 

year - temperature, moisture, soil conditions, and plant growth stage. Range Readiness 

Guidelines already exist for these eight allotments. It is not reasonable to use one 

livestock turn-on date for all allotments and for all years. The typical season of use 

extends beyond September 1 for all of the allotments. Conditions are often warm at this 

time of year and conducive to livestock grazing. End-of-season livestock use is currently 

determined by range utilization and other factors. End-of-season can vary by year 

depending on specific range and other conditions. Both Alternative B and C address this

concern by requiring that livestock are not let onto the range until proper range readiness 

conditions are met, and that livestock leave the range before utilization standards are 

exceeded. For these reasons, an alternative that sets arbitrary on-off dates was considered 

but eliminated from detailed study. 

Establish Grass Banks – One response suggested a strategic look be taken to 

provide flexibility in the grazing program by establishing grass banks when the opportunity 

is presented. One way to do this would be to not issue new permits if and when existing 

permits are waived back to the Forest Service. This approach, known as “Forage Reserve 

Allotment” designation in the Forest Service Grazing Handbook, has been incorporated as an 

adaptive management option (shown in Table 2-1) for Alternative C. Once established, the 

reserved allotment or portions thereof may be used in conjunction with authorized livestock 

use when there is a loss of forage availability from a variety of factors. The displaced 

livestock may be temporarily or permanently assigned to the Forage Reserve allotment, 

depending on resource needs. 

Develop a Drought Management Plan – A couple of comments recommended 

that a drought management plan be developed in order to deal with cyclical or long lasting 

climate changes. Development of a drought management approach or plan has been 

included in the Design Criteria for both Alternative B and Alternative C. 

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 

This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. 

Information in the table is focused on activities and effects where different levels of 

effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives. 

The environmental consequences of the alternatives to the resources affected in the 

Mystic Range Project Area are more completely described in Chapter 3 of this EIS and 

information contained in the Project File. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 61 

Table 2-4 Comparison of Alternatives 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Proposed Action) 

Implementation 

Schedule 

Implemented two 

years after decision. 

Implemented immediately upon 

decision. 

Implemented immediately upon 

decision. Required improvements 1-3 

years, other adaptive measures as 

needed (5-10 years). 

Grazing 

No Grazing. 

Permits cancelled in 

two years. 

Grazing re-authorized on all eight 

allotments. 

Grazing re-authorized on all eight 

allotments. 

Water Developments 

(Springs, Ponds, 

Tanks, Wells) 

All removed by 

Forest Service 

except those that 

benefit wildlife. 

Existing structures to be 

maintained or reconstructed as 

needed. 

Existing structures to be maintained or 

reconstructed as needed similar to 

Alternative B. A total of 11 new water 

developments to be constructed. 

Fences (miles) 

All removed except 

for those that benefit 

wildlife. 

Existing fences to be maintained or 

reconstructed as needed. 

Existing fences to be maintained or 

reconstructed as needed similar to 

Alternative B. Approximately 14 

miles of new fence to be constructed. 

Streams / Riparian 

Soils 

Eliminates all 

livestock effects to 

soils. 

Soil compaction would remain 

well within Forest Plan standards. 

Slight increase in soil compaction, but 

would remain well within Forest Plan 

standards. 

Water Quality 

Eliminates all 

livestock effects to 

water quality. 

Water quality standards relating to 

beneficial uses would be 

maintained. 

Similar to Alternative B 

Streambank Stability Streambanks would 

gradually stabilize. 

Streambank stability would be 

maintained or improved, but at a 

slower rate than Alternative A. 

Similar to Alternative B, except in 

those limited areas where livestock are 

excluded from riparian areas by new 

structural improvements. Streambank 

stability in those limited areas would 

be expected to improve similar to 

Alternative A. 

Riparian Vegetation 

Gradual recovery 

and expansion of 

riparian vegetation. 

Recovery and expansion of 

riparian vegetation would be 

expected to occur at a slower rate 

than Alternative A 

Similar to Alternative B, except in 

those limited areas where livestock are 

excluded from riparian areas by new 

structural improvements. Riparian 

vegetation in those limited areas 

would be expected to recover and 

expand similar to Alternative A. 

Upland Vegetation 

Bare Ground Bare ground would 

gradually decrease. 

Bare ground would decrease, but at 

a slower rate than Alternative A. Similar to Alternative B. 

Noxious Weeds and 

Non-Desirable 

Plants 

Noxious weeds and 

non-desirable plants 

may gradually 

decrease. 

Noxious weeds and non-desirable 

plants would gradually decrease, 

but at a slower rate than 

Alternative A. 

Similar to Alternative B. 

Desirable Plant 

Species Diversity 

Desirable plant 

species may 

gradually increase in 

diversity and 

abundance. 

Desirable plant species diversity 

and abundance would gradually 

increase, but at a slower rate than 

Alternative A. 

Similar to Alternative B. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 62 

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Proposed Action) 

Social/Economics

Risk of LivestockVehicle Collision Eliminated Same as current risk. Substantially reduced risk. 

Potential For Actual 

Grazing Use 

Reduction 

Total elimination of 

grazing. 

Bald Horse: Low 

Deerfield: High 

Palmer (North): Moderate 

Palmer (South): Moderate 

Porcupine: Low 

Redfern: High 

Rimmer: Moderate 

Slate Prairie: High 

Tigerville: Low 

Similar to Alternative B, except 

reductions in actual use, where it 

occurs, may be less because of better 

livestock distribution and exclosures. 

Cost to Permittees 

Standard operation 

and maintenance 

costs (including 

grazing fees) for two 

years. Substantial 

replacement costs 

for cancelled 

grazing permits. 

Standard operation and 

maintenance cost (including 

grazing fees) along with 

reconstruction of some existing 

improvements. 

All costs included in Alternative B 

plus an approximate $175,000 in new 

improvements (fences, water 

developments, cattle guards). 

Cost to Forest 

Service 

Cost to administer 

for two years and 

costs to remove 

unneeded 

improvements 

Standard administration costs plus 

additional $57,000 in long-term 

monitoring costs over ten year 

period. 

Similar to Alternative B. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 63

CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT and 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter describes the affected environment for each resourced analyzed. Subsequently, 

the environmental consequences of the alternatives on the resource components of the 

physical, biological, and social environment in the Mystic Range Project Area are disclosed. 

Environmental consequences are described in terms of the beneficial/adverse, short and longterm direct/indirect and cumulative effects. Effects are quantified where possible, although 

qualitative discussion is often necessary. Elements that are not affected or minimally 

affected by the alternatives, such as climate, noise, and topography, are not discussed. This 

chapter provides the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives 

presented in Chapter 2. 

Direct and indirect effects of the proposed action and its alternatives were analyzed over the 

planning period (10-15 years). Cumulative effects differ from direct and indirect effects in 

that they take into account past, present, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable activities, in 

addition to direct and indirect effects, that could affect issues and resources. Cumulative 

effects are discussed under each resource topic; they will be summarized in this section. 

In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the 

proposed action and alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions 

as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the 

aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the 

environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. 

This cumulative effects analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past human 

actions by adding up all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. There are several 

reasons for not taking this approach. First, a catalog and analysis of all past actions would 

be impractical to compile and unduly costly to obtain. Current conditions have been 

impacted by innumerable actions over the last century (and beyond), and trying to isolate 

the individual actions that continue to have residual impacts would be nearly impossible. 

Second, providing the details of past actions on an individual basis would not be useful to 

predict the cumulative effects of the proposed action or alternatives. In fact, focusing on 

individual actions would be less accurate than looking at existing conditions, because 

there is limited information on the environmental impacts of individual past actions, and 

one cannot reasonably identify each and every action over the last century that has

contributed to current conditions. Additionally, focusing on the impacts of past human 

actions risks ignoring the important residual effects of past natural events, which may 

contribute to cumulative effects just as much as human actions. By looking at current 

conditions, we are sure to capture all the residual effects of past human actions and 

natural events, regardless of which particular action or event contributed those effects. 

Finally, the Council of Environmental Quality issued an interpretive memorandum on 

June 24, 2005, regarding analysis of past actions. The memorandum states, “agencies can 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 64

conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate 

effects of past actions without delving into the historical details of individual past

actions.” 

The cumulative effects analysis in this EIS is also consistent with Forest Service National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Regulations (36 CFR 220.4 (f)) (July 24, 2008), 

which state, in part: 

CEQ regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all past 

actions to determine the present effects of past actions. Once the agency has identified 

those present effects of past actions that warrant consideration, the agency assesses the 

extent that the effects of the proposal for agency action or its alternatives will add to, 

modify, or mitigate those effects. The final analysis documents an agency assessment of 

the cumulative effects of the actions considered (including past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions) on the affected environment. With respect to past actions, 

during the scoping process and subsequent preparation of the analysis, the agency must 

determine what information regarding past actions is useful and relevant to the required 

analysis of cumulative effects. Cataloging past actions and specific information about the 

direct and indirect effects of their design and implementation could in some contexts be 

useful to predict the cumulative effects of the proposal. The CEQ regulations, however, 

do not require agencies to catalogue or exhaustively list and analyze all individual past 

actions. Simply because information about past actions may be available or obtained with 

reasonable effort does not mean that it is relevant and necessary to inform decision 

making (40 CFR 1508.7). 

In the case of the Mystic Range Project, the purpose and need is very much a factor of the 

existing condition, and the existing condition is related primarily to effects of past 

management practices, many of which are no longer used (for instance, high-intensity 

livestock grazing). 

For these reasons, the analysis of past actions in this section is based on current environmental 

conditions. See Appendix C for activities that are occurring, have recently occurred, or are in 

the planning stage in or adjacent to the project area. 

The resource components described in this chapter are arranged in three sections: 

• Biological Environment 

• Physical Environment 

• Social Environment 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 65

BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 

RANGE 

Introduction 

Rangeland is defined in the Region 2 Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide

(RAMTG) as land producing or capable of producing, native forage for grazing and browsing 

animals, and lands that have been revegetated naturally or artificially to provide a forage 

cover that is managed like native vegetation. It includes all grasslands, forblands, 

shrublands, and those forested lands which can – continually or periodically, naturally or 

through management – support an understory of herbaceous or shrubby vegetation that 

provides forage for grazing or browsing animals. 

Affected Environment 

Today’s range conditions are the result of consolidated, historic efforts to improve

rangeland condition and trend that resulted from the initial start-up of forest grazing – both 

prior to and during the beginning of the Forest Service’s role on the now Mystic Ranger 

District. The original direction to the Forest Service included providing support to the 

developing ranches and local communities in the Black Hills area through sustained, 

regulated livestock grazing. This emphasis is continued today through Forest Plan direction 

for proper use of rangelands. 

The following is information summarized from the Range Report pertaining to the Mystic 

Range Project for these eight allotments (Bald Horse, Deerfield, Palmer Gulch, Porcupine, 

Redfern, Rimmer, Slate Prairie, and Tigerville) which are located on the Mystic Ranger 

District, Black Hills National Forest, USDA Forest Service in Region 2. 

Table 3-1 Current authorized livestock use - Mystic Range Project Allotments

Allotment Grazing 

System 

Pastures Involved Numbers Season of Use AUMs 

** 

Bald Horse 

27,828 acres 

nine pasture 

deferred 

rotation 

Buzzard’s Roost 

Burnet Ranch 

Middle Bald Hills 

Middle Horse 

Middle Victoria 

North Bald Hills 

Prairie Creek 

South Bald Hills 

West Horse 

299 

cow/calf; 

one permit 

June 1 – October 26 1921 

Deerfield 

7,874 acres 

six pasture 

deferred 

rotation 

Baseline 

Gold Run 

Heely 

Highline 

Lake Shore 

Trap 

102 

cow/calf; one 

permit 

June 6 – October 25 631 

Palmer Gulch 

14,190 acres 

12 pastures: 

Three 

North Rotation: 

Dump 

74 

cow/calf; one 

June 1 – October 31 424 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 66

separate 

deferred 

rotations 

Ford 

Keystone 

Sawmill 

Samalias 

permit 

 South Rotation: 

East Zimmer 

Lower Bear 

Palmer 

Upper Bear 

Rabbit 

Sunday 

67 

cow/calf; 

one permit 

June 1 – October 21 416 

 Winter Use: 

Summit 

3 cow/calf October 22 – May 31 29 

Porcupine 

9858 acres 

12 pastures: 

Holistic 

Resource 

Mgt. uses 

mix of rest 

and deferred 

rotation 

Antelope Springs 

Babbington-NW1 

Wildcat-NW1 

North Wolf 2 

North Wolf 3 

Signal 

South Exchange 

South Wolf 1 

Wells Cabin 

West Hells 1 

West Hells 2 

Yount 

Variable 

numbers and 

season of use. 

Average use 

equivalent to 

334 cow/calf 

pairs for 

114days. 

one permit 

June 9 – October 30 1653 

Redfern 

11,573 acres 

five pastures: 

deferred 

rotation 

Nugget 

Queen Bee 

Slate Creek 

White Earth 

Redfern Holding 

195 

cow/calf 

one permit 

June 11 – October 25 1159 

Rimmer 

2,011 acres 

two pastures: 

deferred 

rotation 

Grandad 

Rimmer 

33 cow/calf 

one permit 

June 11 – October 10 175 

Slate Prairie 

5,896 acres 

five pastures: 

deferred 

rotation 

Hay Draw 

Mystic 

Slate School 

West Slate 

Whitetail 

200 

cow/calf 

one permit 

June 1 – October 20 1233 

Tigerville 

5,825 acres 

six pastures: 

deferred 

rotation 

Lena 

Marshall 

Mini 

Redfern 

Tigerville 

Westside 

112 cow/calf 

one permit 

June 1 – October 25 715 

**An AUM is the amount of feed or forage required by an animal-unit for one month. 

Livestock numbers, pasture rotations, and season of use can be modified on an annual basis 

to adapt to climatic conditions or administrative needs. This is done through the Annual 

Operating Instructions (AOI) that are developed annually during meetings with permittees. 

These instructions implement the management direction set forth in the Allotment

Management Plan (AMP) that is developed from the project-level NEPA decision. A

grazing permit is the instrument that authorizes use and occupancy by the specific holder of 

the grazing permit to graze livestock on certain National Forest System or other lands under 

Forest Service jurisdiction. The holding of such permits is a privilege, not a property right. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 67

Permit holders may waive the validated permit back to the Forest Service in favor of a 

purchaser of permitted livestock, base property, or both. The AMP and AOI are 

incorporated into the terms and conditions of the grazing permit. Issuance of grazing 

permits, AMP’s, and AOI’s are not a final federal agency action. They are administrative 

actions implementing a project level or Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) level 

decision. The Revised Black Hills Land and Resource Management Plan (1997), as 

amended provides management direction for these eight allotments. 

Field Surveys/Resource Contacts 

The following methods were used to evaluate resource conditions on the allotments. Field 

surveys were conducted annually while more intensive methods were conducted during 

the summer and fall of 2004-2009. The analysis was done on sites that are representative 

of the primary range found on the allotments. Computer modeling was used as part of the 

capability assessment. 

Suitable and Capable Rangelands 

Suitable rangelands are those rangelands where there is no Forest Plan or other binding 

decisions to preclude the permitting of livestock grazing. Rangelands are deemed suitable 

based on applying certain resource management practices to a particular area of land, as 

determined by an analysis of the economic and environmental consequences and the 

alternative uses forgone. A unit of land may be suitable for a variety of individual or 

combined management practices. 

Management area designations as determined by the 1997 Black Hills National Forest Plan 

and Phase II Amendment for the project area include those in Table 1-1. All of the 

Management Areas within these eight allotments are classified as suitable for livestock 

grazing. Within the Deerfield Allotment, there are 160 acres dedicated for Botanical Area 

emphasis; currently there is no grazing authorized on these acres because a separate 

botanical area management plan (not yet developed) would need to specify the purpose and 

need (if any) for livestock grazing use. No changes in range suitability were needed based 

on this analysis. Livestock may incidentally use non-suitable lands throughout the Mystic 

Ranger District but no management or stocking is based on those lands. When such use is 

detected, the permittees are responsible for removing livestock from those non-suitable 

lands. Such use is generally sporadic and in most cases livestock are infrequent events. 

The potential of an area of land to produce range resources, supply goods and services 

and allow resource uses under an assumed set of management practices and at given 

levels of management intensity defines capable rangelands. Capability depends on 

current conditions and site conditions such as climate, slope, landform, soils, and 

geology, as well as the application of management practices such as silviculture or 

protection from fire, insects, and disease. 

Assessing rangeland capability can be a useful tool at the project level to identify where 

forage is available and how management can affect use of that forage. Capable acres for 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 68

this analysis area were reviewed using the latest GIS data, field reviews, and an 

examination of historic file records. Factors such as tree canopy cover, vegetative type 

and production, slope and aspect were all used to determine acres that were capable for 

grazing. However, range capability is a modeling tool only and may not portray an 

accurate assessment of on the ground conditions. For example, grass production varies 

based on many factors that are not easily modeled such as local variations in soil type, 

precipitation, seasonal temperatures, microsites, presence of new pine encroachment, 

plant species (native, introduced; warm or cool season plants or both). 

The initial capable acres data (29,782 acres out of 85,055 acres) provids a reasonable 

estimate of carrying capacity for these six allotments: Palmer Gulch, Porcupine, Redfern, 

Rimmer, Slate Prairie, and Tigerville. The Bald Horse Allotment is projected 

understocked but much of this capacity is within forested areas not used by the permittee. 

The Deerfield Allotment was also estimated as understocked; some of that capability 

again relies on livestock use of forested areas. In summary, the numbers generated by the 

"capability maps" and subsequent analysis indicated that three allotments would be 

overstocked and five allotments under stocked – all to varying degrees. 

Once an area is determined to be capable of supporting forage production, grazing

capacity (also known as carrying capacity) may be further refined. Grazing capacity may 

be expressed as the livestock stocking rate that is consistent with maintaining or 

improving vegetation or related resources. It may vary from year to year in the same area 

due to fluctuating forage production. 

Past rangeland inventories completed at one point in time can be useful to provide 

general estimates of present or potential grazing capacity of management units. 

However, grazing capacity estimates based upon one-point-in-time rangeland inventories 

do not produce results of sufficient accuracy to be the sole basis for adjusting time of 

grazing or stocking rates on specific grazing units. 

Some examples of reasons for variation in modeled capabilities versus results experienced 

on the specific allotment are: 1) initial rangeland inventory may have been completed during 

a period of above or below normal precipitation and normal temperatures, resulting in 

forage production greater or less than expected or vice versa; 2) the advancement of 

ponderosa pine trees into burned areas or open meadows is progressively reducing forage 

production; 3) production of forage after forested areas are logged open is reduced as trees 

reforest site; 4) the size of livestock grazed vary as some cattle are larger than when first 

capability projections were made many years ago; and 5) wildfire or prescribed burning 

opens canopies of trees and starts new forage production such as the outcome from the 

Jasper Fire. The point is capability and grazing capacity assessments are a starting point that 

requires monitoring and adjustments based on observations. 

Additional capability adjustments are often needed to account for distance to water, 

livestock behavior, topography, and protection and promotion of other resource values 

such as riparian, botanical, riparian, and archeological resources. For example, there may 

be a large meadow with high productivity but due to steep access and long distance to 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 69

water livestock do not utilize it. Stubble height requirements for retention of residual 

vegetation may require livestock removal before all available forage is grazed. 

On these eight allotments, vegetative encroachment into rangelands is a constant process in 

motion, reset only by fire, commercial and non-commercial treatments such as timber sales, 

and insect outbreaks such as mountain pine beetles. For example, while permitted numbers 

have remained relatively static, the size of rangelands may be somewhat increased by 

vegetative treatments and bark beetle infestations, or reduced by pine encroachment, or 

increased by the Jasper Fire of 2000. Grazing capacity estimates are not considered as static; 

their determined estimate should be periodically considered as part of range management. 

Grazing capacity data generated from past field analysis work in the 1950s and 1960s

indicated some the eight allotments were overstocked, and corrective actions initiated at 

that time. Corrective actions were often documented in new AMPs in the late 1960s and 

early 1970s. Other allotments were assessed as understocked or considered correctly 

managed given standards and guidelines in place at the time of the analysis and AMP. 

Capability modeling outputs, examinations of annual monitoring and long-term trend 

data, as well as field site visits were used to conclude that current stocking rates are 

within range of grazing capacities for the Bald Horse, Deerfield, the south half of Palmer 

Gulch, Porcupine, Rimmer, and Tigerville Allotments. Similar data for the north half of 

Palmer Gulch, Redfern, Slate Prairie Allotments suggests that these three allotments are 

overstocked with livestock and may be exceeding grazing capacities. 

Grazing Capacity Determinations 

The RAMTG states when resource conditions on some allotments are not meeting, nor 

moving towards Forest Plan objectives, rangeland managers should re-evaluate grazing 

capacity, that is, the amount of livestock use that can be allowed while meeting basic 

resource needs and associated objectives. Studies to firm up grazing capacity estimates 

should be conducted for at least a full rotation on rest or deferred systems, and scheduled to 

allow for vegetative production fluctuations due to climatic conditions. Such estimates are 

not to be considered static; they should be periodically reviewed and adjusted to bring them 

in line with changing conditions. Stocking rates should allow a safety margin to provide for 

low forage producing years, and trend towards objectives is another consideration. 

Long Term Monitoring 

Field surveys of upland vegetation using cover-frequency methodology (RAMTG, 1996; 

Technical Note No. 8, 2009) were conducted during the 2004-2009 field seasons. This 

methodology provides a current vegetation inventory as well as a baseline from which to 

measure trend. Cover Frequency transects can provide quantitative measurements of 

canopy cover and frequency by plant species, as well as ground cover. Changes in bare 

ground, plant composition, and canopy cover or frequency over time can help determine if 

rangeland management objectives are being met or if changes in management are required. 

If possible, previously established cover-frequency transects were reread. If they did not 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 70

exist, either old transects of a different methodology were reread using cover-frequency 

methodology, or new cover-frequency transects were established. This allowed for a 

comparison of species composition change over time. 

Proper Functioning Condition 

Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) assessments (BLM TR 1737-15, 1998) were also 

conducted during the 2008 field season. PFC is a qualitative approach for considering 

hydrology, vegetation, and erosion/deposition (soils) attributes and process to assess the 

condition of riparian-wetland areas. They provided a quick qualitative assessment of existing 

conditions and an estimate of trend of each surveyed area. They were used to help determine 

where additional, more intensive study methods such as MIM (Multiple Indicator Monitoring) 

may be needed. PFC assessments are discussed in the Hydrology section. 

Multiple Indicator Monitoring Study (MIMS) 

Even though riparian lands may make up a small portion of each allotment, they are

important because they provide habitat for wildlife species and exercise important controls 

over physical and biological conditions and functions in the stream environment. Riparian 

vegetation can provide shade to moderate water temperatures, roots to stabilize 

streambanks, cover for wildlife, and filter out sediment from entering the stream. Riparian 

areas can buffer irregular pulses of water over space and time, and help keep water more 

evenly distributed on the land longer. Essentially they can efficiently catch, store, and 

release floodwaters, and improve water quality for livestock, wildlife, and other downstream 

users (USDA, FS. Caribou NF, 2005). 

The IDT agrees that livestock grazing is compatible with sustainable riparian lands when 

done properly. Literature shows conflicting points of view regarding the advantages and 

disadvantages of livestock grazing of riparian areas. The IDT concurs with literature 

findings that excessive disturbances, if allowed to continue, do create detrimental impacts 

that outweigh benefits. To achieve desired conditions for riparian areas, they need to be 

managed in the context of the entire watershed, and balance the need to manage 

vegetation for livestock and wildlife needs with reaching and maintaining a healthy, 

diverse, and productive ecosystem (USDA, FS. Caribou NF, 2005). 

To address standards and guidelines for management of riparian areas as set forth in the 

Forest Plan, long-term monitoring was necessary. The selected methodology for riparian 

analysis is MIMS, and was originally developed in Idaho to address the findings of a stubble 

height review (University of Idaho Stubble Height Study Team, 2004). The report states that 

integrating annual grazing use and long-term trend indicators allow for evaluation of 

livestock grazing management. The MIMS protocol includes long term monitoring 

techniques useful in describing the condition and trend of streambanks, stream channels, and 

streamside riparian vegetation. This protocol allows for measuring at established transects 

up to eight monitoring indicators in a single pass if desired. Five of the indicators are longterm trend measures: Greenline vegetation, Woody species age and height class, 

Streambank stability, Greenline to greenline channel width, and substrate. Three indicators 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 71

are short-term measures of annual use by herbivores: Woody species browse, stubble height, 

and streambank alteration. Threshold (may be also called trigger) levels are preset in the 

model and are based on research and collective assessment by model developers and field 

tested. These threshold or triggers are used to indicate whether measured values are less 

than, equal to, or greater than desired conditions. 

Indicators are measured at a representative Designated Monitoring Area (DMA). DMAs are 

placed in the riparian complex that is most sensitive to management influences. In addition, 

permanent photo points are included to create a long-term visual record. This protocol was 

developed and tested on perennial snowmelt dominated and spring-fed streams in the 

western United States. The IDT selected this methodology as an appropriate means to 

document condition and trend of select riparian areas and creeks within the project area, and 

this method is accepted by the Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Region. 

MIMS transects were established in seven of the eight allotments in 2008. One allotment, 

Porcupine, contains virtually no riparian areas. 

Forage Utilization 

Utilization measurements taken over a period of time help to develop a picture of the health 

and vigor of the forage resource, and will indicate if the grazing system is compatible with 

resource objectives. These measurements help with evaluating grazing capacity 

determinations by past range managers. Consistent over-utilization of plant communities 

can change their composition by allowing less desirable species to dominate or replace 

desirable species. It can also lower forage production and limit the amount of residual 

forage available for wildlife. Short-term utilization studies, including use of the Ocular 

Estimate Method (RAMTG, 1996), were conducted over several years to monitor utilization 

in key area(s) per pasture and determine compliance with Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines. Forest Guideline 2505 displays Proper Allowable Use using a deferred rotation 

is 0-50% per utilization by weight each year for ranges in satisfactory condition. 

Desired Condition 

Desired condition is the portrayal of rangeland resources on a landscape scale that meets 

management objectives as identified in the Forest Plan and the Allotment Management 

Plans (AMPs). Desired condition is based on ecological, social, and economic 

considerations (RAMTG). The Forest Plan describes the desired condition of lands and 

resources and also describes standards and guidelines for various resources that are 

intended to guide management into meeting or trending towards desired conditions. The 

following table shows the generalized qualitative differences between rangelands in 

excellent and poor conditions. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 72

Table 3-2 Comparison of Rangeland Conditions

Excellent Rangeland Condition ◄---◄--------_---------►---► Poor Rangeland Condition 

Desirable plants abundant. Desirable plants absent or few. 

Desirable plants vigorous. Desirable plants stressed. 

Diverse age structure in plant community. Structure confined to single age. 

Increased diversity of plant species. Little diversity in plant species. 

Litter present and contacting soil. Litter absent or not contacting soil. 

Sufficent vegetation. Insufficient vegetation. 

Little bare ground Excessive bare ground. 

Water soaks into ground. Water runs off ground. 

Sufficient litter ground Insufficient or excessive litter cover. 

Soil surface protected by plants or litter. Soil surface exposed. 

Desired plant community (DPC) selection emphasizes maintaining or moving towards 

excellent rangeland condition, and is crucial to effective rangeland planning. DPC must 

currently exist in the general area in similar environmental settings, and are capable of 

occupying the site within a reasonable time period through management changes (R2 

Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide). The overall desired condition for 

the project area was developed by the interdisciplinary team (see Table 1-2, Chapter 1). 

Much of the primary grazing areas in the Black Hills have been converted to non-native 

graminoid species through historic management practices. For example, numerous meadows 

were planted with timothy and/or smooth brome and managed as hay grounds (Graves, 1899)

(MacIntosh, 1928). Local residents remember stories of the Forest Service providing grass 

seed to permittees, and encouraging them to reseed any bare ground to avoid the Dust Bowl 

results experienced in the plains during the 1930s (Reynolds, 2007). These non-native 

species have naturalized and easily spread to adjacent areas (Larson and Johnson 1999).

It is currently not feasible for these areas to return to a “natural” state without major 

effort including ground disturbance and reseeding projects, use of expensive mechanical 

and chemical practices, and commitment of the agency and permittees. 

Many of these non-native species are acceptable for the current and proposed management of 

the project area. The following species are considered acceptable: Phleum pretense, timothy; 

Bromus inermis, smooth brome; and Poa pratensis, Kentucky bluegrass. While not as 

desirable for wildlife habitat and rangeland health on public lands as native species they do 

provide some benefits (SAIC 2003). These species were first used for livestock forage, hay, 

and erosion control because of their ability to compete and their aggressive nature. 

The following palatable ratings are for the State of Wyoming and can be found in the Fire 

Effects Information System (http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/). The ID Team believes 

these are reasonable approximations ratings for vegetation found in South Dakota on the

Black Hills National Forest. 

Timothy* Elk Good 

 Mule Deer Good 

 White-tails Good 

*Cover value is poor in Wyoming for elk and fair for deer and good for upland game 

birds. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 73

Kentucky bluegrass Elk Good 

 Mule Deer Good 

 White-tail Good 

From another source, Smooth brome has a resource value rating of “high” for elk and 

“moderate” for mule deer preference as well as “high” for watershed protection (R2 

Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide). These ratings are based on a yearly 

forage preference and may vary by season. 

These RAMTG ratings are based on the relish and degree of use shown by livestock and 

wildlife for a plant or plant part. The high reading indicates the plant is highly relished and 

consumed to a high degree and the moderate rating correlates to a plant that is consumed or 

relished to a moderate degree. Watershed protection is based on the growth habit, structure, 

biomass, or root system characteristics or individual plant species to reduce soil erosion. A 

plant with a moderate rating would exhibit moderately aggressive growth, a moderate 

degree of persistent plant structure, potential biomass or a moderate soil-binding root 

rhizome runner system 

While it is not the goal or objective of this project to solely manage for these non-native 

grass species, reducing them through grazing management may be applicable as a trial effort 

in specific instances. The purpose of reducing their presence is to increase the presence of 

native plants. For example, early season grazing can favor an increase in warm season 

grasses over cool season grasses since cool season plants initiate growth first and are 

available to livestock. Recent research in mixed grasses prairies indicates a lack of grazing 

by herbivores favors non-native plant expansion and invasive plants, while grazing can 

increase diversity and favor restarting the native plant community (DeKeyser, 2009). 

Limited use of livestock grazing to reduce densities of non-native grasses and Canada 

thistle has been used on a temporary permit basis with some success (Luhrsen, Vedder. 

2001 et al.) and shows promise for site specific needs. This use of livestock grazing as a 

targeted tool may provide managers with some options to reduce non-native plant 

densities. Other options for their removal include treatment with herbicide and/or ripping 

up the ground and reseeding. Removing grazing altogether is also an option discussed 

under Alternative A. 

Herbicide treatment is expensive and could have detrimental effects on native grass and forb 

species that do exist in these plant communities. Disturbing the soil has proven to increase 

noxious weeds, especially in those areas where they may already exist. Reseeding after 

spraying and ripping is highly recommended, however, this too is expensive and often the 

seed available for this sort of project comes from other areas and is genetically different. 

Establishing native species back into an area may take several years and repeated herbicide 

treatment for weeds. 

Climate Change 

Forest Service researchers have studied the impacts of climate change and air pollutants on 

forests and grasslands over thirty years. This research already identifies trends and 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 74

subsequent effects to ecosystems across the United States. Currently, the Rocky Mountain 

Research Station has scientists studying climate as it influences plants, animals, ecosystems, 

disturbance patterns, and social and economic systems. Results from this research are 

intended to support land management and planning needs for addressing and coping with 

climate change. “Adaptive Management” may allow for easier incorporation of new 

scientific findings into rangeland management, and potentially foster creation of adaptive 

measures for implementation. 

Currently, the subject of Climate Change is in the news media on a daily basis, and a 

variety of pro and con articles and respective supporting research or views can be found. 

One example is the Regional Great Plains predictions or most likely assumptions are found 

in the 2009 United States Global Climate Change website. This website states: 1) increases 

in temperature, evaporation, and drought frequency are possible out to year 2099; 2) there 

may be a decline in water resources if a) continues unabated for the northern tier; b) 

agriculture, ranching, and natural lands, already under pressure due to an increasingly 

limited water supply, would also be stressed by rising temperatures. These highlights 

appear to include the Black Hills and surrounding area. 

A national framework for guiding and directing land management activities in light of 

expected climate changes has been released by the Forest Service, anticipating changes in 

management based on regional and local effects of a changing climate (Kimball and USDA, 

FS, 2008a). This Forest Service strategic framework has seven goals to address projected 

climate changes. Two of these goals overlap to some degree the underlying needs of this 

project. They are: 1) adaptation - enhancing the capacity of forests and grasslands to adapt 

to the environmental stresses of climate change and maintain ecosystem services; and 2) 

mitigation - promoting the management of forests and grasslands to reduce the buildup of

greenhouse gases, while sustaining the multiple benefits and services of these ecosystems. 

For an adaptation example, research has shown climate change linked to declining snow

packs, and changing patterns of precipitation and runoff. Some evidence appears to show 

that we may be entering a period of water scarcity. Since the national forests were created 

in part for “securing favorable conditions of water flows,” managing vegetation to restore 

enhance ecological processes and functions, including the recharging of streams and 

aquifers relates well with one of the underlying needs of the Mystic Range Project: 

maintaining or improving resource conditions in rangeland and watershed health. 

An example of mitigation within this project is the use of “Forage Reserve” designation for 

any vacant allotment. This is listed as a Design Criteria item for this project, and is already 

in use on two other Mystic allotments not covered by this analysis project. Another example 

is with an increase in riparian vegetation including overhanging and shading cover, there 

should be a reduction in water temperature that is favorable for restoring fisheries habitat 

where populations may exist (Bisson, 2008). 

One approach for adaptation is to assemble a toolbox of short-term and long-term (greater 

than 50 years) strategies. These are addressed within each alternative. Examples of shortterm adaptation tools that intended to build resistance and resilience of ecosystems are: 1) 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 75

management of the regeneration process by increasing diversity and restoring key processes 

following disturbance – such as improving riparian conditions; 2) connecting fragmented 

stream channels; 3) reducing bare ground; 4) controlling noxious weeds; and 5) updating 

measures for dealing with extreme climate events such as drought, fire, or flood and their 

effect on forage production. Long-term adaptation tools are: boosting population sizes, 

protecting or restoring multiple examples of ecosystems, or any action that increases 

biological diversity. Long-term implementation depends on the trajectory of climate change 

because of the level of uncertainty with any aspect of climate change (Blate, 2009). 

Bald Horse Allotment 

The Bald Horse Allotment covers a variety of topography over 27,828 acres, and is over 12 

miles in length running east to west, and approximately seven miles wide from north to 

south. It is directly west of Rapid City, South Dakota. This allotment bounded by 

Whispering Pines on the east, Sheridan Lake Road on the south, extends across Highway 

385 on the west, and borders the south side of Rapid Creek but crosses over into Buzzard’s 

Roost east of Hisega subdivision. A notable feature is the Bald Hills – a series of ridges and 

bowls mostly devoid of pine trees. Within the allotment boundary there are four major 

drainages: Horse Creek, Victoria Creek, Prairie Creek, and Rapid Creek. The terrain varies 

from rolling grasslands covered hills, lush meadows of varying widths, tree covered slopes 

of various aspects and roughness, and stringers of aspen and oak stands. Watering sources 

for livestock and wildlife consist of ponds, water tanks fed by spring sources, and access to 

seeps and free flowing creeks and are usually adequate except in drought years when some 

springs run limited flows. Approximately 9,300 acres are considered capable of producing 

useable forage for livestock grazing. Over 70% of these forage producing acres are located 

conifer, hardwoods, and non-stocked pine ponderosa. 

This allotment was formed in 1992 by combining three separate allotments: Bald Hills, 

Horse Creek, and a portion of the Pactola Allotment south of Rapid Creek drainage. At 

that combination, livestock from the Bitter Creek Allotment were also re-assigned here as 

well to alleviate an overstocked situation adversely affecting range conditions. Livestock 

on the Bald Hills and Pactola Allotment were allowed to graze their assigned pastures, 

and the combined herd was also grazing the Horse Creek Allotment. At the time of the 

formation, the Horse Creek Allotment was then vacant and held by the Forest Service due 

to permit action against the permit holder. In 2000, the Forest Service administratively 

formed the Bald Horse Allotment by formally combining the permits and acreages 

assigned to Horse Creek, Bald Hills, and a portion of the Pactola Allotment. The present 

permitted number of livestock is 299 mature cattle (cow/calf operation) grazing from 

June 1 to October 26 each season for 1920 AUMs. 

File records indicate the Bald Hills Allotment was grazed by a continuous season-long 

use by cattle from inception of the Forest until 1966 when a three pasture Hormay restrotation grazing system was implemented. Initially this allotment was stocked with 350 

cow/calf pairs until the mid 1930’s, and then numbers reduced eventually to 125 pairs in 

1947 for 830 AUMs. At the same time, the start date changed from mid May to June 1, 

with all cattle off by October 31. Vegetation was characterized by bluegrass drainages 

and little bluestem hillsides. Several attempts were made to re-forest the Bald Hills with 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 76

no success – apparently because of soil chemistry. Iron mining of ridge tops (hematite) 

was attempted prior to the 1950s with no success. Some spraying of snowberry, mullein, 

fringed sage, and grasshoppers was completed in 1959. Various range improvements 

have been constructed by the permittee with Forest Service assistance to cross fence the 

pastures and develop water. The intent was to continue with a rest rotation system but 

eventually the decision was made to go with a deferred rotation grazing system where all 

three pastures were grazed. Numbers were adjusted in 1981 after multiple years of 

additional numbers grazed under temporary permits to test capacity, and then 163 

cow/calf pairs were grazed annually from June 1 to October 31 for 1082 AUMs. The date 

of the last Allotment Management Plan (AMP) is August, 1975. 

The second allotment used to make the Bald Horse Allotment is the Horse Creek 

Allotment. The Horse Creek Allotment was formed by combining the Victoria Creek 

Allotment with Horse Creek in 1986. The Victoria Creek Allotment extended from the 

Forest Boundary on the east end of Victoria Creek, and extended westerly to Middle 

Victoria. Horse Creek Allotment originally included Burnt Ranch area and extended 

westerly across Highway 385 and up the Horse Creek drainage. This plan allowed for 

use by 428 yearlings from June 1 to October 31 each year for a total of 1,500 AUMs Past 

file records are limited but indicate a similar program of cooperative range developments 

such as fencing and water developments was on-going with the permittees. At one time 

cattle grazing was allowed right up to and within portions of the Sheridan Lake 

Recreation Area. The 1959 Horse Creek records reflect grazing issues with lack of water 

and overstocked by an estimated 52%; there were 242 cattle permitted for five months or 

almost 1,600 AUMs. Concurrently, the 1959 Ranger Plan for Victoria mentions “....key 

areas of this allotment have been overused for some time...” and “....the amount of use 

will have to be adjusted in order to achieve proper use of these areas.” Records from 

1966 show 220 cattle were permitted from June 1 to October 31 for 1,460 AUMs for 

Victoria Allotment alone, and repeated measurements of grazing use by weight in the 70 

to 80% range. The 1986 plan reduced permitted AUMs by approximately 48% (3060 to 

1600 AUMs). The date of the last AMP is January, 1986. 

Portions of the Pactola Allotment were also added to make up the Bald Horse Allotment. A 

riparian pasture created lies directly below and east of Pactola Dam (known as Pactola 

Basin). Additionally, areas south of Rapid Creek and easterly to Hisega, and rangelands 

from Gold Standard Gulch over to Prairie Creek drainage were part of the Pactola 

Allotment. Two separate cattle herds were grazed in this area: 46 cow/calf pairs were grazed 

in Gold Standard, Brush Creek, and Prairie Creek from June 1 to September 30 each year. 

Another 40 cow calf pairs were grazed in Rapid Creek drainage (including Pactola Basin) 

during the same timeframe. Estimated capacity of this portion of Pactola Allotment was 455 

AUMs. The date of the last AMP is February, 2002. 

This Pactola Basin riparian pasture was created by the South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks 

and the Forest Service in the late 1980s. Considerable financial investment was made into the 

basin to restore the stream channel and riparian areas to their original channels, and upland 

grazing use limited to 20% allowable use by weight. The District Ranger later decided in the 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 77

late 1990s to cease grazing the Pactola Basin Pasture due to the high values associated with 

the riparian area for recreation and fisheries habitat, and the permittee concurred. 

The Bald Horse Allotment is currently managed in a sequence of nine pastures using a 

deferred rotation of livestock grazing use. Grazing may start June 1, depending on range 

readiness, and usually continues through October 26 for 299 mature cattle (cow with calf) 

owned by one permittee. The maximum number of AUMs is 1,920 under a ten year term 

grazing permit. Virtually the entire allotment is classified as big game winter range. 

Livestock are moved to next pasture when allowable proper use of 50% by weight is reached, 

but there has been a tendency to always start in pastures west of Highway 385 and work 

easterly each year. This repeated pattern may be one cause of riparian issues in the Middle 

Horse Pasture. Residual levels (or remaining height of key plant species) have not yet been 

prescribed for riparian areas. This allotment is believed to be understocked by approximately 

55% of the permitted livestock numbers based on capability grazing modeling, but a large

portion of this unused capacity is located in the Prairie Creek Pasture. This pasture is not 

used extensively by the permittee because numerous additional fences would be required to 

contain livestock within the allotment boundary adjacent to Rapid Creek drainage. The 

Prairie Creek Pasture is roughly one quarter the size of the entire allotment. 

The allotment’s upland sites have been monitored for utilization seven of the last ten years. 

The ten year allotment average for utilization is approximately 45%. In general, pasture use 

has been within prescribed limits although some instances of exceeding allowable proper 

use were recorded in 2007 for Burnt Ranch and Middle Victoria Pastures. Recent field 

reviews have found the upland plant communities to exhibit a diverse mix of native and 

non-native grasses and forbs such as green needlegrass, intermediate wheatgrass, smooth 

brome, timothy, Kentucky bluegrass, big and little bluestem grasses, sedges, western 

wheatgrass, Western snowberry, wild rose species, and a variety of forbs. Areas subjected to 

recent prescribed burns (Middle Horse Creek Pasture, Bald Hills Pastures) and timber sale 

activities have shown a flush of new plant growth and diversity in grass, forb, and shrub 

species. The most recent timber sales have been cutting to a 40 to 50 basal area to lessen the 

possibility of crown fires, and this has encouraged new grass, forb, and shrub growth in 

areas previously limited by canopy closures of pines, and these areas show similar results as 

found after recent prescribed burns. 

The condition and trend of upland vegetation of most pastures is represented by transects at 

Lower Victoria #2 and South Bald Hills #2, and they have been rated by the IDT as 

“Meeting Desired Conditions”. While the native grasses generally do not dominate in the 

plant community, they are present and co-exist in varying degrees with non-native grasses. 

A diverse assortment of forbs together with grasses and developing shrubs provide a 

mosaic of plant species, a variety of vegetative structures, and generally effective ground 

cover to maintain soil stability and provide wildlife habitat. One site, Middle Horse #4 

lacked an abundance of forbs and showed bare ground in excess of desired conditions in 

2005. Bare ground is an important indicator of the potential of a site to prevent erosion. A 

higher percentage of bare ground on a site indicates that there is a higher potential for soil 

erosion. This site was measured during the drought and appears improved (visual 

inspections 2008-09) since then but no formal measurement was taken during this analysis. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 78

The allotment’s riparian sites have been visually observed over the past ten years. Pactola 

Basin is considered in excellent condition, and Prairie Creek was rated in 2008 during the

PFC assessment as at desired “Proper Functioning Condition”. Victoria Creek in the Lower 

Victoria Pasture was reviewed and assessed as “Functional – At Risk” with an upward trend 

because of ORV use through channel and this area is still recovering from the 1972 flood 

event. Portions of this drainage will not flow in drought years, and livestock are trailed 

through the narrows above Victoria Creek Dam. Concerns regarding the condition and trend 

of some riparian areas found in Middle Horse Creek and Middle Victoria Pastures led to the 

establishment of Designated Monitoring Area (DMA). Each DMA has a Multiple Indicator 

Monitoring Study (MIMS) transect to document baseline conditions, and compare results 

against desired threshold levels. Middle Horse DMA#7 shows Kentucky bluegrass as 

dominant and riparian vegetation is sporadic in presence; and the desired percent of hydric 

plants is below the threshold level (11% versus 80%). Streambank stability is below desired 

level, and alteration ratings exceed threshold level. DMA #7 was rated as “Not Meeting 

Desired Conditions”. Middle Victoria DMA #8’s transect found similar results to Middle 

Horse, but percent of hydric plants was 25% and streambank stability met and exceeded 

threshold level. DMA#8 was rated as “Moving towards Desired Conditions”. 

Range improvements have been maintained and are in relatively good condition 

throughout the allotment, with some exceptions. There are 20 spring developments, three 

ponds, 14 water tanks, and over 37 miles of fencing. The permittee has been actively 

replacing worn out improvements after clearance is obtained, and materials are available 

from the Forest Service. Much of the fencing is constructed of steel posts so despite age 

most fences are in good condition. The permittee’s base property adjoins the allotment, 

and a corral is well located to receive and transport out livestock. All livestock are 

trucked to and from the permitted area. 

Livestock are gaining entry into Pactola Basin area because existing fencing, gates, or trail 

gates are not adequate. A fence on the western boundary of the West Horse Pasture is 

falling apart from age. Some water sources are undeveloped for livestock use. Cattle can 

access Sheridan Lake Road and Spring Creek Trailhead and their presence creates traffic 

hazards. Livestock can directly access Spring Creek and bank trampling is occurring. A 

lack of livestock and big game water in Lower Victoria Pasture occurs in drought years. 

Livestock are trailed to and from the area on a trail adjacent to Victoria Creek and conflicts 

have occurred between closures, crossing rehabilitation work, and unauthorized motorized 

users. A pond in the southeastern corner of Lower Victoria does not hold water, and there 

is no permanent corral for roundup of stray or sick livestock. There is no developed water 

in the western end of Middle Victoria Pasture. Some riparian areas in the Middle Bald Hills 

Pasture are trampled by livestock. In the South Bald Hills Pasture, site drainage around the 

water tanks is poor, and the spring exclosure does not prevent trampling by livestock. 

Deerfield Allotment 

The Deerfield Allotment is located south/southwest of Deerfield Reservoir and covers 7,874 

acres. It is about twelve miles west/northwest of Hill City, South Dakota. It crosses over 

several drainages on a southeast to northwest orientation; major creeks include Castle Creek, 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 79

South Fork of Castle Creek, Nichols Creek, and Heely Creek. The allotment is bordered by 

the reservoir and Deerfield and Castle Creek Roads on the north and Williams Draw Road on 

the east. The Ditch Creek Road roughly splits the allotment into two halves and is 

characterized by steep slopes with timbered, rocky outcrops on each side of the road. Open 

meadows within drainages are found in each pasture generally surrounded by Ponderosa Pine 

and some aspen stands. Significant portions of the allotment have been subjected to recent 

timber sale work to control mountain pine beetle. Watering sources for livestock and wildlife 

consist of ponds, spring sources, and access to seeps and free flowing creeks. The McIntosh 

Fen Pasture is not grazed, and provides botanical, watershed, wildlife, and fisheries values. 

The South Fork of Castle Creek flows into Castle Creek and both contain excellent spawning 

habitat for trout. Approximately 2,500 acres are considered capable of producing useable 

forage for livestock grazing. Approximately 65% of these forage producing acres are located 

conifer, hardwoods, and non-stocked ponderosa pine stands. 

Historical file records are somewhat limited, but 1977 AMP summarized some of the 

more recent history of consolidation. Starting in the late 1960s, recreational use around 

the Deerfield Reservoir increased substantially, so the Forest Service reorganized several 

allotments to reduce or eliminate conflicts between livestock and forest users. The 

Deerfield Allotment was created from portions of four other allotments and also one 

entire allotment was added. The Heely Creek Pasture, the Nichols Creek Pasture (now 

named Baseline), the south half of the Gold Run Allotment, and Dutchman Pasture 

(portions are now part of Clinton Allotment) were consolidated to make up the new 

Deerfield Allotment. Initial management stressed a four pasture deferred rotation grazing 

use, with grazing around the reservoir set for late each season to minimize recreational 

user/livestock conflicts. 

Initial objectives were to properly graze the bluegrass meadows but long term objectives 

were to bring back the native grasses. Another objective was to establish a margin of 

safety for years of subnormal forage production by improving forage plant composition, 

density, and vigor. Management attempted to graze at no more than 40-50% of proper 

allowable use by weight. An AMP revision in the early 1990s attempted to prescribe use 

at 45% of weight, but that effort was not followed through by the Forest Service and use

levels were returned to 50%. The revised AMP called for continued emphasis in 

maintaining riparian plant diversity and condition in the Ditch Creek and Castle Creek 

drainages by using fall grazing and low stocking levels. The McIntosh Fen Pasture and a 

large tract within Heely Creek Pasture (which included a substantial segment of Heely 

Creek) were acquired by the Forest Service in a land exchange in the 1980s. Initial plans 

were to graze the McIntosh Fen Pasture but eventually forest level direction was set to 

emphasis botanical and watershed objectives. Eventually the Baseline Pasture was split 

by separating off the northern portion to form the Trap Pasture. In 2005, an isolated, 

ungrazed portion of the northwest side of Heely Pasture was fenced and another pasture 

was formed named Highline. The date of the last AMP revision is April, 1992. 

The Deerfield Allotment is currently managed in a sequence of six pastures using a 

deferred rotation of livestock grazing. Grazing may start June 6, depending on range 

readiness, and ends by October 25 for 102 mature cattle (cow with calf) owned by one 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 80

permittee. The current permittee elects to start grazing eight to ten days later, and usually 

removes the livestock several days earlier due to concerns regarding fall snowstorms 

hampering round-up and trucking access. The maximum number of AUMs is 628 under 

current ten year term grazing permit. This allotment has no designated big game winter 

range areas. Livestock are moved to next pasture when allowable proper use of 50% by 

weight is reached. Residual levels (or remaining height of key plant species) have not yet 

been prescribed for riparian areas. All pastures have fairly dependable water supplies 

depending on their season of use. The Gold Run, Lake Shore, and Trapp Pastures are 

always used in late season, while livestock are placed in either Heely or Baseline to start 

each year, and then go to Highline Pasture. This allotment is believed to be understocked 

by approximately 40% of the permitted livestock numbers based on capability grazing 

modeling, but there is an anticipated loss of Gold Run Pasture use due to highway 

construction and resource concerns regarding the condition of some riparian areas. This 

allotment may be understocked because of recent timber sale activity which has increased 

or created secondary rangeland production. 

The allotment’s upland sites have been monitored for utilization seven of the last ten 

years. The ten year allotment average for utilization is approximately 46%. In general, 

pasture use has been within prescribed limits although some instances of exceeding 

allowable proper use were recorded in 2007 for Baseline, Highline, and Lake Shore 

Pastures. Recent field reviews have found the upland plant communities to exhibit mostly 

non-native grasses such as Kentucky bluegrass, smooth brome, and timothy. A wide 

variety of forbs are present and common snowberry. Areas subjected to recent timber sale 

activities have shown a flush of new plant growth and diversity in grass, forb, and shrub 

species. The most recent timber sales have been cutting to a 40 to 50 basal area to treat 

for mountain pine beetle outbreaks, and this has encouraged new grass, forb, and shrub 

growth in areas previously limited by canopy closures of pines. Some locations show an 

increase in Canada thistle infestations after sale activity is completed. 

The condition and trend of upland vegetation is represented by transect Gold Run #5, is 

rated as “Moving towards Desired Conditions”. The presence of noxious weed 

infestations and the reduced amounts of native grasses resulted in the lesser rating of 

moving towards desired conditions. While the native grasses do not dominate in the plant 

community, they are available in limited amounts throughout the allotment, and appear to 

be increasing within newly harvested timber sites. Smooth brome and Kentucky 

bluegrass dominate the upland plant community in grasslands and meadows. Effective 

ground cover to maintain soil stability and provide wildlife habitat is present. The IDT 

felt these upland vegetative conditions and trend would be similar in all other pastures.

The allotment’s riparian sites have been visually observed over the past ten years. The 

South Fork of Castle Creek within the Highline Pasture was rated in 2008 during the PFC 

assessment as “Functional – At Risk” condition with upward trend. The factors 

contributing to this rating were an eroding beaver dam complex. Another PFC assessment 

at the same time was made again on the South Fork of Castle Creek but in the Gold Run 

Pasture. The rating here was at desired “Proper Functioning Condition”. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 81

Since concerns regarding the condition and trend of the riparian areas were found in Heely 

Pasture. The IDT decided to establish a Designated Monitoring Area (DMA) with a MIMS 

transect to document baseline conditions, and compare results against desired threshold 

levels. Heely Creek DMA#4 shows Kentucky bluegrass and Nebraska sedge as co-dominant 

and riparian vegetation is present but of limited width with few willows. The desired percent 

of hydric plants is below the threshold level (34% versus 80%). Streambank stability is 

below desired level, and alteration ratings exceed threshold level. DMA #4 was rated by the 

IDT as “Not Meeting Desired Conditions”. The chief cause of DMA#4’s ratings is believed 

to be the length of time that this pasture is grazed (60 days) which allows for repeated use of 

regrowth and opportunities for streambank alteration by hoof impact. Another reason for the 

lack of willows is perhaps their removal by mechanical or chemical or both means while the 

property was in private ownership prior to the late 1980s. 

Range improvements have been maintained and are in relatively good condition despite age 

throughout the allotment, with some exceptions. There are nine ponds, and over 26 miles of 

fencing. The permittee’s rider has been actively maintaining all fences; there are no 

structural water developments. In recent years the permittee updated the corral/loading area 

along the Williams Draw Road. All livestock are trucked to and from the permitted area. 

Livestock can access the Deerfield Road in the fall each year, and create traffic hazards 

and accidents within the right of way (ROW). A portion of the pasture boundary on the 

southwest side of the Trapp Pasture is unfenced and cattle can stray back and forth into 

the Baseline Pasture. Water storage in an existing pond in the Gold Run Pasture is 

reduced by pond vegetation. Heely Creek is not fenced off from livestock use except in 

limited willow exclosures. There are noxious weed infestations in the McIntosh Fen; the 

perimeter fencing on the north side is deteriorating and needs continued maintenance to 

prevent unauthorized off road travel access. 

Palmer Gulch Allotment 

The Palmer Gulch Allotment covers almost nine miles on a southwest to northeast aspect, 

and ranges two to four miles in width. It is east and south east of Hill City, South Dakota. 

The total acreage is 14,190 acres. Currently five pastures on the north end are grazed by 

one permittee, while the remaining seven pastures are assigned to another permittee. The 

allotment is bounded by Highways 16 and 385 on the west and north, by Highway 16A on 

the east, by Highway 244 on the south/southeast side and continuing with the Palmer Gulch 

Road and Highway 89 headed to Custer State Park on the southeast boundary. A portion of 

the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve covers portions of four pastures, and the Black Elk 

Wilderness is adjacent to the allotment although not grazed. The terrain is quite variable: 

meadows surrounded by a range of fluctuating slopes of pine, oak, aspen, and birch, large 

tracts of ponderosa pine under active management to open canopies to reduce crown fire

potential, several drainages that contain important streams – Battle Gulch, Bear Creek, 

Palmer Creek, and Spring Creek, and considerable rock outcrops in some pastures. The 

Samalias and Upper/Lower Bear Pastures are in stark contrast to the rest of the allotment’s 

pastures by virtue of very steep terrain and narrow drainages. Approximately 2,578 acres 

are considered capable of producing useable forage for livestock grazing. Approximately 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 82

82% of these forage producing acres are located in conifer, hardwood, and non-stocked 

pine ponderosa stands. 

A review of past AMPs disclosed this area was primarily grazed by cattle and some 

horses since the inception of the Black Hills National Forest. The allotment is segmented 

by highways and private land in-holdings, and at one time supported six permittees plus

multiple special use permits (many of which were free use). The large amount of private 

land fencing (and probable lack of maintenance) against this allotment was noted as a 

complicating factor in achieving livestock control. Permitted stocking of cattle reached its 

highest point during World War II when 428 head of cattle were on the allotment – for an 

estimated total of 2,840 AUMs. The 1959 range analysis data supported 1,185 AUMs. 

Cattle numbers were reduced in 1964 to 193 head of cattle and 1,281 AUMs, and 

reductions since then resulted in today’s permitted numbers (144 cattle and 936 AUMs). 

As with other Forest allotments, initially no fences existed and cattle distribution and use 

was attempted by riding and salting. Frequent accidents occurred on Highway 16 and 89 

due to cattle/vehicle collisions. Extensive numbers of fences and water developments 

were planned in the 1965 AMP, and many implemented in the past 44 years. These 

improvements allowed the development of multiple pastures to achieve deferred rotation 

grazing. Due to the logistics of moving one combined herd of livestock and lack of water, 

today’s two permittees continued to run separate herds. 

The 1965 AMP also desired to shift the predominantly Kentucky bluegrass meadows to a 

range of native grasses such as green needle and thread grass, little bluestem, and sedges. 

The AMP noted compaction of primary grazing areas were the culprit for lack of diversity, 

and less numbers would alleviate soil injury. Another positive change was turn out on to 

the allotment was postponed to June 1 from May 15. Another comment was made 

regarding the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve: “There are approximately 900 acres of range 

within this preserve. At the present time there is no competition for forage between range 

cattle and wildlife. In the future if forage becomes a critical factor in the wildlife 

management it will be necessary to reduce cattle use in this area in accordance with 

wildlife food needs. “ 

In the 1980s, several new AMPs were being developed, and portions of this allotment 

were re-assigned to another allotment on the west side of Highway 16/385 south of Hill 

City. This reduced the number of permittees to two ranchers who, by their own requests, 

continued to graze separate herds of cattle due to concerns about disrupting the purebred 

genetics of each respective herd. The date of the last AMP is December, 1988. 

The north half of the Palmer Gulch Allotment contains roughly 4,853 acres of which 

about 1100 acres are capable of supporting livestock grazing. It is managed as five

pastures with deferred rotation of grazing use from June 1(depending on range readiness) 

to October 31 each year. There are 74 mature cattle (cow with calf) owned by one 

permittee. Maximum AUMs is 491 under current ten year term grazing permit. Over 340 

acres of the south end of the Ford Pasture is within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve, and is 

presently mostly unused by livestock due to dense pine vegetation reducing forage 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 83

growth. Approximately 35 acres are designated as big game winter range – primarily 

within Samalias Pasture. Livestock are moved to the next pasture when allowable proper 

use of 50% by weight is reached. The Sawmill Pasture is not being grazed due to lack of 

private landline fencing, and serves only as a trailing route to and from the Dump 

Pasture. The Dump Pasture is bisected by a privately owned railroad line, and there are a 

lack of cattleguards on the tracks so livestock grazing has not been occurring in recent 

years. The remaining three pastures (Ford, Keystone, and Samalias) are usually used at 

different times each year. Water can be limited in supply in the Ford Pasture later in the 

season. Limited water sources are found in the Keystone Pasture, while more dependable 

and distributed seeps and springs are found in the Samalias Pasture. The north half of this 

allotment is believed to be overstocked by approximately 14% of the permitted livestock 

numbers (about 10 mature cattle) based on capability grazing modeling. This area is 

characterized by limited and scattered riparian sites. 

The south half of Palmer Gulch Allotment contains about 9327 acres of which roughly 

1500 acres are capable of supporting livestock grazing. Six pastures are managed by 

adjusting period of use with deferred rotation. The current permitted use is 67 mature 

cattle (cow/calf) from June 1(depending on range readiness) to October 21. An allowance 

was made in the late 1990’s for termination of a special use permit for grazing directly 

adjacent to the main ranch property, and another pasture for winter on/off use was 

established from October 22 to May 31 for up to 3 mature cattle (cow/calf). This winter 

on/off use was permitted to allow the permittee time to re-locate fences back on the 

private/National Forest property boundary. All pastures are grazed by cattle owned by 

one permittee. Maximum AUMs is 445 under current ten year term grazing permit. All 

pastures have water sources or access to flowing streams but in drought years the 

permittee has hauled water. Over 1600 acres is within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve on 

the Rabbit, Palmer, and Sunday Pastures. Each pasture’s portion within Norbeck is 

characterized by dense stands of pine, and pine encroachment into meadows and aspen. 

Livestock are moved to the next pasture when allowable proper use of 50% by weight is

reached. Residual levels (or remaining height of key plant species) have not yet been 

prescribed for riparian areas. The south half of this allotment is believed to be 

understocked by approximately 12% of the permitted livestock number based on 

capability grazing modeling, but there are needs to continue alleviating riparian resource 

concerns and providing any additional forage for Norbeck wildlife use. Several segments 

of streams or sites of riparian vegetation exist in this southern half of the allotment. 

The allotment’s upland sites have been monitored for utilization eight of the last ten 

years. The ten year allotment average for utilization is approximately 46%. In general, 

pasture use has been within prescribed limits although some instances of exceeding 

allowable proper use were recorded in 2007 for the Keystone, Lower Bear, Rabbit, and 

Upper Bear Pastures. Rabbit Pasture also exceeded desired levels of use in 2005. Recent 

field reviews have found the upland plant communities mostly dominated by non-native 

grasses such as Kentucky bluegrass, smooth brome, and timothy. A wide variety of forbs 

are present as well as Western snowberry and wild rose species. Unlike past timber sales 

which emphasized pine regeneration, on-going timber sales outside of Norbeck Preserve 

have been cutting to a 40 to 50 basal area to reduce the potential for crown fires and 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 84

mountain pine beetle outbreaks, and this approach has encouraged new grass, forb, and 

shrub growth. Some locations are expected to show an increase in Canada thistle 

infestations after sale activity is completed based on past experience. 

The condition and trend in the north half of the allotment is represented by upland transect

site Keystone #2, and has been rated as “Moving towards Desired Conditions”. The 

presence of scattered noxious weed infestations and the minimal amount of native grasses 

in the meadow resulted in the lesser rating of desired conditions. The transect is dominated 

by Kentucky bluegrass and timothy. Bare ground percentage is within limits. While the 

native grasses do not dominate in the plant community, they are present within newly 

harvested timber sites. Effective ground cover to maintain soil stability and support 

wildlife habitat is present. These conclusions would also apply to the Ford, Dump, and 

Samalias upland vegetation as well. 

Riparian areas in the north half are limited to two small stretches of Spring Creek in the 

Samalias Pasture, a short segment of Battle Creek, and scattered seep locations. They are 

rated by a 2008 PFC survey as at “Proper Functioning Condition” by the IDT. However, 

there are concerns with unrestricted livestock access and the effect on Spring Creek in 

relation to meeting TMDL objectives (see hydrology report), and for protection of these 

limited seep sources from trampling. There is also a small headcut occurring in Battle 

Creek from a defunct effort to tap water into a stock tank or pond. 

The condition and trend in the south half of the allotment is represented by upland transect 

site Rabbit #3, and has been rated as “Not Meeting Desired Conditions”. The presence of

Canada thistle infestations, the minimal amount of native grasses in the meadow and the

presence of fringed sage in higher than expected levels resulted in the lesser rating of 

desired conditions. The IDT did note that since the days of use in the pasture were reduced 

in 2005 and weed spraying has been started, the area has fewer weeds and more grass 

plants. Abundant weed seed is present as any exposed soil from burrowing animals is 

quickly vegetated with thistles. Ground cover to maintain soil stability is improving but 

bare ground is still visually present. Other pastures in this allotment “Moving Towards 

Desired Conditions” were Lower Bear, Sunday, and East Zimmer based on field 

observations and comparing with the Rabbit Pasture’s condition and trend. 

Riparian sites in the south half of the allotment were assessed in 2008 by the IDT. Palmer 

Creek within the Palmer Pasture was rated with a PFC assessment of “Functional – At 

Risk” condition with no apparent trend. The factors contributing to this rating were a 

deeply incised channel that is still subject to erosion. Another PFC assessment at the 

same time was made in Rabbit Gulch of the Rabbit Pasture with a rating of “Functional at 

Risk” with no apparent trend. There are concerns with the lack of riparian vegetation 

along an intermittent channel and the area has not achieved its potential extent. 

Concerns regarding the condition and trend of the riparian areas found in Upper Bear 

Pasture led to the establishment of a Designated Monitoring Area (DMA) with a MIMS 

transect to document baseline conditions, and compare results against desired threshold 

levels. Upper Bear DMA#6 shows Kentucky bluegrass as the dominant vegetation but 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 85

some riparian species are also present. The desired percent of hydric plants is below the 

threshold level (53% versus 80%). Streambank stability exceeds desired level, but 

alteration ratings exceed threshold level. DMA #6 was rated as “Moving towards Desired 

Conditions”. The chief cause of DMA#6’s present rating not being at Desired Conditions is 

because the length of time that this pasture is grazed (45 days) which allows for repeated 

use of regrowth and opportunities for streambank alteration by hoof impact. Similar 

conditions exist within the Palmer Pasture with regards to streambank condition and 

presence of hydric vegetation because of field observations and the reduced level of use by 

livestock (21 days). 

Range improvements (north half) have been maintained or reconstructed, but some fences 

are deteriorating from age – particularly those along the Highway 16. The permittee’s 

base property adjoins the Keystone Pasture, so trailing to and from the permitted area is 

easily accomplished. Range improvements (south half) have been maintained or 

reconstructed, but some fences are in poor shape – particularly those along the southwest 

side of the Palmer Pasture. The permittee does have a ranch manager who is tasked with 

performing improvement maintenance. The base property for the permittee lies directly 

adjacent to the Rabbit Pasture so livestock are trailed to and from the permitted area. 

There are a total of three spring developments, 18 ponds, 1 water tank, and over 27 miles 

of fencing spread over the entire allotment. 

In the north half of the allotment, there is a pond in the Dump Pasture that is too shallow. 

Two other ponds in the Ford Pasture are vegetated and have reduced water holding 

capacity. Livestock can access the Twin Springs Road, the Black Hills Railroad line, and 

the Old Hill City Highway from the Keystone Pasture, and seek water from Palmer Creek 

within the county road ROW. Additionally, the Centennial Trail lacks fencing and a trail 

gate so livestock cross the road as well. A spring in the southern portion of the Keystone 

Pasture needs protection from trampling by livestock and big game. There is a segment of 

unused fencing in the northeast portion of the Keystone Pasture and another stretch in the 

Sawmill Pasture is unused. In the Samalias Pasture two ponds have reduced capacity to 

hold run-off precipitation, and the Joe Dollar water development’s pipeline and headbox 

are not functioning correctly. There are several riparian areas within the Samalias Pasture 

that are trampled by livestock, and two access points to Spring Creek allow livestock full 

access to the stream.

In the south half of the allotment, fencing around an old Forest Service administrative horse 

pasture is not used. The spring source in the East Zimmer Pasture is trampled by livestock 

and big game. A temporary water tank is used in drought years in the Lower Bear Pasture, 

and its current location is too close to a riparian area. A fence in northwestern portion of the 

Lower Bear Pasture is not long enough to contain drifting livestock. In the Rabbit Pasture, 

the “Fender Place” pond is breeched and has reduced water holding capacity, and livestock 

are trampling the spring sources. The Summit Pasture’s perimeter fencing currently fences 

about 20 acres of National Forest into private land use. Existing pasture boundary fencing in 

Upper Bear and Lower Bear Pastures on the east side of each does not include two large 

tracts of primary and secondary rangeland. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 86

Porcupine Allotment 

The Porcupine Allotment is roughly the shape of a rectangle – six miles long on the 

north-south axis by four miles wide going east-west. It is about 10 miles west/northwest 

of Custer, South Dakota. It covers 9,858 acres. Approximately 8,900 acres are considered 

capable of producing useable forage for livestock grazing. Over 95% of these forage 

producing acres are located grasslands and non-stocked ponderosa pine stands. 

Over 50 years ago this allotment was grazed by permitted sheep (Porcupine #2) and cattle 

(Porcupine #1). A total of 980 ewes plus lambs were grazed from mid-June to midSeptember each year. Another 40 plus cow/calf pairs were grazed at the same time as the 

sheep. Some special use permits allowed another 20 pair to graze from mid-May to the

end of October. Most of the adjacent allotments in the vicinity also had permitted sheep, 

and some efforts were planned to construct sheep fencing between allotments. There is 

some note of the need for sheep and cattle ranchers to cooperate in management. 

In 1969, both permits were acquired by one permittee, and the areas combined and called 

the Porcupine Allotment. The 1970 Multiple Use Survey states 182 mature cattle 

(cow/calf) and 391 sheep will graze this allotment by combining private lands (Cooper 

Ranch) with National Forest. Roughly 1⁄2 of the allotment’s combined acreage of 9,263 

acres was rated as suitable for grazing, and the author noted water was limiting, deer 

migrated to lower elevation during the winter, and anticipated timber regeneration after 

harvest activities will have to be evaluated for effects of grazing on young seedlings. 

Grazing was planned to be a four pasture deferred rotation including the private Cooper 

Ranch as one of the pastures. Grazing capacity was estimated at 905 AUMs. 

An aggressive range improvement plan was intended with permittee cooperation and cost 

sharing for 6.5 miles of fence, 22 stock ponds, one cattleguard, and 4 water developments. 

The permittee also drilled a deep well and started piping water into the allotment from 

private property. Key plant species for range monitoring were to be Poa species and western 

wheatgrass. In 1971, the permittee converted to strictly cattle because of sheep losses due to 

predators. Plans were made to spray snowberry pockets with chemicals to eliminate their 

presence and increase forage production. The permittee ran mostly yearlings from 1971 to 

1985, eventually increasing their number to 374 yearlings or equivalent to 960 AUMs as 

shown on the term permit. Capacity increases were tested by use of temporary permits and 

followed capital investments being completed by the permittee. 

The permittee became interested in Holistic Resource Management (HRM) in 1986, and began 

discussions with the Forest Service on how to best implement this approach. Both the permittee 

and Forest Service personnel completed HRM training, the Forest Service approved using 

HRM in 1989, and a management team was formed. Today’s primary members consist of the 

Forest Service range staff, the permittee, the South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks, the Sierra 

Club, and South Dakota State University. (In 2009 additional secondary members were added 

from Forest Service’s wildlife, botany, and hydrology programs.) In 1990 the permittee began 

grazing cow/calf pairs in lieu of yearlings, and in 1991 the term grazing permit was revised to 

reflect a variable numbers, variable season approach as specified in the biological plan (known 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 87

then as the Annual Operating Plan). Average use was projected as equivalent to 334 head for a 

three month and 22 day period of use. 

The Porcupine Allotment continues under Holistic Management (HM) using a 12 pasture

planned rotation with progress directed by an interdisciplinary team. The team members meet 

at least twice a year to review allotment progress and plan annual use numbers, specific 

treatment objectives, and consider any new range improvements or reconstruction project 

proposals. Livestock are grazed from approximately June 9 (depending on range readiness) 

through September 30, with an average use of 334 cattle (cow/calf with some yearlings) 

owned by one permittee (variable numbers and season allowed each year by this permit). The 

average number of AUMs is 1653 under a ten year term grazing. The southern 1/3 of the 

allotment (over 3400 acres) is classified as big game winter range. For all pastures, all 

livestock are moved to next pasture when allowable proper use is approximately 50% and 

vegetative, soil, and biological management objectives are met. The allotment is believed to 

be understocked by approximately 45% of permitted livestock numbers based on capability

grazing modeling because of 2000 Jasper fire affects created additional primary rangelands. 

The HRM Team and the Forest Service agrees that to handle livestock grazing use in 

moderate drought conditions the most likely change would be to adjust in season of use. Well

sources seem dependable and adequate water may not be an issue. 

The southern 1/3 of the allotment tends to face more to the south and is noted by Cooper 

Ridge its northern extent. The northern 2/3s is a series of rolling hills that are drain into 

Upper Gillette Canyon, Wildcat Gulch, Wolf Canyon, or West Hells Canyon. Signal Hill is 

located in the southeastern portion of the allotment and is of historical significance. Several 

springs provide some watering sources for livestock and wildlife: North Antelope, Wells 

Spring, Seep Spring, and Wildcat Spring. These limited supplies are supplemented by wells 

found on Cooper Ranch (private land), Lemming Draw (Darrow Allotment), Yount Well, 

and North Babbington (Hell Canyon District). A series of pipelines and pumps interconnect 

these wells and allow for movement of water as needs through several water storage tanks. 

The terrain is fairly open after the 2000 Jasper Fire; most of the surviving pine stands are 

located on the east 1/3 of the allotment although some isolated pockets exist around the 

Custer Limestone Road corridor. The present overall vista of the area shows extensive 

pockets of snags in various stages of decay from the 2000 fire, and considerable downed 

slash which obstruct livestock and big game use to varying degrees. Considerable regrowth 

after the fire consisting of grasses, forbs, aspen re-sprouts, and some shrubs are readily 

apparent. Several recorded montane grassland sites are within the allotment. They are Upper 

Gillette Canyon, West Hells Canyon, and Middle Gillette Canyon. Most sites were rated 

moderately to heavily altered by past use while in private ownership since most locations 

were found within old homesteads that are now owned by the National Forest. The Upper 

Gillette Canyon site is the most extensive and in the best condition (Marriott, 2000). 

The allotment’s upland sites have been monitored for utilization seven of the last ten 

years. The ten year allotment average for utilization is approximately 38%. In general, 

pasture use has been within prescribed limits and meeting resource objectives set by the 

HRM Team. A third party assessment was conducted in 2008 and addressed allotment 

status from a Holistic Management point of view, evaluating the water cycle, mineral 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 88

cycle, community dynamics, and energy flow (Kroos, 2008). The water cycle was rated 

as excellent, with no visible signs of soil erosion. The evaluator found the mineral cycle 

functioning moderately well on 2/3s of the pastures, and plant material (predominately 

herbaceous litter) building up and accumulating to some degree on the remaining 1/3 of 

the pastures (Babbington, West Hells Canyon 1, West Hells Canyon 2, Signal, and South 

Exchange). This build-up suppresses production of plants, seems to favor more noxious 

weeds, and reduced energy flow. Community dynamics were rated as excellent because 

plant diversity is good (native and non-native grasses are present), signs of small game, 

insects, and upland birds were noted or species observed, and a large herd of elk was seen 

using the pastures. Plant regeneration after the 2000 wildfire is very good except in areas 

where plant material (thatch) is building up and surpressing new growth. Energy flow is 

discussed in terms of the ability of the site to capture sunshine through green plants, and 

for this flow to function properly the water and mineral cycle must be operating properly, 

and community dynamics be in balance. The energy flow is rated as functionally well 

except for areas where thatch is building up. 

The condition and trend in a majority of the allotment is represented by upland transect

sites at Babbington #2, Signal #3, and Antelope #1.The former is rated as “Meeting 

Desired Conditions,” and the latter two rated as “Moving towards Desired Conditions” 

respectively. There are some concerns about the amount of bare ground scattered 

throughout the allotment (and created by the high intensity fire), but no visible erosion or 

dust has been noted, and progress towards less bare soil noted since 2005 (from about 8% 

allotment-wide to 3% as of 2009). Signal #2 had some concerns regarding the amount of 

noxious weeds present in 2005, but their presence in 2009 is markedly reduced. 

Allotment-wise, there is a large amount of dead and downed woody debris from the 

decaying pine which is accumulating on the soil surface and obstructing animal access 

and new plan growth, particularly in the western 2/3s of the allotment. 

There is one other upland transect site located in the Yount Pasture. This pasture is only 233 

acres in size, and was formerly in private ownership. The Forest Service acquired this tract in 

the 1980s, and has been attempting to restore it. While in private ownership, this parcel was 

subjected to year-round use by livestock. Prescribed use after acquisition has been limited and 

under deferred rotation management. Site production is noticeably less than surrounding 

pastures despite being primarily meadowland. Forage production is reduced and plant 

diversity is depleted but has recovered somewhat in 2009 following complete rest. This 

pasture’s transect is labeled Yount #2 and is rated as “Not meeting Desired Conditions.” 

There are no riparian transects or PFC assessments on this allotment because there are no 

flowing streams or significant riparian locations. The four small riparian areas associated 

with spring sources are generally fenced off from livestock use. 

Range improvements have been maintained and are in relatively good condition despite age 

throughout the allotment. The allotment has a history of extensive investments in fencing, 

water developments, storage tanks, wells, pipelines, and stock dams. There are three vertical 

wells, five spring developments, 19 ponds, 18 water tanks, three storage tanks, 

approximately 9 miles of water transfer pipeline, and over 34 miles of fencing (permanent 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 89

and electric). The permittee rides this allotment multiple times each week, and stays in a 

leased cabin. He uses a combination of mechanized and horseback methods to maintain this 

allotment, distribute salt, and move livestock on a fast rotation of pasture use. Some fencing 

is electric while others are permanent. Attention is paid to wire heights and tension to avoid 

impeding big game. The permittee in the past leased Cooper Ranch including use of 

associated corrals, cabin, and well for administration of the Porcupine Allotment. Livestock 

are trucked to and from the leased ground, and then trailed on to the permitted area. 

The Babbington-North Wolf #1 and Wildcat-North Wolf #1 pasture boundary is 

unfenced. Wildcat-North Wolf 1 Pasture does not have an exclusive water development 

for livestock and big game. The Seeps Springs, Wells Cabin Spring, and North Antelope 

Spring exclosures are small and livestock and big game trample the riparian areas. Slash 

loading from the Jasper Fire impede animal access to forage and browse. Pine 

encroachment will eventually reduce forage and browse production for livestock and big 

game, but perhaps restore some of the winter range characteristics. Pipelines are mostly 

on the surface and need to be buried for protection from equipment and fire. 

Redfern Allotment 

The Redfern Allotment covers 11,573 acres in the central part of the Black Hills. It is 

approximately six miles northwest of Hill City, South Dakota. It is bordered by the China 

Gulch Road on the east, the Tigerville Allotment on the south which included Burnt Fork 

and the community of Tigerville, the Mystic County Road on the west, and old Mystic 

town site on the north including the Mickelson Trailhead. Major drainages include Slate

Creek and White Earth tributary, Spruce Gulch, Spaw Gulch (Flannigan’s Cabin area), 

and Nugget Gulch, all of which tend to flow to the north. The allotment is approximately 

six miles long going north-south and five miles width going east-west. The terrain is 

characterized by meadows of varying widths supported by steep and sometimes rocky 

slopes of Ponderosa Pine, much of which was planted after the 1939 McVey Fire. These 

pines originated from Colorado Front Range seed stock, and tend to produce a brushy 

canopy that shades out undergrowth vegetation. Conifer encroachment into grazeable 

land is apparent. Much of the allotment is thickly stocked with conifers. 

Allotment records of historic use are summarized in a 1970 AMP. Records for actual use 

data prior to 1947 were not found, but correspondence indicated that up to 2900 AUMs 

were grazed plus considerable trespass by horses and other non-permitted livestock from 

1905-1949. Given today’s permitted period of use, that would be equivalent to 490 mature 

cattle (cow/calf pairs) versus today’s 195 pairs. During the 1940s at least 9 permittees used 

the allotment, and the record states none were very interested in improving management 

and allotment conditions. Cattle entered the Forest in May, and each permittee attempted to 

keep them in their own sub-allotment. Use was reduced by the Forest Service in 1951 to 

approximately 1045 AUMs versus today’s current permitted use of 1159 AUMs. A few 

additional special use permits or private land permits held by the permittees were 

apparently eventually converted to term permits hence the increase in AUMs. 

Starting in 1969 the remaining permittee entered into a five year development program 

with the Forest Service. A cost-share program created pastures by constructing fences, 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 90

installed water developments, dug ponds, and sprayed snowberry – with the end result 

being today’s pasture configuration of four main pastures. Capacity in 1970 was 

estimated at 2200 AUMs, but a decision was made to retain present numbers (219 pairs 

for about 1200 AUMs) and not increase use to avoid overuse of the primary rangelands. 

A fifth pasture, Dutchman was added to the existing four and a 5 pasture rest rotation 

system was used for several years. 

Eventually this was changed back to a four pasture rotation as the Dutchman Pasture 

became its own separate allotment around 1980. In 1992 an AMP revision was developed 

which continued the present management emphasis and deferred rotation. It called for 

multiple objectives such as: 1) sustain livestock grazing to the capacity made available by 

high investment in improvements; manage forest to provide an increase in wildlife

habitat; 3) resolve conflicts in favor of wildlife; 4) maintain aspen diversity; 5) fence off 

camping units along Slate Creek Dam; 5) set proper use at 45% for livestock by weight; 

and 6) maintain vegetative diversity and condition in Slate Creek by continuing deferred 

grazing at low stocking level. The only range improvements authorized were constructing 

allotment boundary fencing between the Nugget Pasture and the former Pactola Ranger 

District to the east; some of this work was completed. Prescribed burning has occurred in 

some pastures for fuels and wildlife treatment objectives. Slate Creek Dam has not been 

fenced off nor has proper use been set at 45% by weight. There was no data located to 

document the condition of the riparian area in Slate Creek in 1992. 

The Redfern Allotment is currently managed as a four pasture deferred rotation sequence 

of use with one small, separate round-up pasture used each fall for several days. 

Livestock grazed from June 11 (depending on range readiness) to October are 195 mature 

cattle (cow/calf) owned by one permittee. The permittee usually does not bring the herd 

up until June 17 each year, and sometimes removes cattle earlier than paid for due to 

concerns regarding fall weather storms. For the past ten years the permittee has applied 

for non-use for resource protection due to low forage production and lack of water during 

the drought. This non-use has ranged 18 to 95 pairs in the last five years. The average 

AUMs is 1159 under a ten year term grazing. Virtually the entire allotment is classified 

as big game winter range. Livestock are moved to the next pasture when allowable proper 

use of 50% by weight is reached. Residual levels (or remaining height of key plant

species) have not yet been prescribed for riparian areas. A recent permit waiver based on 

sale of 177 mature cattle of the total permitted number of 195 cattle is being finalized. 

The Forest Service will be retaining the remaining 18 head in non-use status because of 

resource protection needs and also because the minimum term grazing permit size is 25 

head. Approximately 2,659 acres are considered capable of producing useable forage for 

livestock grazing. Over 80% of the forage producing acres are located in conifer, 

hardwoods, and non-stocked ponderosa pine locations. The allotment is believed to be 

overstocked by approximately 28% of the current permitted livestock numbers (about 60 

mature cattle) based on capability grazing modeling. The overstocking is possibly 

because the replanted conifers have encroached and continue to reduce forage production 

after the 1939 McVey Fire. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 91

A portion of this area is within the Slate Castle Project area and vegetative treatments are 

planned but their effect on forage and browse production is uncertain at this time. All

pastures contain some scattered aspen or birch. Slate Creek has been altered by road 

construction and previous grazing use, and lacks riparian vegetation and sustainable 

stream flows, particularly during drought years. Allotment –wide, the lack of water can 

be an issue during drought years. Slate Creek, Spruce Gulch, and West Nugget Gulch can 

flow water to varying amounts and durations depending on the precipitation; other 

locations rely on water storage in developed ponds or old beaver dams. The IDT believes 

that to handle livestock grazing use in moderate drought conditions some adjustments in 

season of use and numbers may be necessary. Some team members have suggested 

supplemental water hauling as an option. 

The allotment’s upland sites have been monitored for utilization six of the last ten years. 

The ten year allotment average for utilization is approximately 47%, but average use in 

2007 and 2009 was 66% and 57% respectively despite less numbers grazed. Past field 

reviews found a wide variety of grasses and forbs in this allotment, with the grass 

component dominated by Poa species and timothy. Sedges are also found as well as 

snowberry. Smooth brome is not as dominant as it appears in other allotments. Bare 

ground has not been an issue but Canada thistle and Leafy spurge are present throughout 

the pastures in varying densities. The north end of the Slate Creek Pasture does not 

receive as much use due to lack of available water. 

The condition and trend of this allotment is represented by upland transect site White 

Earth #1. There is a diverse mix of grasses and forbs with some snowberry, but Canada 

thistle is present and native grasses are not dominant. Bare ground is not a concern. The 

IDT rated the uplands in the allotment as “Not Meeting Desired Conditions” because of 

an increase in noxious weed infestations and past levels of overutilization is affecting 

plant vitality. There were some concerns by the IDT that allocated forage for wintering 

wildlife is being compromised by overuse of primary rangelands. 

Riparian sites in this allotment were assessed in 2008. Spruce Gulch within the Queen 

Bee Pasture was rated with a PFC assessment as “Functional – At Risk” condition with 

downward trend. The factors contributing to this rating were a deep, incised channel that 

is still subject to erosion, shearing of streambanks, and the presence of a nearby road in 

some locations that confines the stream’s meanders. There are concerns that the duration 

of grazing (45 days) was contributing to livestock impacts to the creek. 

Since concerns regarding the condition and trend of the riparian areas were found in Slate 

Creek Pasture, a Designated Monitoring Area (DMA) was established with a MIMS 

transect to document baseline conditions, and compare results against desired threshold 

levels. Slate Creek DMA#3 shows Kentucky bluegrass as the dominant vegetation but 

some riparian species are also present. The desired percent of hydric plants is below the 

threshold level (53% versus 80%). Streambank stability exceeds desired level, but 

alteration ratings exceed threshold level. DMA #3 was rated as “Moving towards Desired 

Conditions”. The chief cause of DMA#3’s present rating not being at Desired Conditions 

is believed to be the length of time that this pasture is grazed (36 days) which allows for 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 92

repeated use of regrowth and opportunities for streambank alteration by hoof impact. 

There are also several segments of this channel which ran dry during the drought years. 

Range improvements have been maintained and are in relatively good condition despite

age throughout the allotment, with some exceptions regarding two water developments in 

the Slate Pasture and one in the Queen Bee Pasture. There are six spring developments, 

26 ponds, three water tanks, and over 18 miles of fencing. The permittee’s rider has been 

actively maintaining all fences. In recent years the permittee updated the corral/loading 

area along the Mystic County Road which is located on NFS land. 

The lone water development in the Queen Bee Pasture is defunct, and is directly adjacent to 

Spruce Gulch’s riparian areas. The permittee’s administrative horse pasture is in need of 

reconstruction or removal; the scope and standard for use needs clarification. The Redfern 

Holding Pasture is too small to hold 195 pairs for more than two days. Both water 

developments in upper Slate Pasture do not work as designed and no water is available. 

Rimmer Allotment 

The Rimmer Allotment is located approximately eight miles northwest of Hill City, SD. 

It is found on the north edge of Slate Prairie and extends northerly towards Castle Creek 

drainage. A total of 2,011 acres of NFS lands make up the allotment. The allotment is

approximately three and one-half miles long on its north-south alignment and just less 

than two miles wide on its east-west axis. It is roughly bordered by the Slate Prairie Road 

on the southwest, Castle Creek on the northwest, and an unnamed ridgeline on the east 

that tiers into the intermittent headwaters of Bittersweet Creek found in the southeast 

corner of the Rimmer Allotment. Notable features within the north half of this allotment 

includes a rugged canyon segment which includes Castle Creek, and two narrow 

drainages which each contain an unnamed creek. Much of the north half of this allotment 

is forested with Ponderosa Pine or pine/spruce/aspen mix on north slopes. Recent timber 

sale activities have substantially opened up the understory vegetation to more direct 

sunlight. Some riparian vegetation is found within spruce and aspen trees along the 

creeks. The south half of the allotment is more open and is characterized by open vistas 

and prairie grassland vegetation. Panoramic views of Harney Peak and Reynolds Prairie 

are noted from the highest windswept ridges. Approximately 200 acres of T1N R3E S15 

and S22 are classified as a montane grassland site (Marriott, 2000). The timbered area of 

this allotment does not appear to have been burned in the 1939 McVey wildfire. 

An AMP written in 1965 provided a brief history of past use dating back to 1952. Prior to 

that point this allotment was part of the Slate Prairie Allotment and subjected to use by 

permitted cattle and perhaps trespass livestock including horses. A large private in-holding 

against the allotment had special use pastures between it and the National Forest lands. In 

1951 the Forest Service reduced permitted use on the Rimmer Allotment from 32 cow/calf 

pairs to 18 pairs. File correspondence indicates the reduction took place during waiver

transaction in the late 1950s. Private grazing land was fenced in or managed with the 

National Forest. Authorized numbers increased to 26 pairs in the mid-1960s, and then 

eventually to 33 pairs still permitted today. The 1965 AMP estimated grazing carrying 

capacity for livestock at 340 AUMs by grazing 919 acres in contrast to the present permitted 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 93

numbers of 174 AUMs. The last AMP was approved in 1991, and capacity was estimated at 

245 AUMs over 919 acres. In 2009, approximately 545 acres are considered capable of 

producing useable forage for livestock grazing. Over 62% of these forage producing acres 

are located conifer, hardwoods, and non-stocked pine ponderosa locations. 

Some objectives from the 1991 AMP included: 1) implementing a three pasture rest rotation 

grazing system; 2) provide 174 AUMs of livestock forage with capability of the land 

resource and without impairing productivity or creating unacceptable conflicts; 3) maintain 

moderate conditions of riparian resources; 4) allocate forage for big game; 5) continue 

noxious weed control; 5) construct two new ponds and build fencing to create a third pasture; 

6) salt and use protein supplements at least 400 yards from any water source and do not salt 

in meadows, bottoms, or within in site of roads or trails; 7) proper allowable use is set at 

45%; and 8) rest one pasture each year after third pasture improvements are completed. The 

three pasture rest rotation was never implemented because the fencing was not built. Present 

AUMs remain unchanged from the 1991 plan. Riparian resources are considered as not 

meeting desired conditions as later in this section. Forage continues to be allocated for big 

game except overutilization by livestock competes with wildlife use. Weeds are still being 

controlled. Some salting meets objectives while other block placement is not to specification. 

No pasture is rested from livestock grazing use. 

The Rimmer Allotment is currently managed as a two pasture deferred rotation sequence of 

use, from June 11 (depending on range readiness) to October 10 for 33 mature cattle 

(cow/calf) owned by one permittee. Average AUMs is 175 under a ten year term grazing. 

The entire allotment is not classified as big game winter range. Livestock are moved to next 

pasture when allowable proper use of 50% by weight is reached. Residual levels (or 

remaining height of key plant species) have not yet been prescribed for riparian areas. In 

recent years the permittee has been removing livestock early from the allotment between 

October 1 and October 10. Allotment is projected by capability grazing modeling to be 

understocked by approximately 6% of the permitted livestock numbers (about 2 mature 

cattle), but there have been recent, extensive timber sales which have significantly increased 

canopy openings in conifers. For the past several years an additional 20 pair of cattle have 

been grazed to test the capacity of this allotment. The results from utilization studies show 

grazing use has been in excess of the proper allowable use by weight percentage (50%). The 

20 head were from another allotment; the trial use of the Rimmer Allotment afforded a 

temporary reduction in grazing numbers on the Slate Prairie Allotment. 

The allotment’s upland sites have been monitored for utilization six of the last ten years. 

The ten year allotment average for utilization is approximately 51%, but average use 

during the trial period of 20 additional cattle pairs in 2008 and 2009 was 55%. The 

Rimmer Pasture is grazed approximately 82 straight days per year, and that provides 

opportunities for plant regrowth to be grazed again in the same season. Past field reviews 

found a wide variety of grasses and forbs in this allotment, with the grass component 

dominated by Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome in the north half of the allotment, 

while the south half of the allotment is more diverse grass species wise – which matches 

up with the montane grassland assessment. In the south half, there are more native grass 

species, upland sedges are more apparent, and a greater diversity of forbs is present. Bare 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 94

ground and noxious weed infestations are not an issue, but timber landings and skid trails 

will need to be monitored for an increase in Canada thistle. 

The condition and trend of upland vegetation is represented by transects at Rimmer #2 

(south half of allotment) and Rimmer #3 (north half of allotment). The IDT rated Rimmer 

#2 and Rimmer #3 as “Not Meeting Desired Conditions” because some grazed areas are 

exceeding proper allowable use, which causes bare ground percentages to exceed threshold 

levels. There appears to be a trend towards more bare ground than in the past. Both study 

sites are found in the Rimmer Pasture, and the duration of grazing use is long. Plant 

regrowth is subjected to repeated grazing use which compact soils and reduces plant vitality. 

There is also white sage, green sagewort, and fringed sage present in greater numbers 

around Rimmer #2 than expected, but this is believed to be a relic condition from when 

season-long use was occurring with increased numbers of livestock – both authorized and 

trespass. However, long duration grazing can promote these existing sage species. Condition 

and trend for upland vegetation in the Grandad Pasture was rated as “Meeting Desired 

Conditions”. It appears that livestock are spending considerable time on adjacent private 

lands in addition to this pasture, hence lessening the impact to the Grandad Pasture. 

Water is lacking on the south end of this allotment except when ponds filled with rainfall 

or Bittersweet Creek is has surface flows. The two unnamed streams and seeps in the 

north half provide a majority of the watering needs for livestock and big game. Riparian 

sites in this allotment were assessed in 2008. Bittersweet Creek headwaters within the 

Rimmer Pasture were rated with a PFC assessment as “Functional – At Risk” condition 

with downward trend. The factors contributing were breeched beaver dams, a riparian 

area that has not reached its full potential, portions of stream are completely degraded 

and have no water flow, and willows lack recruitment of younger age classes. Castle 

Creek segment within Grandad Pasture is rated as “Proper Functioning Condition” with 

upward trend. There are some issues with channel sinuosity and lack of sediment to build 

banks, but the causes are beyond the control of the permittee since another agency 

regulates flow releases from Deerfield Dam. Another PFC assessment was completed for 

“CC1B” (unnamed creek) and rated as “Functional – At Risk” with downward trend. 

Some of the factors contributing to this rating were the lack of willows, the presence of 

snowberry and upland grass plants directly adjacent to channel where riparian vegetation 

should be instead, lots of hoof action degrading streambanks, and no coarse woody 

material to dissipate storm event flows. 

Since concerns regarding the condition and trend of the riparian areas were found in 

Rimmer Pasture by the PFC assessment. A Designated Monitoring Area (DMA) with a 

MIMS transect to document baseline conditions, and compare results against desired 

threshold levels was established. CC1B DMA #5 (north half of Rimmer Pasture) shows 

Kentucky bluegrass is dominant; riparian vegetation is very limited in presence. The DMA 

#5 was rated as “Not meeting Desired Conditions”. Streambank stability rating meets 

threshold level. Streambank alteration exceeds threshold level. The percent of hydric plants 

is only 21% and the threshold is greater than or equal to 80%. The duration of use is the 

root cause for the condition and trend of the riparian vegetation in this pasture. The soils of 

this area seem to help stabilize the stream channel despite heavy livestock use. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 95

Range improvements have been maintained and are in relatively good condition 

throughout the allotment, although they are approaching 40 years of age and some 

deterioration is occurring. There is one spring developments, two ponds, and over 5 miles 

of fencing. The permittee has used a range rider with varying degrees of success over the 

past several years. Salt placement has been in compliance at times, and in some instances 

too close to water sources. The permittee owns a corral and holding pasture in close 

proximity to this allotment along the old Hill City Road. 

Trail 40 gates are left open and livestock can leave or enter the allotment. The spring 

exclosure at Lost Park Spring is down and livestock and big game are trampling the

source and associated riparian area. Recent timber sale activities have opened up 

vegetative barriers and livestock may drift off allotment. 

Slate Prairie Allotment 

The Slate Prairie Allotment is approximately 5,896 acres and lies about six miles 

northwest of Hill City, SD. It ranges from Slate Prairie to the west, Bittersweet and 

Castle Creek on the north, the Mystic County Road on the east, and the old McVey Road 

on the south. It is six miles wide on an east-west aspect, and four miles long on the northsouth access. The area is characterized by meadows of varying widths and dense pine 

stands on slopes. The terrain is best described as a series of rolling hills bisected by three 

draws on a southwest to northeast alignment – Crooked Creek, Whitetail Gulch, and 

Daugherty Gulch. The terrain to the north is relatively unfenced as steep, pine/spruce 

obstructed draws limit livestock spread into Castle Creek. 

Most of this allotment was burned in the 1939 McVey wildfire and was extensively 

planted with pines originated from Colorado Front Range seed stock. These pines tend to 

produce a brushy canopy that shades out undergrowth vegetation, and little tree thinning 

has been completed since planting. The planted tree stands are now tightly grouped and 

understory production is low on all aspects. Some remnants of pre-McVey pine exist in 

isolated locations, and they tend to be characterized by tall, widely spaced pines with 

grass and shrub understory. Scattered aspen and birch stands can be found, but their 

presence is greatly reduced by conifer encroachment. 

After the 1939 fire, the terrain was very open and dominated by grass and forb growth, 

aspen regeneration, and fields of snags. Some post removal for fencing occurred, and 

most pine snags eventually fell over and decayed. Some exclosures were built to protect 

spring sources. Pine regeneration in burned over areas has actively progressed since 

1939, and conifer encroachment into meadows, aspen stands as been an on-going 

process. The result is aspen stands and browse plants are diminished, and forage 

production from meadows and non-stocked pine and spruce stands is greatly reduced. 

From 1905 to 1967, the Slate Prairie Allotment was subjected to on in the spring, off in 

the fall cattle management. Few fences were in existence, and riding and salting were the 

main distribution and control tools. According to the 1965 and 1970 AMPs, the allotment 

was actually broken up into six sub-allotments: Gold Run, Dutchman, Clinton, Slate 

Prairie, Bittersweet, and Rimmer; there were five permittees. In 1961, each of the sub-
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 96

allotments was converted to individual allotments. The Slate Prairie Allotment was 

grazed by over 205 cattle (yearlings and cow/calf pairs – term and temporary permits) 

plus special use pasture permits for an estimated 1400 AUMs. File notes indicate analysis 

work completed in 1993 found this allotment fully stocked and use by weight at 34%. In 

2009, approximately 1,971 acres are considered capable of producing useable forage for 

livestock grazing. Over 66% of these forage producing acres are located in conifer, 

hardwood, and non-stocked ponderosa pine locations. 

In 1968, the permittees and Forest Service entered into an agreement to construct almost 

12 miles of pasture and allotment boundary fencing and excavate five ponds. These 

fencing projects created five pastures. In 1969, temporary permits were converted to 

term, and the southern tip of the allotment (with 25 pair of cattle) was re-assigned to form 

the new Tigerville Allotment. This reduced the number of permittees to one and all 

special use permit pastures were also ended. The total permitted cattle numbers

eventually adjusted to around 200 in the mid-1980s. Other projects of note in the 1970 

AMP were soil pitting by mechanical means to reduce “sod-bound Bluegrass” and 

spraying over 370 acres to reduce snowberry concentrations. Special note was made to 

avoid spraying or drift into upper slopes where winter range browse was located. 

Spraying was to be completed by aircraft and ground rigs; Map records indicate the 

project was completed by 1980; pitting work was in lower Daugherty Gulch and in the

middle of Section 30 between Mystic and Hay Draw Pastures. 

Another past record of note is a 1971 Multiple Use Survey Report’s findings that 

discusses the use the McVey Winter Range receives in this area by big game, 

predominately whitetail deer at the time of the report. The report states a large number of 

deer migrate to the burn in December and January from the north and west. Competition 

for forage and browse between livestock and deer occurs when meadows are overgrazed 

by cattle and they move up on to the slopes in search of more grass, or even use browse. 

A five pasture rest rotation grazing system was envisioned to control grazing use and 

leave forage and browse for deer. Records show planned rotations from the late 1960s 

through the early 1980s using five pastures and always resting one of the five each season 

of use. Today five pastures exist but the Plantation Pasture is a part of the Mystic Pasture 

(southeast 1/3 near the Mystic County Road) and the Slate School Pasture was split into 

Slate School and West School Pastures. 

The Slate Prairie Allotment is managed today as a 5 pasture deferred rotation sequence of 

use from June 1 (depending on range readiness) to October 20 for 200 mature cattle 

(cow/calf) owned by one permittee. Maximum AUMs is 1232 under a ten year term 

grazing permit. Over 4500 acres of this allotment is classified as big game winter range. 

Livestock are moved to next pasture when allowable proper use of 50% by weight is 

reached. Residual levels (or remaining height of key plant species) have not yet been 

prescribed for riparian areas. In recent years the permittee has been removing livestock 

early from the allotment between October 1 and October 20. Allotment is projected by 

capability grazing modeling to be overstocked by approximately 15% of the permitted 

livestock numbers (about 20 mature cattle), but past measurements of grazing use suggest 

overstocking may be as large as 30% (60 mature cattle). The IDT believes this 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 97

overstocking situation is because the replanted conifers have encroached and continue to 

reduce forage production after the 1939 McVey Fire. It may be at some point forage

underneath a closing conifer canopy becomes unpalatable for livestock due to needle cast 

influence on plant quality (Beckner, 2007). A portion of this area is within the approved 

Slate Castle Project Area and vegetative treatments are planned, but their effect on forage 

and browse production is uncertain at this time. 

Water supplies within the allotment vary – generally spring and creek sources continue to 

flow water even in a drought, but constructed stock dams will be dry unless a summer 

thunderstorm event occurs. The Mystic Pasture relies on dams for water supplies, 

although a two small segments of Slate Creek to furnish livestock watering sites and 

some intermittent flows along the Mystic County Road. Hay Draw and Whitetail Pasture 

have a combination of springs, water tanks, and dams. Whitetail livestock also can access 

Crooked Creek. West School Pasture has a spring and water tank, and Slate School 

Pasture is watered by a pond with spillway. The IDT believes that to handle livestock 

grazing use in moderate drought conditions some adjustments in season of use and 

numbers may be necessary, based on past results. 

The allotment’s upland sites have been monitored for utilization seven of the last ten years. 

The ten year allotment average for utilization is approximately 56%; average use during the 

trial period with 20 less cattle pairs in 2008 and 2009 was approximately 60%. Past field 

reviews found a wide variety of grasses and forbs in this allotment, with the grass 

component dominated by Kentucky bluegrass, smooth brome, and timothy in all pastures 

except Slate School. Bare ground and noxious weed infestations (Canada thistle and Leafy 

spurge) are an area of concern for the IDT. In 2009, Leafy spurge was especially visible 

and the target of multiple biological releases in an attempt to control the spurge. 

The condition and trend of upland vegetation is represented by transects at Mystic #2 and 

Whitetail #4 and rated both as “Not Meeting Desired Conditions” because of grazed areas 

are repeatedly exceeding proper allowable use, which is adversely affecting plant vitality 

and causing bare ground percentages to creep upward. In some areas bare ground 

percentage is exceeding threshold levels or appears to be trending higher. As expressed 

for Redfern Allotment, there were also concerns that allocated forage for wintering 

wildlife is being compromised by overuse of primary rangelands. 

Riparian sites in this allotment were assessed in 2008. The main pond in the Slate School 

Pasture and related channel downstream from the dam were rated with a PFC assessment 

as “Functional – At Risk” (pond) and “Nonfunctional” (downstream from pond) with 

downward trends. The factors contributing were the channel feeding the pond is incised 

and eroding, riparian plants present but in depleted numbers and heavily impacted by 

trampling, and the spillway is eroding. This site serves as the sole watering source for the 

east 2/3s of this pasture. Another PFC assessment was completed in Crooked Creek; this 

site flows water and is altered by the placement of the road and culverts. Crooked Creek 

was rated as “Functional – At Risk” with no apparent trend. The riparian area has not 

reached its full extent, areas adjacent to creek have hummocks, and Crooked Creek has 

not reached a balance of sinuosity, width/depth ratio, and gradient. Daugherty Gulch and 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 98

Mystic North were also reviewed and also rated “Functional – At Risk” for similar 

reasons as the Crooked Creek assessment. Whitetail Gulch was reviewed and found to be

as “Proper Functioning Condition – no apparent trend”. Slate Creek was evaluated above 

the Rahn private property. This location serves as a watering location for livestock from 

Mystic Pasture and from Redfern Pasture on the Tigerville Allotment; both pastures have 

side by side water lanes to access the creek. Both lanes were rated as “Proper Functioning 

Condition” with downward trend because livestock bank trampling was affecting 

streambank stability, and riparian vegetation was lacking in diversity and abundance. 

Another Slate Creek segment was reviewed downstream from the Rahn property, and 

was rated as “Functional – At Risk” with downward trend. The creek appeared to have

been channelized for irrigation purposes at one time, and many areas were observed with 

rough, bare streambanks. 

Since concerns regarding the condition and trend of the riparian areas were noted in 

Mystic and Whitetail Pastures by the PFC assessments, two Designated Monitoring Area 

(DMA) were established. Each DMA has a MIMS transect to document baseline 

conditions, and compare results against desired threshold levels. Slate Creek MIMS

DMA #9 shows Nebraska sedge and smooth brome as dominant species but streambank 

alteration is very high and exceeds threshold levels. Streambank stability ratings are less 

than the desired threshold and the percent hydric plants is 30% versus a desired threshold 

of 80% or better. The duration of use by livestock could be too long and such use 

continues to keep this portion of Slate Creek from healing. The same could be stated for

the upstream segment of Slate Creek above the Rahn property. Another transect was 

established at Whitetail Crooked Creek MIMS DMA #2. This site is dominated by 

Kentucky bluegrass and riparian vegetation is not as abundant as it should be for this 

creek. The streambanks are rated very high for stability despite the streambank alteration 

percentage exceeding the desired threshold level. The percent of hydric plants is well 

below the desired threshold – measured at 5% versus a target of 80% or better. The 

duration of use could be preventing remnant riparian species from re-colonizing in the

site. The soils of this area are similar to Rimmer Allotment and seem to help stabilize the 

stream channel despite heavy livestock use. 

Range improvements have been maintained and are in relatively good condition 

throughout the allotment, although they are approaching 40 years of age and some 

deterioration is occurring. There are 16 spring developments, 23 ponds, three tanks, and 

almost 13 miles of fencing. The permittee used a range rider over the past several years 

with varying degrees of success. Livestock tend to be out of place and in the wrong 

pasture, particularly towards the later part of planned use - which is a reflection of a lack 

of forage or water or both. Salt placement has been in compliance at times, and in some 

instances too close to water sources. The permittee owns a corral and holding pasture in 

close proximity to this allotment, near the southwest corner of the Hay Draw Pasture and 

along the old Hill City Road. 

Browner Spring development is not working. A protective exclosure in Whitetail Gulch 

is overgrown with brushy vegetation and no longer necessary. An old drift fence on the 

lower end of Crooked Creek needs reconstruction. A fen in lower Daugherty Gulch is 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 99

unfenced from livestock use. An old spring exclosure in the north end of the Mystic 

Pasture is in need of reconstruction. The spillway on the only pond in the Slate School 

Pasture is eroding from high water flows. Protective fencing around Daugherty Spring 

needs enlargement to protect willows and riparian areas. 

Tigerville Allotment 

The Tigerville Allotment is 5,896 acres in size, and its eastern boundary is located just 

two miles northwest of Hill City, SD. It is over six and one half miles long on a 

west/northwest to southeast axis, and varies in width from less than a mile on the west 

end to three and one half miles wide on the east end. It is bordered by the Deerfield Road 

and Newton Fork on the south, Gooseberry Trailer Park on the west, Slate Creek and the 

south end of the Redfern Allotment on the north, and Marshall Gulch on the east. Other 

prominent features include Lena Gulch (also called Burnt Fork), Lowden Mountain, 

Tigerville Draw, and Redfern Mountain. The Mystic County Road splits the allotment 

into roughly a west 1/3 and an eastern 2/3s parcels. The allotment tends to drain from 

north to south into Newton Fork Creek which eventually flows into Spring Creek within 

Hill City. Stringers of aspen are visible throughout the allotment, although many stands 

are impacted by conifer encroachment. Riparian areas are associated with Slate Creek, 

Newton Fork and its tributaries, Lena Gulch, and Marshall Gulch. The allotment has been 

largely forested with Ponderosa Pine of varying densities. 

Compared to the other eight allotments in this project, the Tigerville Allotment’s history 

is relatively new. Prior to 1969, this area was actually part of three different allotments: 

Slate Prairie, Redfern, and Hill City. Records indicate two to six permittees were 

involved, and each permittee had their own assigned area and grazed livestock seasonlong. Riding and salting were the main distribution tools. In 1969, a new AMP was 

written, and one permittee had his scattered permits consolidated into the new Tigerville 

Allotment. His season of use was reduced to June 1 – October 25 from a previous ending 

date of October 31. Permitted numbers were set at 102 cattle for 650 AUMs. The ’69 plan 

notes that the allotment is located in primary big game winter range, and the objective is 

to obtain maximum forage production for wildlife and big game and ”achieve optimum 

vegetation, soil and water conditions.”A range improvement development plan was 

initiated with over ten miles of new fencing planned along with 16 new ponds, 10 new 

spring developments, and six cattleguards would be installed. The result would be a four

pasture rest rotation system which would become a four pasture deferred rotation if a 

drought was in progress. Another 62 acres of Western snowberry would be sprayed to 

reduce concentrations and increase forage production. At that time, the Tigerville 

Allotment occupied present day terrain except for the Marshall and West Side Pastures 

(then part of the Five Points Allotment and re-assigned in 1997), and the Gooseberry 

Pasture has since been re-assigned to the Newton Fork Allotment – also in 1997. Since 

Gooseberry Pasture resides south of the Deerfield Road, the trade made movement of 

cattle easier since they do not have to be trailed over the paved highway. The 1969 plan 

also stated that an increase in permitted numbers may occur after the development 

program is completed and assessments made of capacity. At some point this occurred as 

today 112 mature cattle (cow/calf) are permitted – which is about a 10% increase. File 

records also showed that sometimes cow/calf pairs and yearlings were grazed. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 100

The Tigerville Allotment is managed today as a five pasture deferred rotation sequence of 

use from June 1 (depending on range readiness)to October 25 by 112 mature cattle 

(cow/calf) owned by one permittee. Maximum AUMs is 715 under a ten year term 

grazing permit. The entire allotment is classified as big game winter range. Livestock are 

moved to the next pasture when allowable proper use of 50% by weight is reached. 

Residual levels (or remaining height of key plant species) have not yet been prescribed 

for riparian areas. Allotment is projected by capability grazing modeling to be 

understocked by approximately 4% of the permitted livestock numbers (about 12 mature 

cattle), but the need to improve or maintain the condition of riparian areas preclude any 

additional livestock numbers. Recently several large timber sales and sanitation actions 

(for mountain pine beetle infestations) have occurred, and the remaining pine stands are 

now more open. Other approved project planning areas are now coming on line and will 

further reduce pine densities. These treatments will result in less conifer encroachment 

into primary rangelands, and open up secondary ranges as well, resulting in more forage 

and browse for all animals. 

Water supplies within the allotment vary – generally spring and creek sources continue to 

flow water even in a drought, but constructed stock dams will be dry unless a summer 

thunderstorm event occurs. The dependable sources are adequate, but in drought years 

livestock use is concentrated by the lack of water from non-flowing sources. The lack of 

water concentrates use and causes some areas to be overused. The reduction in basal area 

of pine from recent timber work generally results in less water use by trees and perhaps 

additional supplies for ponds and seeps. 

The allotment’s upland sites have been monitored for utilization seven of the last ten 

years. The ten year allotment average for utilization is approximately 50%. Use for the 

past three years has averaged 56%. Past field reviews found a wide variety of grasses and 

forbs in this allotment, with the grass component generally dominated by Kentucky 

bluegrass and smooth brome in all pastures. Present percentages of bare ground and 

noxious weed infestations (Canada thistle and Leafy spurge) are not an area of concern at 

this time, but continued vigilance is necessary and some treatment efforts are on-going. 

The condition and trend of upland vegetation is represented by transects at Lena #2 and 

Redfern #1 with Lena #2 rated as “Moving towards Desired Conditions” because overall 

conditions appear in good condition – a good diversity of species are found, and bare 

ground is minimal. The Lena transect’s ratings also depict conditions and trend for the Deer 

Park, Tigerville, West Side, and Marshall Pastures. Redfern #1 is rated as “Not Meeting 

Desired Conditions” because utilization for the past three years is exceeding proper 

allowable use. This elevated use is increasing bare ground and reducing plant vitality. As 

expressed for Redfern Allotment, there are concerns that allocated forage for wintering 

wildlife in this pasture is being compromised by overuse of primary rangelands. 

Riparian sites in this allotment were assessed in 2008. Multiple PFC assessments and 

ratings were made across this allotment. Gooseberry Draw (Deer Park Pasture) was rated 

as at “Proper Functioning Condition” with no apparent trend; this site is a confirmed fen 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 101

and a variety of riparian vegetation is present. Extensive use by wintering elk was noted. 

With recent timber sale and hazardous fuels treatment activities, an increase in livestock 

may occur since the area is more open. Slate Creek meanders through a portion of the

Redfern Pasture, and two water lanes or gaps exist for livestock watering. Both lanes 

serve as a watering location for livestock from Mystic Pasture, Slate Prairie Allotment 

and for the Redfern Pasture on the Tigerville Allotment. Both lanes were rated as “Proper 

Functioning Condition” with downward trend because livestock bank trampling was 

affecting streambank stability, and riparian vegetation was lacking in diversity and 

abundance. A PFC assessment in the “Mini” Pasture (located in the southeastern corner 

of the Redfern Pasture and west of Mickelson Trail) resulted in a rating of “Functional – 

At Risk with downward trend because bank shearing from hoof action, hummocks, and 

the riparian area is not at its potential extent. An assessment downstream from this 

location (east of the Michelson Trail – Tigerville Pasture) was dramatically different – 

and resulted in a rating of “Proper Functioning Condition” with no apparent trend at this

time. Two assessments in Lena Gulch and Newton Fork found similar conditions and 

resulted in a rating of “Proper Functioning Condition” for the Lena Pasture. Another PFC 

was completed in West Side Pasture and noted breeched beaver dams, multiple channels, 

upland shrubs growing into the riparian area, and pine growing in the channels. This area 

was rated “Functional – At Risk with no apparent trend. The last PFC was conducted in 

the Marshall Gulch Pasture near NFSR 254 and was rated as “Functional – At Risk” due 

to bluegrass growing up to channel’s edge, willows being heavily used by livestock and 

big game, and channel is incised. There are some indicators that upward trend may be 

starting to occur if use by livestock remains at present level. This area was extremely 

overused in 1996-97 when the area was under a different allotment and permittee. The 

Forest Service took administrative action and corrected the issue and re-aligned 

allotments and pasture boundaries. 

Since concerns regarding the condition and trend of the riparian areas were noted in 

Redfern Pasture by the PFC assessments, a Designated Monitoring Area (DMA) was 

established. The DMA has a MIMS transect to document baseline conditions, and 

compare results against desired threshold levels. Mini Pasture MIMS DMA #1 shows 

willows overused by animals, hummocks present, stable streambanks (similar soils as 

Rimmer and Slate Prairie), and streambank alteration is excess of threshold, and percent 

hydric vegetation is less than desired threshold level because repeated use as a watering 

location for Redfern and perhaps Tigerville Pastures. 

Range improvements have been maintained and are in relatively good condition throughout 

the allotment, although they are approaching 30 to 40 years of age and some deterioration 

is occurring. In recent years, the permittee has cost shared with the Forest Service to 

construct pasture boundary fencing to split Tigerville and Lena Pastures, and to control off 

allotment livestock drift on the southern end of the Lena Pasture west of Burnt Fork. There 

are four spring developments, 19 ponds, and over 19 miles of fencing. The permittee has 

successfully used a range rider over the past several years. Salt placement has been in 

compliance at times. It is difficult to haul in to or remove livestock from the east end of the 

allotment because of the narrow access road, so most years cattle are unloaded in the 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 102

Redfern Pasture, and then moved west to Deer Park or east as needed. Livestock are

generally removed from the private corral site west of the Deer Park Pasture. 

There is no corral on the west end of the allotment, and the Marshall Corral is defunct 

and needs removal or renovation to an appropriate size. A spring exclosure in the 

Tigerville Pasture needs enlargement to further protect riparian vegetation. An old fence 

between West Side and Lena Pastures need renovation or removal. The fen in Gooseberry

Draw is unfenced and sale and hazardous fuels treatments may permit easier livestock 

access to this portion of the Deer Park Pasture. 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A 

Alternative A is the no action alternative. Under this alternative, grazing would not be 

reauthorized and the current permit holders would be notified that their term grazing 

permits would be cancelled. All term grazing permits would be cancelled after two years, 

pursuant to Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2209.13 part 16.24, and Code of Federal 

Regulation (CFR) 36 CFR 222.4(4)(1). The FSH and CFR regulations indicate that a twoyear notification is required prior to cancelling a permit, except in emergency situations. 

The no action alternative would close eight allotments, eliminating livestock grazing from 

85,055 acres of National Forest System lands. Any type of grazing permit – term, temporary, 

and livestock use would not be issued for any of the eight affected allotments. A subsequent 

NEPA analysis and approved decision prior to restock for livestock grazing or temporary 

grazing is currently required. Authorized use for purposes other than livestock production for 

the any of the eight allotments may be considered and issued as a Livestock Use Permit. 

Maintenance of range developments on the allotments would no longer be the responsibility 

of the permittees since they no longer are issued a permit. Developments built to facilitate 

livestock management, including allotment and pasture fences, livestock enclosures, and 

stock water ponds and water troughs would be abandoned. Developments built to enhance or 

monitor wildlife habitat, such as water developments and big game enclosures would remain 

in place and would continue to be maintained by the Forest Service or perhaps cooperators. 

The following structural improvements would be abandoned, and many removed: 

• Approximately 145 miles of fence. 

• 219 water developments. 

• Approximately 9 miles of pipeline 

Spring boxes and underground pipes associated with water developments would be 

abandoned; pipes would be disconnected. If left in place, pipes would be capped on one or 

both ends to prevent water from flowing through the pipes. Water storage and stock tanks not 

assumed by wildlife would be removed. Cattleguards that are no longer required would be 

pulled and pits filled with rock and soil. Unused fences would be removed as funds permit or 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 103

opportunities become available such human resource labor such as Youth Conservation 

Corps or similar programs. All salvaged materials would be cached for re-use, recycled, or 

hauled to an appropriate landfill location. 

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

This alternative would require the cancellation of all grazing permits upon implementation of 

the decision and resolution of any appeals. When grazing permits are cancelled to devote 

National Forest System Lands to another public purpose that precludes grazing, Forest 

Service Handbook 2209.13, Section 16.6, requires that the permit could not be terminated 

until two years after the notification of each affected permittee (36 CFR 222.4(a)(1)). 

If livestock were removed from these grazing allotments, there would no longer be direct 

effects to the soils or vegetation from livestock grazing or trailing. Effects of livestock on 

riparian ecosystems would be eliminated as well, including any trampling or sloughing of 

streambanks in areas that are currently accessible to cattle. There would no longer be 

browsing of riparian shrubs by livestock. If this alternative is selected, there would be no 

need to implement adaptive management and said options shown in Table 11. 

Most range improvements are the assigned responsibility of the grazing permittee to annually 

maintain and repair as needed. If the term grazing permits were canceled, the improvements 

would be abandoned and subsequent decisions would have to be made as to which 

improvements would remain and which ones would be removed. For the improvements that 

were to remain, funding for the maintenance of them would have to be secured. Maintenance

of unassigned allotment boundary fences would be assigned to the adjacent permittee. 

Permittees would need to be reimbursed for their amortized share of cooperative range 

improvements where they participated in the development (FSH 2209.13, Chapter 70). 

Ending permitted grazing on an allotment would reduce or eliminate a permittee’s livestock 

enterprise, unless they find a new location to graze or increase numbers within an existing 

permit, lease, or on their own private lands. If their Forest Service permit is not replaced, 

they would have fewer expenses from transporting and maintaining livestock on the National 

Forest, but they may have less income from their animal business enterprise. With less 

livestock, the permittee would not expend dollars in the local community for feed, fencing, 

salt, veterinary services, trucking, fuel, and related expenses. Some permittees would not be 

seasonally hiring a range rider. With fewer profits from the annual sale of livestock, there 

may be less discretionary spending on household items or farm/ranch equipment needs.

Initially, removing livestock from the grazing allotments would be beneficial to rangeland 

condition, and then will have either neutral or detrimental effects afterwards. Wildlife use 

would still occur, but in the absence of livestock grazing - utilization levels would be 

significantly lower than what currently occurs. This would lead to an accumulation of dead 

plant material that would initially be beneficial by providing additional protection to the soil 

from erosion as well as leading to an increase in the organic matter in the soil. A dense litter 

cover reduces evaporation of soil water and this provides an optimum environment for 

germination and seedling emergence (Haferkamp and Karl, 1999). 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 104

Forest Plan Guideline 5.4A-2502 provides direction for the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve to 

take advantage of opportunities to transfer forage use from livestock to wildlife. Alternative 

A would contribute to meeting this guideline by vacating livestock grazing from pastures or 

portions thereof in one allotment, thereby transferring forage use to wildlife. Affected 

pastures in the Palmer Gulch Allotment are Ford, Palmer, Rabbit, and Sunday. Aspen 

regeneration work in the Palmer Creek Pasture would not need to be fenced to exclude 

livestock use and trampling, and the pond/spring project (Fender Place) in the Rabbit Pasture 

would also not require fencing from livestock use. 

There would be no opportunity to create “Forest Reserve Allotments” to satisfy the 

guideline to build in allocations for drought or wildfire/prescribed fire contingency needs. 

Permitted livestock would no longer enter and affect the Spring Creek Total Maximum 

Daily Load Study Area (TMDL), and over time the contribution from accumulated solids, 

fecal coliform, and nitrates would decline from the Palmer Gulch and Tigerville

Allotments. Other Forest Service allotments outside of the Mystic Range Project 

boundary within the Spring Creek Allotment may continue to contribute to the TMDL 

unless additional mitigation or design criteria are implemented. 

Some recreationists and hunters also leave gates open on all allotments. Since the 

adjacent rangelands around vacated allotments generally still have permitted livestock, 

this sporadic unplanned use will probably continue to varying degrees This causes 

additional use in excess of utilization standards already met or consumes forage that 

should be available later in the season. 

Traffic would no longer be impaired by livestock on the Sheridan Lake and Deerfield 

Highways. All permitted livestock would be removed from the Bald Horse and Deerfield 

Allotments. Any occasional livestock encountered would have to be strays from other

allotments still under term grazing permit use, and their owners would be notified to 

remove their livestock from the ROW. The Spring Creek Trailhead would no longer be 

impacted by permitted livestock. 

However, grasses evolved with periodic removal of vegetation from various causes 

(including fire, wild ungulates, insects, etc). After a certain point is reached, the buildup 

of litter will begin to inhibit the growth of vegetation (Knapp, et al., 1986). This could 

potentially cause a decrease in the productivity, palatability and overall plant health, 

especially to many of the non-native species that dominate these sites. 

Many wildlife species depend upon productive grasslands. Lacey and Van Poolen (1981) 

compared 11 studies throughout the west and found that protected areas produced an 

average of 68% more herbage than comparable areas grazed at a "moderate" rate. 

However, permanent removal of grazing will not guarantee maximum herbaceous plant 

production. Volland (1978) found that a protected Kentucky bluegrass meadow reached 

peak production in 6 years and then declined until production was similar to the adjacent 

area grazed season-long. Clary and Webster (1989) reported that the accumulation of 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 105

litter over a period of years seems to retard herbage production in wet meadow areas; 

some grazing of riparian areas could have beneficial effects. 

While there is abundant documentation of positive changes when removing livestock 

from rangelands, a review of research literature indicates that there may be little 

difference in the effects of no grazing and grazing at proper use (rather than overgrazing). Bryant (1985) states that total exclusion of all human activities from riparian 

areas, is unlikely to return those areas to pristine conditions. Hall (1985) offers the same 

conclusion with regard to effects on wildlife: "Even if livestock grazing were excluded 

from public lands in the Great Basin, the resulting circumstances would not provide 

optimum habitat conditions". Permanent removal of grazing will not guarantee maximum 

herbaceous plant production. The accumulation of litter over a period of years seems to 

retard herbage production in wet meadow areas. Thus, some grazing of riparian areas 

could have beneficial effects (Clary and Webster 1989). In addition to the loss of plant 

vigor and decrease in rangeland health, the accumulation of litter allows fine fuels to 

accumulate, which increases susceptibility to fire. Annual bromes can take advantage of 

high levels of litter and mulch and actually increase in abundance. 

Removal of livestock from these allotments could lead to an increase in the level of wildlife 

use on adjacent lands. Recent research indicates that the selection of foraging sites by elk is 

influenced by differences in forage quantity and quality created by dispersed cattle grazing 

in rangeland landscapes (Crane et al, 2001). Results indicate that in the fall, winter and 

spring elk avoided areas that were not grazed by cattle the previous summer. The results 

also show that prescriptive cattle grazing can influence where elk graze. The removal of 

livestock from these allotments could cause a shift in elk foraging areas, leading to 

increased grazing pressure on the adjacent allotments as well as private lands. 

Removal of livestock would also allow for riparian areas that might not be in desired 

condition due to livestock damage to recover. Riparian species would be expected to 

increase in cover and frequency. Riparian zones could possibly expand beyond their 

current location as streambanks stabilize and riparian graminoids and shrubs become 

established on previously un-vegetated or unstable sites. This would probably continue 

until another disturbance changes the function of the stream system. 

No grazing would promote the accumulation of dead plant material that would deny 

native species sunlight and nutrients over time. However, annual brome species such as 

cheatgrass are known for their ability to grow in litter. It may actually increase the 

competitive ability of these undesirable species. 

A build-up of fine fuels increases the chance for a wildfire to ignite and spread as each 

year without livestock grazing occurs. Any large acreage ignition may disrupt grazing use 

on adjacent, still under permit grazing allotments. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects were analyzed for the project area consisting of the Bald Horse, 

Deerfield, Palmer Gulch, Porcupine, Redfern, Rimmer, Slate Prairie, and Tigerville 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 106

Allotments. The effects were considered within the respective allotment. Since range 

management direction is unique to each designated allotment, and no livestock herds are

moved or mixed from the Mystic Range Project to other grazing areas, the spatial boundary 

is the perimeter of each allotment plus all private lands inside and directly adjacent to each 

respective allotment. 

The timeframe analyzed for cumulative effects is from this point forward since the 

vegetation used by livestock is generally recognized as altered by past activities as noted 

in the Introduction in Chapter 3. It is currently not feasible for these allotments to return 

to a “natural” vegetative state without major effort including ground disturbance and 

reseeding projects, use of expensive mechanical and chemical practices, and commitment 

of the agency and permittees. 

Adjacent private lands have occasionally been developed into ranchettes. Some property 

owners graze livestock (primarily horses) on their property. Some overgrazing on private 

land does occur. It has the same impact of reducing the vegetative cover, increasing the 

amount of sediment transported into the streams, and increasing the likelihood of noxious 

weed infestations. Private in-holdings within or adjacent to vacated allotments may not 

have fences to maintain since livestock have been removed. The opportunity for incidental 

unauthorized use by privately owned livestock, not permitted to graze may increase within 

the vacant allotment. 

Recreation can have adverse effects on range conditions and livestock grazing. 

Population growth in and around the project area has led to greater numbers of forest 

users. OHV use would not impact livestock distribution since permits are no longer 

issued, but unauthorized use of riparian areas would continue to occur. There are also 

developed road and trail systems used by equestrians, hikers, and mountain bikers 

scattered in all allotments. These uses would continue with no permitted grazing, and 

may have an overall negative effect on the integrity of rangeland and riparian ecosystems 

by weakening the vegetation and creating ruts, cuts and unvegetated areas across portions 

of upland, transition and riparian zones. 

The exclusion of wildfire has a negative effect on all rangelands within the project area 

affecting the quality and health by allowing forest canopies to close and reducing understory 

vegetation. This in turn reduces the amount of forage available for both wildlife and 

livestock. High intensity wildfire can adversely affect soil conditions and provide sites for 

colonization of noxious weeds. The use of prescribed burning can provide some of the 

beneficial effects of wildfire with a reduced risk of adverse effects. Prescribed fires can 

benefit rangeland health by opening up forest canopies and not only increasing understory

vegetation, but also removing decadent vegetation thus promoting an increase in new 

growth that is relished by wildlife and livestock. It will help maintain or restore upland 

grasslands and meadows from pine encroachment while increasing available forage. 

Prescribed fire will no longer have a direct short-term impact on permittees and livestock 

grazing since the allotment is vacated; there will be no need to plan sufficient recovery time 

in burned areas according to the Forest Plan. Both wildfire and prescribed fire are expected 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 107

to have short-term adverse effects on range conditions but over the long-term effects are 

expected to be beneficial wherever they occur for wildlife browse and forage use. 

Past and future timber harvest and prescribed fire may have created and will continue to 

create transitory or secondary range and available forage for wildlife. These timber sales and 

related activities are listed in the Appendix C. Treatment efforts vary by project area but 

generally include provisions for conifer removal from meadows, riparian areas, and 

hardwood stands. Transitory range is an area that temporarily produces an increase in 

rangeland vegetation (Vallentine, 1990). These areas occur when the tree and sometimes 

overstory are removed allowing the grass/forb component to take full advantage of available 

sunlight and moisture. This will improve the quality and quantity of the forage available to 

wildlife. Wildlife distribution throughout the project area will probably increase as treatment 

areas are opened up. Any impacts to the primary range usually located in meadows, upland 

grasslands and riparian areas may lesson as wildlife distribute throughout the transitory 

range. Increased ground cover protects soil resources from erosion and high temperatures. 

Increased herbaceous vegetation has a positive effect on riparian and water conditions 

creating favorable habitats for all types of terrestrial and aquatic life. This will aid in 

maintaining or moving these communities towards desired condition. 

Road construction due to timber sales may have an impact on vegetation spreading noxious

weeds. Since livestock are no longer permitted, the permittee(s) will no longer need to use 

closed or gated routes for improvement maintenance, salting, or checking on livestock 

distribution. Livestock will no longer use roads and skid trails to move throughout an 

allotment. The closing of roads or obliteration of roads is beneficial from a resource standpoint. 

Noxious weeds are currently being treated with IPM approach throughout the project area, 

and such action would continue to be accomplished contingent on funding. Ground 

disturbance due to livestock grazing practices at salt grounds and watering facilities, and 

would cease with no permitted grazing. Wildlife use may initially continue to disturb such 

sites until they revegetate over time – with salt grounds taking the longest since the soil’s 

salinity is elevated. Wildlife can transport weed seeds from one area of infestation to these 

areas of disturbed soil. It is likely that with continued treatment of noxious weeds, the 

infestations will not increase in size and may even eliminate some infestations. Noxious weed 

control was previously addressed in the Black Hills National Forest Noxious Weed 

Management Plan that resulted from a Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact. 

This decision was signed in 2003, and a three year action plan is currently out for 2008-2010. 

Big game animals, especially elk and deer, will continue to have an effect on herbaceous 

vegetation since the dietary overlap between elk and livestock is similar (Zimmerman, 

2004) (Beck and Peek, 2005). Grazing management of forage by the Forest Service takes 

wildlife forage utilization into consideration, and without permitted grazing initially more 

forage and browse would be available for wildlife use. In the future, without some 

disturbance agent, it is anticipated that the overall amount of forage and browse would 

decline as forage become thatched from non-use by livestock. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 108

Additionally, the Hell Canyon Ranger District has released a DEIS entitled the Norbeck 

Wildlife Project that proposes to treat overstory and understory vegetation in the Ford, 

Palmer, Rabbit, and Sunday Pastures of the Palmer Gulch Allotment. These vegetative 

treatments will increase forage and browse production for wildlife. 

The end purpose for adaptations of forest and range ecosystems is to make adjustments in 

management that ideally reduce the negative impacts of climate change, and take 

advantage of any positive impacts (Blate, 2009). Without permitted livestock grazing, 

there will be no adaptation needed to adjust range management. There may be other 

reasons for adaptations to assist other resource management. 

ALTERNATIVES B AND C 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS COMMON TO BOTH ALTERNATIVES 

Both action alternatives would reauthorize grazing on the eight allotments. The permits 

would be issued for a specified period of use, kind and number of livestock and 

maximum number of Animal Unit Months (AUM’s). These conditions are not 

guaranteed. The actual number of livestock and season of use would be determined each 

year prior to grazing and would be outlined in the Annual Operating Instructions. Factors 

such as drought, wildfire, prescribed fire, other resource conditions, and specific 

management objectives could all influence livestock number and season of use. 

For all pastures in each alternative, livestock would be moved to the next pasture before

the allowable proper use of 50% by weight is exceeded or riparian stubble height is 

reduced to 4 inches (Forest Plan Standard 2505). Allowable proper use has been part of 

the existing permit requirements for a long time. It is intended to ensure sufficient forage 

remains for other resource needs when grazing is completed, such as for big game and 

watershed protection purposes. Even when meeting allowable use standards, however, 

certain pastures in the allotments have experienced unacceptable effects to riparian areas 

and streambanks. Alternatives B and C include a new riparian stubble height requirement 

designed to address this issue. 

The new riparian stubble height requirement could have an immediate effect on actual 

use in some pastures. It is likely that some pastures with riparian areas will trigger the 

riparian stubble height requirement to move well before the allowable proper use by 

weight of 50% is reached. This means that the livestock would move through the pasture 

rotation more quickly than in the past, and may then need to leave the allotment earlier in 

the season than the typical or permitted timeframe. Alternatives B and C both provide 

options for dealing with the issue of protecting riparian areas and streams while providing 

for grazing needs. Alternative C provides more ability to do so by constructing new

structural improvements, but at a higher cost, as discussed later in this chapter. 

Both Alternatives B and C are expected to improve range and other resource conditions to 

varying degrees. Both would increase residual vegetation in areas where it is at a less than 

desirable condition, improve plant vigor, lessen the amounts of bare ground in areas where 

it is currently too prevalent, and reduce weeds and other undesirable plants. Both, to 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 109

varying degrees, should increase riparian vegetation, reduce soil compaction, and stabilize 

streambanks, promoting riparian health overall. The rate of improvement is expected to be 

slower than Alternative A because livestock grazing is still occurring, while with the No 

Action Alternative all livestock grazing is terminated after two year’s notification. 

Both Alternatives B and C include adaptive management approaches and promote even 

distribution of livestock use to varying degrees. This means that previously ungrazed 

plants would have more chance of being grazed (stimulating growth) and that each 

individual plant would be grazed fewer times, providing recovery and development of 

each individual plant. Achieving more even pasture use means that livestock may be able 

to stay longer in a particular pasture as opposed to moving quickly through the allotment 

if cattle are allowed to congregate, especially in key areas. If monitoring does not 

indicate progress towards desired conditions, it may be necessary to change proper 

allowable use percent utilization by weight from 50% to 45%, and/or increase residual 

stubble height to six inches. 

The environmental effects provided for each alternative indicates any potential reductions 

in actual use days by allotment. These potential reductions are based on a best estimate 

of what might be necessary to achieve desired resource conditions if other measures are 

not effective. These estimated actual “use days” should not be confused with “permitted 

days”. Permitted days are the days stated on the grazing permit. There is no guarantee 

that these permitted days would be available because factors such as drought, wildfire, 

prescribed fire, other resource conditions, and specific management objectives could all 

influence livestock number and season of use. 

If any of the management actions result in changing the permitted use to reduce of AUMs 

due to the concerns about rangeland resources, the Forest Service would meet with the

permittee and discuss rangeland resource conditions. If necessary, 36 CFR 222.4(a) (8) 

requires the authorized officer to provide the permittee with one year’s advance notice 

prior to implementation of the decision, except in emergency situations. This notification 

may not be needed if the permittee and authorized officer both recognize and agree that 

such modification of permitted livestock numbers, season of use, or both are needed. 

This requirement does not apply to year to year changes in actual use needed to comply 

with utilization by weight and riparian stubble height standards. 

ALTERNATIVE B - EFFECTS COMMON TO ALL ALLOTMENTS 

There are some areas that are not meeting desired conditions. Some improvement in upland 

and riparian conditions and trends should occur with adjustments in distribution and 

grazing instructions for pasture use. The rate of improvement is expected to be slower than 

Alternative A (livestock grazing terminated after two year notification) because livestock 

grazing is still occurring. The rate of improvement may also be somewhat faster than 

Alternative C, which includes the construction of additional improvements to better 

distribute livestock use and protect riparian areas, streams, and other resources. The 

projected improvement is based on the assumption that each permittee primarily invests to 

some degree in the methods available, such as: salting and/or supplement use, range riding 

to influence animal behavior, and culling non-compliant livestock. Improvement is also 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 110

based on the new riparian stubble height requirement that requires cattle are moved to the 

next pasture before this threshold is exceeded. 

ALTERNATIVE C - EFFECTS COMMON TO ALL ALLOTMENTS 

Alternative C includes the same requirements as Alternative B for monitoring use and 

conditions and moving livestock before standards are exceeded. It provides for construction 

of new range structures to address resource issues and to better distribute cattle use, both as 

required actions and also as adaptive options. These additional structures obviously come 

with increased costs. 

As with Alternative B, the burden to make Alternative C a success is on the permittee(s). 

Diligence in monitoring livestock use and moving cattle, new project costs from the initial 

investment in structural improvements, as well as continuing to maintain existing 

improvements and reconstruct depleted structures will place demands on each permittee. 

Utilization and riparian standards apply immediately and do not wait until after structures 

have been completed. It is in the permittees best interest to get high priority improvements 

completed sooner rather than later, as it could affect actual grazing use on the allotment. 

While new range structural improvements may resolve some resource concerns, it remains 

to be confirmed by monitoring after structures are completed. The end result may be within 

another five to ten years, based on monitoring results, further adjustments or reductions in 

days of livestock use by pasture may still be needed to balance permitted use with 

movement towards desired conditions for the affected allotments. Continued monitoring 

after grazing capacity is confirmed or adjusted is necessary to assess range condition and 

trend, and perhaps make additional adjustments if progress towards meeting desired 

conditions is not on track. 

Bald Horse Allotment 

Alternative B 

The current 27,828 acre Bald Horse Allotment is grazed using a nine pasture deferred 

rotation system from 06/01 to 10/26 each year, for 299 mature cattle (cow/calf pair) and a 

maximum of 1921 AUM's. Alternative B would continue this practice but would require 

some adjustments in use of individual pastures. There are no grazing capacity issues 

associated with this allotment based on capability modeling. The current situation poses 

a risk of livestock-vehicle collisions along the Sheridan Lake Road, and allows livestock 

direct access to Spring Creek resulting in bank trampling. Cattle occasionally drift into 

the Pactola Basin, an area now restricted from grazing. 

Overall, the allotment is generally meeting or moving towards desired conditions. The 

condition and trend of upland vegetation in most areas are “Meeting Desired Conditions.” 

While native grasses generally do not dominate upland plant communities, they are 

present and co-exist in varying degrees with non-native grasses. A diverse assortment of 

forbs together with grasses and developing shrubs provide a mosaic of plant species, a 

variety of vegetative structures, and generally effective ground cover to maintain soil 

stability and provide wildlife habitat. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 111

It is expected that upland vegetation conditions would continue to be maintained or 

improved under Alternative B by moving livestock before exceeding the 50% utilization 

by weight standard. The one upland site not meeting desired conditions, Middle Horse 

#4, has experienced a reduction in bare ground since 2005, and this positive change is 

anticipated to continue with this alternative. 

Riparian conditions in the Middle Horse Pasture are “Not Meeting Desired Conditions” 

because Kentucky bluegrass is dominant and the percentage of hydric plants is below

desired thresholds, streambank stability is below desired levels, and streambank alteration 

exceeds threshold levels. Riparian conditions in the Middle Victoria Pasture were rated 

as “Moving towards Desired Conditions”; streambank stability is at acceptable levels, 

although percentage of hydric plants is well below threshold levels and streambank 

alteration exceeded threshold levels. 

Required actions in this alternative address riparian issues by: 1) varying the order of 

pasture use; 2) reducing the number of days of grazing use in the Middle Horse Pasture; 

3) reconstructing exclosures for the Van Pelt Spring, West Horse Spring, and springs in 

the South and Middle Bald Hills Pastures; 4) seal an existing pond in the Lower Victoria 

Pasture; and 5) compliance with the new four inch riparian stubble height requirement. 

These actions should improve streambank alteration ratings in the short term, and 

streambank stability, the percentage of hydric plant species, and the extent of riparian 

vegetation should improve over the long term 

Implementation and effectiveness monitoring of conditions in the Middle Horse Pasture 

should help determine the effectiveness of the above actions. If no or inadequate 

improvement occurs, the most likely adaptive option(s) is to decrease this pasture’s use to 

20-22 days per season, and/or decreasing utilization standards by weight for upland 

vegetation to 45%, and/or increasing the residual riparian stubble height to 6”, or some 

combination of these three options. Adaptive options for the Middle Victoria Pasture 

include reducing days of use to five per season, and consideration of similar restrictions 

in upland vegetation use and residual riparian stubble heights like Middle Horse Pasture. 

Required actions in this alternative to address the issue of livestock drifting into Pactola 

Basin are to replace a gate that sometimes gets left open a with a cattleguard, and 

reconstructing current fencing along the Centennial Trail as needed in the Prairie Creek 

Pasture. It does not address the livestock-vehicle collision risk, nor does it exclude

livestock access to Spring Creek. 

Actual grazing use may have to be reduced in both the Middle Horse and Middle Victoria

Pastures in order to improve conditions. It is likely that lost use days could be made up 

from underused capacity in other upland dominated pastures. Hence, no reduction in 

overall grazing use is expected for the Allotment. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 112

Alternative C 

Alternative C incorporates all the provisions of Alternative B. It also includes new 

required structural improvements aimed at providing better riparian and other resource 

conditions, better livestock distribution, and removing livestock access from high speed 

roads. Probable adaptive options for various structural improvements are also included, 

should initial proposed actions not effect movement towards desired conditions. 

In addition to positive changes in upland and riparian conditions noted for Alternative B, 

this alternative requires new water developments in the West Horse, Middle Victoria, and 

Burnt Ranch Pastures, and fencing a pond and piping water to a water tank in the West 

Horse Pasture. These water developments should help move livestock away from riparian 

areas. Once constructed, monitoring will determine progress towards desired conditions. 

Additional, adaptive options may include developing additional water sources to better 

distribute livestock in the Lower Victoria Pasture, constructing a water development and a 

boundary fence in the West Horse Pasture, a water development in the Middle Horse and 

North Bald Hills Pastures, and a spring exclosure fence in the Middle Bald Hills Pasture. 

Alternative C also would reduce the potential for livestock-vehicle collisions along the 

Sheridan Lake Road by requiring fencing of the right-of-way. This fencing would also 

improve stream, riparian and trailhead conditions in that area by excluding livestock from 

Spring Creek. As a result of additional fencing and water developments, riparian conditions 

would be improved. 

As with Alternative B, no reduction in overall livestock use is anticipated for the allotment. 

Deerfield Allotment 

Alternative B 

The current 7874 acre Deerfield Allotment is grazed using a six pasture system from June 6 

to October 25 each year, with 102 mature cattle (cow/calf Pair) and a maximum of 631 

AUM’s. Alternative B would continue with the six pasture deferred rotation grazing 

system. There are no grazing capacity issues associated with this allotment based on 

capability modeling. The current situation poses a risk of livestock-vehicle collisions along 

Deerfield Road. 

Overall, upland vegetation in this allotment is moving towards desired resource conditions. 

Noxious weed infestations, domination by non-native smooth brome and Kentucky 

bluegrass of the upland plant community in grasslands and meadows, and reduced amounts 

of native grasses resulted in the lesser rating of desired conditions. Effective ground cover 

to maintain soil stability and provide wildlife habitat is present. 

Upland conditions would be expected to continue moving slowly towards desired 

resource conditions under Alternative B by moving livestock before exceeding the 50%

utilization by weight standard. This alternative addresses the riparian issue through strict 

compliance with the new 4” riparian stubble height requirement. Compliance with the

riparian stubble height requirement should improve streambank alteration ratings short 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 113

term, and streambank stability would be expected to improve over the long term. The

percentage of hydric plant species, width of riparian vegetation, and re-establishment of 

the willow community are also expected to improve over the long term. Compliance 

with this requirement would also limit repeated use of forage regrowth, which would 

result in improved plant vigor and health. 

Riparian conditions in the Heely Pasture are rated as “Not Meeting Desired Conditions.” 

Kentucky bluegrass and Nebraska sedge are co-dominant, and riparian vegetation is 

present but of limited width with few willows (many willows were removed while in 

private ownership). The desired percent of hydric plants and streambank stability are 

below threshold levels, and the streambank alteration rating exceeds threshold level. The 

primary cause of these conditions is believed to be the length of time this pasture is 

grazed, since livestock graze the Heely Pasture for approximately 60 days each season 

(versus 21 days recommended in the WCP Handbook Ch. 10-12.1). This duration allows 

for repeated use of plant regrowth, and increased hoof impact that results in streambank 

alteration and affects streambank stability. 

Implementation and effectiveness monitoring should help determine the appropriate 

livestock grazing use levels for the Heely Pasture. The likely effect of meeting the 4” 

riparian stubble height requirement is that actual use within the Heely Pasture would be 

less than the 60 days currently assigned. If no or inadequate improvement in riparian 

conditions occurs by following 4” riparian stubble height requirement, the allowable

proper use by weight may also be adjusted to 45% for upland vegetation, and the residual 

stubble height for riparian vegetation may be adjusted to 6”. This could lead to a 

reduction in actual grazing use of up to 20-40 days. If days of livestock use are reduced 

in the Heely Pasture, it is unlikely this time could be made up in whole or part from 

underused capacity in other pastures. 

Required actions in this alternative include reconstruction of a pond in the Gold Run 

Pasture. Alternative B does not address the livestock-vehicle collision issue on the 

Deerfield Road, does not provide additional protection to fisheries along Castle Creek, and 

does not provide for control of stray livestock. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C incorporates all the provisions of Alternative B. In addition, it would 

reduce the potential for livestock-vehicle collisions along the Deerfield Road by requiring 

the highway right-of-way to be fenced, and a cattleguard installed on the Ditch Creek 

Road. This new fencing would end livestock use of the Lake Shore Pasture and 

approximately six days of livestock grazing. Fencing along the Deerfield Road would 

also result in additional protection for fisheries habitat along Castle Creek. Required 

ridgeline fencing in the Trap and Baseline Pastures would facilitate better control of stray 

livestock. 

Like Alternative B, it is unlikely that this alternative could carry livestock for the 60 days 

currently allowed in the Heely Pasture without causing negative effects to the stream and 

riparian area. Riparian conditions would be improved, more so than with Alternative B, 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 114

under an adaptive option to fence off this area, however it would be expensive to do so 

and it is unknown whether this would ever be accomplished. Without excluding 

livestock from the riparian area, grazing use in the Heely Pasture is likely less as 

described in Alternative B. It is also unlikely that this time could be made up in whole or 

part from underused capacity in other pastures. 

Palmer Gulch Allotment 

The Palmer Gulch Allotment would continue the split between a North Half and a South Half. 

Alternative B 

North Half 

The North Half is 4,843 acres in size and utilizes a five pasture deferred rotation system. 

Current permitted use on the north half is from 06/01 to 10/31 for 74 cow/calf pair and a 

maximum of 491 AUM’s. Alternative B would have a 44 day reduction in actual grazing 

use, since two pastures are not grazeable (Sawmill and Dump). Even with these reductions, 

the North Half may be overstocked by approximately 14% (about 9 mature cattle) based on 

capability modeling. The remaining three pastures would be split from the pastures in the 

South Half of the allotment, creating a new allotment to be named Oblivion. The three

pastures would operate as a deferred rotation system. The Ford Pasture currently receives 

limited livestock use within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. There is a risk of livestockvehicle collisions along the Old Hill City Highway. 

Overall, the north half of the allotment is meeting or moving towards desired conditions, 

although there are some concerns with riparian conditions, and a slight overstock situation 

may need resolution. Condition and trend of upland vegetation is “Moving towards Desired 

Conditions”. The presence of scattered noxious weed infestations and the minimal amount 

of native grasses resulted in the lesser rating of desired condition. Upland plant 

communities are primarily dominated by non-native grasses such as Kentucky bluegrass and 

timothy. The percentage of bare ground is within limits, and effective ground cover to 

maintain soil stability and support wildlife habitat is present. 

Upland vegetation conditions would be expected to continue moving slowly towards desired 

resource conditions under Alternative B by moving livestock before exceeding the 50%

utilization by weight standard. Reducing allotment actual use to grazing capacity based on 

monitoring data would allow uplands to be grazed and not overused each season. The likely 

outcome is actual grazing use may be reduced by approximately 19 days, or less livestock 

grazed, or some combination thereof. 

Riparian areas are limited to two small stretches of Spring Creek in the Samalias Pasture, a 

short segment of Battle Creek (NFS land) and Palmer Creek (county ROW by bridge), and 

scattered seep/willow locations. There are concerns with unrestricted livestock access and 

the effect on Spring Creek in relation to meeting TMDL objectives (see Hydrology Section), 

trampling of limited seep sources, and an eroding drainage ditch occurring near Battle Creek. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 115

This alternative addresses riparian conditions by compliance with the new four inch riparian 

stubble height requirement, and movement towards desired riparian conditions is expected. 

The likely effect of meeting the 4” riparian stubble height requirement is that actual 

livestock days of use may be further reduced. This may result in additional decreases in 

actual livestock use of approximately 10 days in the Samalias Pasture. If no or inadequate 

improvement in riparian conditions occurs, then the residual stubble height for riparian 

vegetation may be adjusted to 6”. Required reconstruction of the Joe Dollar Mine water

tank and spring would improve livestock distribution into the uplands, as would cleaning out 

two ponds in the Ford Pasture, and maintaining three ponds in the Samalias Pasture. 

This alternative does not address potential livestock-vehicle collisions along the Old Hill 

City Highway, riparian areas are not fenced to exclude livestock use, and the ditch is not 

repaired. The number of livestock reduced or less days of use would not be made up in 

other pastures because of the need to adjust livestock actual use to actual grazing capacity. 

South Half 

Alternative B would continue with the six existing pasture deferred rotation grazing 

system on the South Half of the Palmer Gulch Allotment, plus one winter on/off pasture 

(eventually phased out). There are no grazing capacity issues with this allotment based 

on capability modeling. In drought years the permittee would continue to haul water to 

temporary tank locations; these sites require Forest Service approval prior.

Overall, the South Half Palmer Gulch Allotment is meeting desired conditions except for 

the Rabbit and Upper Bear Pastures. Upland vegetation condition in the Rabbit Pasture is 

“Not Meeting Desired Conditions”. The presence of Canada thistle infestations, the 

minimal amount of native grasses and higher amounts of fringed sage than desirable 

resulted in the lesser rating of desired conditions. However, a reduction in the actual 

livestock use in the pasture initiated in 2005, combined with concurrent IPM treatment of 

Canada thistle, appears to have begun reversing the downward trend and resulted in 

improved conditions. Ground cover to maintain soil stability is improving but bare 

ground is still present. Upland vegetation condition and trend in the remaining pastures 

are “Moving towards Desired Conditions.” 

Upland vegetation conditions would be expected to continue moving slowly towards 

desired resource conditions under Alternative B. This alternative addresses upland 

vegetation conditions through ongoing efforts to control Canada thistle, and by moving 

livestock before exceeding the 50% utilization standard. If these measures do not 

continue to show progress towards desired conditions in the Rabbit Pasture, the most 

likely adaptive option may be to decrease days of use in that pasture, and/or allowable 

proper use by weight may also be adjusted to 45% for upland vegetation. 

Riparian conditions in the Upper Bear Pasture are rated as “Moving towards Desired 

Conditions.” Kentucky bluegrass is the dominant vegetation but some riparian species are 

also present. The percentage of hydric plant species is below desired threshold levels, 

streambank stability exceeds desired threshold levels, but streambank alteration ratings are 

above desired threshold levels. The primary cause of these conditions is believed to be the
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 116

length of time this pasture is grazed (45 days), which allows for repeated use of plant 

regrowth, and increased hoof impact that results in streambank alteration. 

Overall riparian conditions are expected to improve and continue moving towards desired 

conditions under Alternative B by moving livestock before the new 4” residual stubble

height requirement is exceeded in all pastures. The likely effect of meeting the 4” riparian 

stubble height requirement is that actual livestock days of use may be reduced. Alternative 

B also requires moving a temporary water tank away from the riparian area in the Lower 

Bear Pasture. Compliance with the riparian stubble height requirement in the Upper Bear 

Pasture should improve streambank alteration short term, and the percentage of hydric 

plant species would be expected to improve over the long term. Compliance with this 

requirement would also limit repeated use of forage regrowth, which would result in 

improved plant vigor and abundance. If no or inadequate improvement in riparian 

conditions occurs by following 4” riparian stubble height requirement, the allowable proper 

use by weight may also be adjusted to 45% for upland vegetation, and the residual stubble 

height for riparian vegetation may be adjusted to 6”. This could lead to a reduction in 

actual grazing use by 5-10 days reduction in Lower Bear and 15-25 days in Upper Bear. 

Concerns about game animals and birds in the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve are addressed 

by prohibiting use in the Palmer and Sunday Pastures prior to June 15 each season to 

improve bighorn sheep lambing success, and generally ending use in these pastures

around August 1 to provide vegetation re-growth and improve big game winter habitat. 

Alternative C 

North Half 

The North Half of the Palmer Gulch Allotment would have a 20 day reduction in actual 

use because the Sawmill Pasture is not grazeable. There would be one additional 

grazeable pasture (Dump) and thus additional days of livestock grazing use compared to 

Alternative B (four pastures rather than three). Alternative C would require installation 

of privately owned cattleguards along the 1880 Train tracks, and cleaning of a pond 

before the Dump Pasture can be grazed. Livestock trailing use through and back across 

the Sawmill Pasture would be allowed for up to two days per year. 

Alternative C includes all the provisions of Alternative B. Some additional required 

adaptive actions would improve resource conditions, more so than Alternative B. To 

improve riparian and stream conditions, required structural improvements include: 1) 

construction of up to one-half mile of new fence in the Samalias Pasture to restrict 

livestock access to Spring Creek; 2) fence off livestock access to Palmer Creek in the 

Keystone Pasture (also requires cattleguard on Twin Springs Road); 3) construct a new 

water development in the Keystone Pasture; 4) fence off springs and willows west of the 

Samalias trailhead and north of the Rustic Ridge Guest Cabins to restrict livestock 

access; and 5) reclaim a ditch at the headwaters of Battle Creek in the Ford Pasture to 

reestablish subsurface flows. The same fencing that would restrict access to Palmer 

Creek would also restrict livestock from the Old Hill City Highway. An additional 

adaptive option is to develop a spring and install a water tank in the Samalias Pasture. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 117

Alternative C should maintain or move the area toward the desired condition. It provides 

more protection to streams and riparian areas than Alternative B, and also reduces the 

potential for livestock-vehicle collisions along the Old Hill City Road, which Alternative 

B does not. If implementation and effectiveness monitoring determines utilization and/or 

impacts in excess of allowable levels, then similar measures and actual use reductions 

may occur as discussed in Alternative B. 

South Half 

Alternative C includes all the provisions of Alternative B. The South Half of the Palmer 

Gulch Allotment would likely provide additional positive changes in resource conditions 

compared to Alternative B. Required fencing of the Fender Spring and pond in the Rabbit

Pasture to exclude livestock would protect and improve wildlife habitat in the Norbeck 

Wildlife Preserve. As with Alternative B, in drought years the permittee would continue to 

haul water to temporary tank locations. Habitat and resource conditions would also be 

improved by requiring fencing to exclude livestock from a spring on the north side of the

East Zimmer Pasture, and installing reclamation structures to raise the water table along 

Palmer Creek in the Palmer Pasture. Approximately 0.4 miles of new fence along private 

land would also be required in the Summit Pasture, and the NFS lands presently incorporated 

with livestock use on private lands would be added back into the Rabbit Pasture. 

Alternative C includes additional, adaptive options to fence a riparian area in the Lower 

Bear Pasture, and to enlarge the size of the pasture by constructing approximately 1.25 

miles of new fence and installing a new cattleguard. It also includes an option to enlarge 

the size of the Upper Bear Pasture to address riparian concerns by constructing

approximately one mile of new fence and installing a cattleguard. A reduction of 5-10 days 

of actual use in Lower Bear and 15-25 days of actual use in Upper Bear is less likely under 

Alternative C than in Alternative B due to these structural improvements. It is possible 

however that actual use would have to be reduced in these pastures if the measures 

included in Alternative C do not move the areas toward the desired condition. Alternative 

C also includes the option for constructing fences to reduce or eliminate grazing on 

portions of the Rabbit, Sunday and Palmer Pastures in the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. 

Porcupine Allotment 

Alternative B 

The Porcupine Allotment currently uses a Holistic Management (HM) team approach, 

which has been in effect since 1988. The allotment totals 9,858 acres and utilizes a 12 

pasture rest rotation system from 06/09 to 09/30, for an average of 334 cattle (cow/calf 

with some yearlings) and 1653 AUM’s. Variable numbers and season are allowed each 

year for this HM allotment. Alternative B would continue the existing HM grazing 

system and permitted average AUMs, resting one pasture per year over a twelve year 

cycle unless it is determined unnecessary in order to achieve specific resource objectives. 

There are no grazing capacity issues with this allotment based on capability modeling. 

Overall, the condition and trend of upland vegetation in this allotment is meeting or moving

towards desired conditions based on ratings from three representative pastures. There are 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 118

some concerns about the amount of bare ground scattered throughout the allotment (created 

by high intensity wildfire in 2000), but no visible erosion has been noted, and there has been 

progress towards less bare soil since 2005. Concern regarding the amount of noxious weeds 

in one of the representative pastures was noted in 2005, but their presence was markedly

reduced by 2009. Livestock stocking rates have been compatible with big game winter 

range objectives. A fourth pasture (Yount) is rated as “Not Meeting Desired Conditions,” 

where site production is noticeably less than adjacent pastures and plant diversity is low. 

These conditions are likely due to year-round use by livestock while in private ownership. 

The Forest Service acquired this parcel in the 1980s, and has been attempting to restore it by 

limiting prescribed use under a deferred rotation system. 

There are no flowing streams or significant riparian areas in this allotment. The four small 

riparian areas associated with spring sources are generally protected from livestock use by 

fencing. Existing fences excluding livestock from North Antelope Spring, The Seeps, and 

Wells Spring required to be reconstructed under this alternative to provide better protection 

of riparian resources. Enlarged fences would not be constructed in Alternative B at these 

three spring sites to increase the size of the riparian area protected from livestock trampling. 

Alternative B would continue resting the Yount Pasture, as needed, to improve productivity 

and plant diversity. Representative montane grasslands in good condition are recognized 

and livestock use would not be intensified in those communities (Marriot 2000). 

Alternative B would move toward or meet desired resource conditions on the Porcupine 

Allotment. The diverse HM Team would continue to review allotment progress, plan 

annual use numbers, and specific treatment objectives. Alternative B would not provide

the same level of flexibility as Alternative C, because it does not include any new range 

improvements that may be used to improve resource conditions or the overall operation. 

No reduction in actual use is expected under this alternative. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C incorporates all the provision of Alternative B. Alternative C also contains a 

number of structural improvements that would provide additional riparian resource 

protection, and flexibility in meeting HM objectives. Required improvements include 

constructing larger riparian exclosures at North Antelope Spring, Wells Spring, and The 

Seeps. Construction of approximately 1.75 miles of new pasture boundary fence would be 

required to better control livestock and regulate animal impact in the Babbington-South 

Wolf 1 Pasture. Alternative C also requires installation of new water storage and watering 

tanks in the northeast side of the Wildcat-North 1 Pasture, and approximately 0.75 miles of 

new pipeline would be extended from the Babbington Pasture to the new water tanks. 

These structures would provide additional resource protection and allow better utilization 

of the allotment. Numerous adaptive options for new structural improvements are also 

included in this alternative (See Chapter 2 description of alternatives). These adaptive 

options might not ever be constructed, but if they were it would also provide additional 

resource protection and flexibility in managing the HM operation. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 119

Alternative C would maintain or moved toward desired resource conditions on the 

Porcupine Allotment more so than Alternative B since HM is continually enhanced with 

additional developmental measures. The diverse HM Team would continue to review 

allotment progress, plan annual use numbers, and specific treatment objectives. No 

reduction in actual use is expected under this alternative. Specific structural improvements 

and ongoing collaboration with the HM Team may facilitate additional livestock grazing use 

on this allotment. 

Up to 5300 acres may be prescribed burned over time to reduce fuel loading from dead and 

downed pine trees. These burns may not occur unless funding is secured. Such burns 

would reduce the threat to structural improvements and young aspen regeneration, and also 

provide increased plant diversity and forage/browse production from new growth. 

Redfern Allotment 

Alternative B 

The current 11,573 acres Redfern Allotment utilizes a four pasture deferred rotation system 

with a round-up pasture. The allotment is grazed from 06/11 to 10/25, for 195 cow/calf pairs 

at a maximum of 1159AUMs. The allotment may be overstocked by approximately 28% of

the current 195 permitted livestock numbers (about 43 mature cattle) or about 31 days, for 

Alternative B, based on capability grazing modeling. Recent utilization studies (short-term 

monitoring) suggest it may be even higher than 28%. The total permitted use under 

Alternative B would be 177 cow/calf pairs, based on a reduction of 18 pair from the existing 

permit because of a pending term grazing permit waiver. This means the allotment may be 

overstocked by 25 cattle or 18 days. This is probably because the conifers replanted after the 

1939 McVey Fire have encroached and steadily reduced forage production. 

Overall, the condition and trend of upland vegetation does “Not Meet Desired Conditions,” 

as represented by a transect in the White Earth Pasture. A diverse mix of grasses and forbs 

are present with some snowberry, but Canada thistle is present and native grasses are not 

dominant. Smooth brome is not as dominant as it appears in other allotments. Bare ground 

does not appear to be an issue, but Canada thistle and leafy spurge are present throughout 

the allotment in varying densities. The lesser rating of desired conditions is due to an 

increase in noxious weed infestations and past levels of overutilization which has affected 

plant vitality. There are also concerns that allocated forage for wintering wildlife is being 

compromised by overuse of primary rangelands by livestock. 

Upland vegetation conditions would be expected to begin slowly moving towards desired 

conditions under Alternative B by moving livestock before exceeding the 50% utilization 

by weight standard. Use of IPM techniques would continue reducing noxious weed 

infestations resulting from past overuse, and those spaced would be filled in by native 

and non-native grasses, forbs, and some shrubs over time. Compliance with this 

requirement would also limit repeated use of forage regrowth, which would result in 

improved plant vigor and abundance. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 120

Reducing allotment actual use to grazing capacity based on monitoring data would allow 

uplands to be grazed and not overused each season. The likely outcome is actual grazing 

use would be reduced. This may result in decreases in actual livestock use by 

approximately 5 days in Slate Creek Pasture, 3 days in the White Earth Pasture, 4 days in 

the Nugget Pasture, and 6 days in the Queen Bee Pasture. If these measures do not 

continue to show progress towards desired conditions, the most likely adaptive option 

may be to further decrease days of use in that pasture, and/or the allowable proper use by 

weight may also be adjusted to 45% for upland vegetation. 

Riparian conditions in the Slate Creek Pasture are rated as “Moving towards Desired 

Conditions.” Kentucky bluegrass is the dominant vegetation but some riparian species are 

also present, although the percentage of hydric plant species is below the desired threshold 

level. Streambank stability is at acceptable levels, but alteration ratings exceed threshold 

levels. The chief cause of the lesser rating is believed to be the length of time this pasture is 

grazed (36 days) which allows for repeated use of plant regrowth, and increased opportunity 

for hoof impact that results in streambank alteration and affects streambank stability. 

Alternative B addresses the overall riparian conditions including Slate Creek by: 1) 

requiring reconstruction of two water sources in the middle of the Slate Creek Pasture 

intended to pull livestock away from the Slate Creek riparian area; and 2) through 

compliance with the 4” riparian stubble height requirements. Compliance with the riparian 

stubble height requirement should improve streambank alteration ratings short term, and the 

percentage of hydric plant species are expected to improve over the long term. The likely 

effect of meeting the 4” riparian stubble height requirement is that actual livestock days of 

use may be further reduced. This may result in additional decreases in actual livestock use 

by approximately 11 days in the Slate Creek Pasture, 3 days in the White Earth Pasture, 4 

days in the Nugget Pasture, and 19 days in the Queen Bee Pasture. 

Implementation and effectiveness monitoring should help determine the appropriate 

livestock grazing use levels. If no or inadequate improvement in riparian conditions occurs 

by following 4” riparian stubble height requirement, the residual stubble height for riparian 

vegetation may be adjusted to 6”. If days of livestock use are reduced to meet capacity and 

riparian requirements, it is unlikely this time could be made up in whole or part in other 

pastures due to overstocking and capacity issues. Ongoing timber thinning and harvest may 

make additional forage available on this allotment, but this is unlikely to substantially offset 

this loss in actual use since much is on ungrazeable terrain. Additional forage would 

promote better distribution of remaining livestock and use by big game use. 

The overall outcome is actual grazing use for this allotment would be less than currently 

allowed. The amount of reduction in actual use for Alternative B may be greater than for 

Alternative C since the riparian threshold of 4” stubble height would be reached before 

the upland trigger is exceeded. Actual grazing use reductions may range from 

approximately 18 to 55 days. 

Overall, riparian and upland conditions are expected to begin or continue moving towards 

desired conditions under Alternative B. The improvement in riparian conditions would 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 121

be less than that expected in Alternative C where Slate Creek is fenced and grazing use 

reduced to four days from the current 36 days. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C incorporates all provisions of Alternative B. It also would maintain existing 

improvements and reconstruct or remove structural improvements as presented in Alternative B. 

Alternative C addresses the riparian issue in the Slate Creek Pasture by requiring 

reconstruction and/or relocation of two water developments to better distribute livestock, 

construction of approximately 1.5 miles of new fence along FSR 530 south of Slate Creek 

Dam, and installation of one cattleguard in FSR 530.1C where the fence would cross the 

road. This fence would exclude livestock use on the Slate Creek Pasture on approximately 

one mile of the Slate Creek riparian area. The newly fenced out portion would be combined 

with the Redfern Holding Pasture and collectively grazed approximately four days per 

season. This reduction in use from 36 days now grazed in the Slate Creek Pasture, to four

days with the newly combined Redfern Holding Pasture, would substantially improve Slate 

Creek riparian conditions. 

The riparian and overstocking issues are addressed the same as for Alternative B - 

through a likely reduction in actual grazing use ranging from approximatly 18 to 44 days 

based on capability modeling, or possibly even more as a result of monitoring. As with 

Alternative B, ongoing timber thinning and harvest may make additional forage available 

on this allotment, but this is unlikely to substantially offset this loss in actual use. 

Overall, riparian and upland conditions are expected to begin or continue moving towards 

desired conditions under Alternative C. The improvement in riparian conditions would 

be greater than that expected in Alternative B, where Slate Creek is not fenced.

Rimmer Allotment 

Alternative B 

The Rimmer Allotment currently includes 2,011 acres split between two pastures operating 

from June 11 to October 10, for 33 cow/calf pairs and a maximum of 175 AUM’s. There 

are no grazing capacity issues with this allotment based on capability modeling. 

Alternative B would modify the allotment by incorporating the underutilized West School 

Pasture from the Slate Prairie Allotment into the Rimmer Allotment to form a third pasture. 

This new pasture would accommodate reduction to the long duration grazing in the Rimmer 

Pasture by 10 days, and reducing days of use in the Grandad Pasture by four days. Under 

Alternative B, required actions include reconstruction of the spring exclosure at Lost Park 

Spring to protect the associated riparian area from livestock, and two gates on Trail 40 would 

be repaired to facilitate livestock control. 

The condition and trend of upland vegetation, represented by transects in the Rimmer 

Pasture, does “Not Meet Desired Conditions”. The current duration of grazing use is long in 

this pasture (88 days), resulting in some grazed areas exceeding proper allowable use, and the 

percentage of bare ground to exceed threshold levels. Plant regrowth is subject to repeated 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 122

grazing use, which also can compact the soils and reduces plant vitality. Condition and trend 

of upland vegetation in the Grandad Pasture was rated as “Meeting Desired Conditions.” 

This small pasture is grazed for 34 days, and it appears livestock spend considerable time on 

adjacent private land, hence lessening impact to the Grandad Pasture. 

Upland vegetation conditions would be expected to be maintained in the Grandad Pasture, 

and begin moving slowly toward desired resource conditions in the Rimmer Pasture under 

Alternative B. The addition of a new pasture and reduction in days of grazing use in the

existing pastures is expected to result in more even utilization of upland vegetation. In 

addition, compliance with the 50% upland utilization by weight requirement would also be 

expected to improve upland vegetation conditions. 

Riparian conditions in the Rimmer Pasture are rated as “Not Meeting Desired Conditions.” 

Kentucky bluegrass is the dominant species, and riparian vegetation is very limited. 

Streambank stability is at acceptable levels, but streambank alteration exceeds threshold 

level. The percentage of hydric plant species is well below desired threshold levels. The 

primary cause of these conditions is believed to be the length of time this pasture is grazed. 

Overall, riparian conditions are expected to improve and begin moving towards desired 

conditions under Alternative B by moving livestock before the new 4” riparian stubble height 

requirement is exceeded. The likely effect of meeting the 4” riparian stubble height 

requirement is that actual livestock days of use may be reduced. Compliance with this 

requirement is expected to maintain streambank stability, improve streambank alteration 

short term, and increase the percentage of hydric plant species over the long term. 

Compliance with the riparian stubble height requirement and the 50% upland utilization by

weight requirement is also expected to limit repeated grazing of forage regrowth, which 

would result in improved plant vigor and abundance. 

Implementation and effectiveness monitoring should help determine the appropriate livestock 

grazing use levels for the Rimmer Pasture. The likely effect of meeting the 4” riparian 

stubble height requirement is that actual grazing use in the Rimmer Pasture may be less than 

78 days. If no or inadequate improvement in upland and riparian conditions occurs by 

following the 4” riparian stubble height and the 50% upland utilization requirements, the

allowable proper use may also be adjusted to 45% for upland vegetation, and the residual

stubble height for riparian vegetation may be adjusted to 6”. If days of livestock use are 

reduced in the Rimmer Pasture, it is unlikely this time could be made up in other pastures 

because there is no excess capacity. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C incorporates all the provisions of Alternative B, including changes in pastures 

and a slight increase in size for the Rimmer Allotment by adding the West School Pasture. 

Adaptive options available in Alternative C would provide some additional flexibility in 

addressing resource concerns, such as increasing the size of West School Pasture by 

approximately 120 acres by incorporating a portion of the Slate School Pasture currently in 

the Slate Prairie Allotment. Installation of a new cattle guard and reconstruction of an 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 123

existing water development would be needed to implement this option. There is also an 

option to construct approximately 1.75 miles of new fencing in the Rimmer Pasture to control 

livestock. An additional adaptive option is to construct approximately 0.60 mile of new fence, 

install a cattleguard, and reconstruct access to a water source to create a fourth pasture (named 

“187”), which would split off approximately 500 acres from the Rimmer Pasture. 

There could be a reduction in actual grazing use in order to meet desired upland and riparian 

conditions, but the likely outcome is that actual use on the Rimmer Allotment would be close 

to the current allowed use. The additional flexibility offered by Alternative C would make a 

reduction in actual use less likely than for Alternative B. Overall riparian and upland 

conditions are expected to improve under Alternative C, similar to Alternative B. 

Slate Prairie Allotment 

Alternative B 

The current 5,896 acre allotment is managed using a five pasture deferred rotation system 

from 06/01 to 10/20 for 200 mature cattle (cow/calf) at a maximum of 1233 AUM’s. 

Capacity modeling indicates the allotment is overstocked by approximately 15% (26 mature 

cattle) or roughly 20 days. Recent utilization studies (short-term monitoring) suggest it may 

be 30% or higher. 

Alternative B would modify current management by removing the West Slate School Pasture 

and adding it to the existing Rimmer Allotment, since it is underutilized by Slate Prairie 

permitted livestock, and always grazed late in season. Use with the Rimmer Allotment (same 

permittee) would allow for variation in season of use. This change would reduce the Slate 

Prairie Allotment by one pasture (77 acres and two days of use), resulting in a four pasture 

deferred rotation grazing system. 

Condition and trend of upland vegetation in the Slate Prairie Allotment does “Not Meet 

Desired Conditions,” as represented by transects in the Mystic and Whitetail Pastures. 

Vegetation conditions are believed to be a result of grazed areas repeatedly exceeding 

proper allowable use, which is adversely affecting plant vitality. In some areas, bare ground 

is exceeding threshold levels and plant spacing appears to be increasing. In general, there is 

a wide variety of grasses and forbs throughout the allotment, although the grass component 

is dominated by non-native Kentucky bluegrass, smooth brome, and timothy. Noxious 

weed infestations, primarily Canada thistle and leafy spurge, are also of concern. 

Upland vegetation conditions would be expected to begin slowly moving towards desired 

conditions under Alternative B. Compliance with the 50% upland utilization by weight 

requirement, along with ongoing use of IPM techniques to reduce noxious weed 

infestations, would be expected to gradually improve upland vegetation conditions. 

Reducing allotment actual use to grazing capacity based on monitoring results would allow 

uplands to be grazed and not overused each season. The likely outcome is actual grazing use 

would be reduced. This may result in a decrease in actual livestock use by approximately 4 

days in the Mystic Pasture, 7 days in the Whitetail Pasture, 5 days in the Hay Draw Pasture, 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 124

and 4 days in the Slate School Pasture. If no or inadequate improvement occurs, the most 

likely adaptive option may be to decrease the allowable use percentage by weight to 45%.” 

Riparian conditions in the Mystic Pasture are rated as “Not Meeting Desired Conditions.” 

Nebraska sedge and smooth brome are dominant species, and the percentage of hydric 

plants is below the desired threshold level. Streambank alteration is high and exceeds 

threshold levels, and streambank stability ratings are less than the desired threshold. It is 

believed that the duration of use by livestock is too long and such use continues to prevent 

this portion of Slate Creek from recovering from such impacts. 

Riparian conditions in the Whitetail pasture are also rated as “Not Meeting Desired 

Conditions.” Kentucky bluegrass is the dominant species, riparian vegetation is not as

abundant as it should be, and the percentage of hydric plant species is below desired 

threshold levels. Streambanks are rated high for stability, although streambank alteration 

exceeds desired threshold levels. Similar to the Mystic Pasture, it is believed that the 

duration of use is preventing remnant riparian species from re-colonizing the site. 

Alternative B addresses riparian concerns by requiring: 1) compliance with the 4” riparian 

stubble height requirement; 2) reconstruction of two spring exclosures to protect from 

livestock trampling in the Mystic and Whitetail Pastures; 3) reconstruction of about 0.20 

miles of drift fence at the junction of Crooked Creek and Castle Creek in the Whitetail 

Pasture; and 4) adding rock to the pond spillway in the Slate School Pasture. These measures 

would have a modest effect on improving riparian conditions. The likely effect of meeting 

the 4” riparian stubble height requirement is that actual livestock days of use may be further 

reduced. This may result in additional decreases in actual livestock use by approximately 6 

days in the Mystic Pasture, 25 days in the Whitetail Pasture, and 14 days in the Hay Draw 

Pasture. If no or inadequate improvement occurs, the most likely adaptive option may be to 

increase the riparian stubble height to 6.” 

Implementation and effectiveness monitoring of riparian and upland conditions should help 

determine the effectiveness of the above actions. These measures would be expected to 

improve streambank alteration ratings short term, streambank stability, the percentage of 

hydric plant species, and the extent of riparian vegetation should improve over the long 

term. Compliance with the upland utilization by weight standard and riparian stubble height 

requirement would also limit repeated use of forage regrowth, which would result in 

improved plant vigor, health, and abundance. 

The likely outcome is that overall allotment actual grazing use would be less than the currently 

allowed use, less livestock may graze, or a combination of the two. The possible reductions in 

actual grazing use may range from 20 to 66 days, and would not be made up in other pastures 

since the allotment is already considered overstocked and no additional capacity exists. These 

reduced days of use result from adherence to upland and riparian requirements. 

Alternative C 

This alternative would incorporate the same changes in pastures and slight reduction in size 

for the Slate Prairie Allotment as proposed in Alternative B. It would also complete the 

same reconstruction of needed improvements and removal of unneeded improvements. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 125

Alternative C requires construction of a new exclosure fence to protect a fen in the 

Whitetail Pasture. No other required structural improvements that would reduce riparian or 

upland effects or address the overstocking issue are proposed in this alternative. It also 

contains potential adaptive options to develop a spring and construct up to 0.50 mile of 

drift fence in the Whitetail Pasture, enlarge the exclosure fence at Daugherty Spring in the 

Hay Draw Pasture, and construct an exclosure fence around a pond, install water pipe and 

tank in the Slate School Pasture. Although these adaptive options are available, the basic 

problem is overstocking rather than distribution, so additional structures would only offer 

marginal improvement. The enlarged exclosure Daugherty Spring may allow some current 

days of use to be retained in Hay Draw Pasture when compared to Alternative B. 

The likely outcome is that actual grazing use would be less than the currently allowed use, less 

livestock are allowed to graze, or a combination of the two. This is similar to Alternative B.

Tigerville Allotment 

Alternative B 

The existing 5,825 acre allotment is currently managed using a seven pasture deferred rotation 

system from 06/01 to 10/25 for 112 mature cattle (cow/calf) at a maximum of 715 AUM’s. 

Alternative B would modify this by combining the West Side and Lena Pastures, resulting 

in six pastures. The allotment appears to have adequate grazing capacity for the current 

level of use. 

The condition and trend of upland vegetation is represented by transects in the Lena and 

Redfern Pastures. The Lena transect is rated as “Moving towards Desired Conditions;” a 

good diversity of species is present, and bare ground is minimal. The Redfern transect is 

rated as “Not Meeting Desired Conditions,” likely because utilization the past three years 

exceeded proper allowable use, resulting in increased bare ground and reduced plant 

vitality. In general, upland vegetation in the allotment contains a wide variety of grasses 

and forbs, although the grass component is dominated by non-native Kentucky bluegrass 

and smooth brome. Bare ground and noxious weeds are not a concern at this time. 

Alternative B addresses upland conditions by strictly following the 50% proper allowable use 

by weight standard. Upland vegetation conditions would be expected to begin moving 

slowly toward, or continue moving toward desired conditions. Over time, bare ground would 

be expected to decrease, and plant vigor and abundance would be expected to increase. 

Riparian conditions in the Mini Pasture are rated as “Not Meeting Desired Conditions.” 

Although streambank stability is at acceptable levels, willows are overused, hummocks 

are present, streambank alteration exceeds desired thresholds, and the percentage of 

hydric plant species is below the desired threshold. These conditions may be the result of 

repeated use as a watering location for both the Redfern and Tigerville Pastures. 

Alternative B addresses riparian conditions in the Mini Pasture by: 1), only grazing once 

a year with either the Tigerville or Redfern Pasture for approximately 20 days or less; and 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 126

2) following the new 4 inch riparian stubble height requirement. These measures would 

be expected to improve streambank alteration in the short term, improve willow health, 

and improve the percentage of hydric plant species in the long term. If no progress in 

reversing trend and moving toward desired conditions is achieved in the Mini Pasture, 

then the most probable adaptive action may be to adjust the allowable proper use to 45%, 

and/or increasing the riparian stubble height to 6.” 

Alternative B address riparian conditions in the remainder of the allotment by requiring 

1) adherence with the new 4” riparian stubble height requirement; 2) reconstruction of the 

existing spring exclosure fence in the northeast corner of the Tigerville Pasture; and 3) 

armoring with rock and gravel an existing water point access to Slate Creek in the Deer 

Park Pasture. Overall, riparian conditions are expected to improve under Alternative B. 

The likely effect of meeting the 4” riparian stubble height requirement is that actual 

livestock days of use may be reduced. 

 

Implementation and effectiveness monitoring of riparian and upland conditions should 

help determine the effectiveness of the above actions. Minor adjustments in actual

grazing use days may be needed to ensure each pasture meets desired resource 

conditions. Any reduction in other pastures could likely be made up in the Deer Park 

Pasture due to recent timber sale and fuels reduction work creating new primary and 

secondary range. Timber sale activity is also on-going in the Redfern Pasture. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C incorporates all the provisions of Alternative B. Alternative C requires 

construction of a larger exclosure at a spring in the Tigerville Pasture. A possible 

adaptive option in this alternative includes constructing approximately one-third mile of 

fence to incorporate a portion of the adjacent Newton Fork Allotment. This would 

increase the size of the Mini Pasture by approximately 80 acres by incorporating an 

unused 80 acre portion of the Newton Fork Allotment. Alternative C would complete the 

same reconstruction of needed improvements.

Possible adaptive options included in Alternative C to provide additional resource 

protection include construction of fence exclosures around breeched beaver dams and 

willow remnants in the Westside Pasture, and around a fen in the Deer Park Pasture. 

As with Alternative B, implementation and effectiveness monitoring of riparian and upland 

conditions should help determine the effectiveness of Alternative C. Overall riparian and 

upland conditions are expected to improve under Alternative C, quite similar to Alternative 

B. If the two exclosure fences are constructed, Alternative C would provide increased 

protection of riparian resources at those two sites. 

Alternative B 

Cumulative Effects for all Allotments 

Cumulative effects were analyzed for the project area consisting of the Bald Horse, 

Deerfield, Palmer Gulch, Porcupine, Redfern, Rimmer, Slate Prairie, and Tigerville 

Allotments. The spatial boundary and timeframe is the same as Alternative A – No Action. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 127

Adjacent private lands would continue to have the same effects on the allotments as 

described for Alternative A. Private in-holdings within or adjacent to Mystic Range Project 

allotments may not have private land line fencing so permitted livestock may enter, graze, 

or pass through these properties. The opportunity for incidental unauthorized use by 

privately owned livestock, not permitted to graze occur as well, and may increase over time 

as more private lands are developed for housing and stabling of horses. The observed trend 

over the past twenty years is increasing rural development, more people living in or near 

allotments, and more conflicts with permitted grazing over the lack of fencing and presence 

of forest livestock on private lands. 

Recreation would continue to have the same effects on the allotments as described for 

Alternative A. These uses would continue to conflict with permitted grazing, and many issues 

such as gates left open (livestock in wrong pastures), damage to structural improvements, and 

harassment of livestock and operators is expected to increase as more users frequent the 

National Forest. The Forest recently completed the Forest Travel Management Plan (ROD 

March 22, 2010), which designates a system of roads and trails for OHV use. 

The exclusion of wildfire would continue to have the same effects on the allotments as 

described for Alternative A. Livestock grazing can and will continue to reduce fine fuel 

loadings which helps prevent ignitions or lessens spread of new starts. 

Access areas to the Spring Creek watershed (TMDL) are not fenced off for the Palmer, 

Keystone, and Samalius Pastures in the Palmer Gulch Allotment. Other Forest Service 

allotments (outside of the Mystic Range Project) within the Spring Creek study area may 

continue to contribute to the TMDL unless additional mitigation or design criteria are 

implemented. See Hydrologist Specialist report for more details. 

Prescribed fire projects approved from other NEPA documents would have a direct shortterm impact on permittees and livestock grazing since the allotment use is deferred or 

rested following execution of a burn. There would be a need to plan sufficient recovery 

time in burned areas according to the Forest Plan (FP guideline 4107). Both wildfire and 

prescribed fire would continue to have short-term adverse effects on range conditions but 

over the long-term effects are expected to be beneficial as noted in Alternative A. 

Past and future timber harvest and prescribed fire have created and would continue to 

create transitory or secondary range under Alternative B. These timber sales and related 

activities are listed in the Appendix C. Cumulative effects are the same as described in 

Alternative A. There has been a trend towards whole tree removal (POL, saw log, and 

thinning), which concentrates slash for burning or chip and removal off site. These 

practices are preferred as lop and scatter in the forest concentrates slash over forage and 

browse production, making livestock and even big game access difficult. Powerlines and 

other utility corridors may increase livestock distribution because routes are opened 

through forested areas and roads are constructed for machinery access. 

Livestock would continue to enter the Deerfield Recreation Area and developed sites in 

the Lake Shore Pasture since no new fences would be constructed. Such grazing use 

would still occur after Labor Day which minimizes conflicts with site users. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 128

Noxious weeds would continue to be treated with IPM approach throughout the project area, 

contingent on funding. Ground disturbance due to livestock grazing practices occurs at salt 

grounds and watering facilities, and would continue with permitted grazing. Expected effects 

as described in Alternative A would still occur with Alternative B. 

Big game animals, especially elk and deer, will continue to have an effect on herbaceous 

vegetation as noted in Alternative A. In the future, with grazing as a disturbance agent, it is 

anticipated that the overall amount of forage and browse would remain constant as forage 

remains stimulated by livestock use and does not become thatched. As note previously, timber 

sale activities are planned to open up dense pine stands and this action will release a new crop 

of forage and browse which should persist in declining amounts until the canopy closure 35%. 

As noted in Alternative A, the Hell Canyon Ranger District has released a DEIS entitled 

the Norbeck Wildlife Project that proposes to treat overstory and understory vegetation in 

the Ford, Palmer, Rabbit, and Sunday Pastures of the Palmer Gulch Allotment. These 

vegetative treatments will increase forage and browse production for wildlife. 

High numbers of big game animals, especially elk and deer, have a significant effect on 

herbaceous vegetation. The dietary overlap between elk and livestock is similar 

(Zimmerman, 2004) (Beck and Peek, 2005). Grazing management of forage by the Forest 

Service takes wildlife grazing use into consideration. Allowable use standards are designed 

to provide adequate forage and habitat needs for various wildlife species. If allowable use 

standards are reached due to the combined utilization of forage by livestock and wildlife; 

livestock are moved to the next grazing unit or removed from the allotment. Management 

of big game numbers is under the control of South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks. 

The end purpose for adaptations of forest and range ecosystems is to make adjustments in 

management that ideally reduce the negative impacts of climate change, and take advantage 

of any positive impacts (Blate, 2009). Some impacts that may occur in the project area are 

longer, warmer growing seasons, shifts in the seasonality of hydrological flows, intense 

droughts, increased erosion events in impaired watersheds, increased stream temperatures, 

and socio-economic impacts to the permittees and related communities with stresses from 

lack of grazing or reduced grazing opportunities. Without use of “Adaptive Management” it 

will be more difficult to respond to the alterations brought on by climate change. Actions 

taken will tend to be more of a reactive approach based on some condition, rather than 

proactive action taken ahead of a more stressful event or events. The end result is one less 

tool in the portfolio or toolbox of strategies to mitigate issues for permitted livestock grazing. 

Alternative C 

Cumulative Effects for all Allotments 

Cumulative effects were analyzed for the project area consisting of the Bald Horse, 

Deerfield, Palmer Gulch, Porcupine, Redfern, Rimmer, Slate Prairie, and Tigerville 

Allotments. The spatial boundary and timeframe is the same as Alternative A and B.

Adjacent private lands would continue to have the same effects on the allotments as 

described for Alternative B. The observed trend over the past twenty years is increasing 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 129

rural development, more people living in or near allotments, and more conflicts with 

permitted grazing over the lack of fencing and presence of forest livestock on private lands. 

Recreation would continue to have the same effects on the allotments as described for 

Alternative B. These uses would continue to conflict with permitted grazing. The Travel 

Management Plan (ROD March 22, 2010) restricts users to designated routes and installing 

cattleguards may be needed in areas. The Spring Creek Trailhead and adjacent riparian area 

would no longer be impacted by livestock with the construction of a highway ROW fence 

along the north side of Sheridan Lake Road. The recreation sites on the south side of Deerfield 

Reservoir (Whitetail Campground, day use areas, and Gold Run Parking Lot would no long be 

impacted by fall cattle grazing after completion of the Deerfield Highway ROW fence. 

The exclusion of wildfire would continue to have the same effects on the allotments as 

described for Alternative B. 

As with Alternative B, access areas to the Spring Creek watershed (TMDL) are not fenced 

off for the Palmer Pasture. Alternative C requires fencing on the Keystone and Samalius 

Pastures. Other Forest Service allotments (outside of the Mystic Range Project) within the 

Spring Creek study area may continue to contribute to the TMDL unless additional

mitigation or design criteria are implemented. See Hydrology Section for more details. 

Prescribed fire would continue have a direct short-term impact on permittees and livestock 

grazing since the allotment use is deferred or rested following execution of a burn. Should 

funding for the adaptive option of additional prescribed burning for the Porcupine Allotment 

be secured, fuels reduction would occur, and livestock and big game benefit from additional 

forage and browse production. There would still be a need to plan sufficient recovery time 

in burned areas according to the Forest Plan (FP guideline 4107). Both wildfire and 

prescribed fire would continue to have short-term adverse effects on range conditions but 

over the long-term effects are expected to be beneficial as noted in Alternative A and B. 

Past and future timber harvest and prescribed fire have created and would continue to 

create transitory or secondary range under Alternative C. These timber sales and related 

activities are listed in the Appendix C. Cumulative effects are the same as described in 

Alternative B. 

Noxious weeds would continue to be treated with IPM approach throughout the project area, 

contingent on funding. Ground disturbance due to livestock grazing practices occurs at salt 

grounds and watering facilities, and would continue with permitted grazing. Expected effects 

as described in Alternative A and B would still occur with Alternative C. 

Livestock would no longer access the Deerfield Recreation Area (Lake Shore Pasture) since 

the highway ROW would be fenced. Grazing use would no longer occur which minimizes 

conflicts with site users. Livestock would no longer access Spring Creek along Sheridan 

Lake Road since the highway ROW would be fenced. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 130

Big game animals, especially elk and deer, will continue to have an effect on herbaceous 

vegetation as noted in Alternative B. In the future, with grazing as a disturbance agent, it is 

anticipated that the overall amount of forage and browse would remain constant as forage 

remains stimulated by livestock use and does not become thatched. 

As noted in Alternative B, the Hell Canyon Ranger District has released a DEIS entitled 

the Norbeck Wildlife Project that proposes to treat overstory and understory vegetation in 

the Ford, Palmer, Rabbit, and Sunday Pastures of the Palmer Gulch Allotment. These 

vegetative treatments will increase forage and browse production for wildlife. 

High numbers of big game animals, especially elk and deer, have a significant effect on 

herbaceous vegetation. The dietary overlap between elk and livestock is similar 

(Zimmerman, 2004) (Beck and Peek, 2005). Grazing management of forage by the Forest 

Service takes wildlife grazing use into consideration. Allowable use standards are designed 

to provide adequate forage and habitat needs for various wildlife species. If allowable use 

standards are reached due to the combined utilization of forage by livestock and wildlife; 

livestock are moved to the next grazing unit or removed from the allotment. Management 

of big game elk numbers is under the control of South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks. 

There is a proposed land purchase within the Porcupine Allotment. The parcel includes 

several large open meadows, a well, cabin, and handling facilities for livestock. If the 

purchase occurs there appears to be no adverse changes in the tract’s contribution to the 

management of the Porcupine Allotment. Basically, this tract serves as a temporary base 

for the permittee during the grazing season, and supplied well water to the water storage 

tanks on the allotment. Currently the permittee uses an annual lease to secure use. 

The end purpose for adaptations of forest and range ecosystems is to make adjustments in 

management that ideally reduce the negative impacts of climate change, and take advantage 

of any positive impacts (Blate, 2009). Some impacts that may occur in the project area are 

longer, warmer growing seasons, shifts in the seasonality of hydrological flows, intense 

droughts, increased erosion events in impaired watersheds, increased stream temperatures, 

and socio-economic impacts to the permittees and related communities with stresses from 

lack of grazing or reduced grazing opportunities. With the use of “Adaptive Management” 

it will be easier to respond to the changes brought on by climate change. Actions taken will 

tend to be more of a proactive approach based on some condition, rather than reactive 

respond taken ahead of a more stressful event or events. The end result is one more tool in 

the portfolio or toolbox of strategies for permitted livestock grazing. 

WILDLIFE HABITAT 

Introduction 

This report documents what is currently known regarding wildlife and habitat resources in 

the Mystic Range Project area on Mystic Ranger District and analyzes the potential effects of 

three alternatives on eight grazing allotments to Management Indicator Species (MIS) and 

Species of Local Concern (SOLC). Data were collected and compiled from field surveys 

(2007-2009), District wildlife observation data, South Dakota Natural Heritage Program 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 131

(SDGF&P 2008a), literature reviews, communication with District personnel, and the

Wildlife Report completed for the Phase II Amendment to the Black Hills National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan Revision (USDA Forest Service 2005a, Appendix C).

The goals and objectives for the Mystic Range Project area for the wildlife resource are to 

provide for a variety of life through the management of a biologically diverse landscape. 

These goals and objectives, along with the Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (hereafter Forest Plan) and Standards and Guidelines as amended by 

Phase II, would provide and maintain an appropriate mix and balance of habitats over the 

long term. This diversity would provide habitats to maintain populations of all vertebrate

and invertebrate wildlife and plant species in the area, and would not result in any individual 

species trending toward or becoming listed as threatened or endangered. The area would 

provide for a variety of wildlife recreational opportunities, ranging from consumptive to 

non-consumptive activities (e.g. hunting to wildlife viewing). 

 

This document tiers directly to the revised Forest Plan and the Phase II Forest Plan 

Amendment EIS (USDA Forest Service 1996b, 2005a) and the associated Biological 

Assessment/ Biological Evaluations (BA/BE), (Appendices H and C respectively). The 

Forest Plan, as amended, provides direction on how grazing should be managed to comply 

with laws, regulations and policy. The actions proposed would ensure that grazing 

management is in compliance with Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines, 

and any other applicable laws, regulations and policies. 

Pre-Field Review and Field Reconnaissance 

The pre-field review was completed using field surveys, district records, literature reviews, 

on-line databases, the South Dakota Natural Heritage Database (South Dakota Department 

of Game, Fish, and Parks 2008a), South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks big game information 

(South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks 2008b), and the Forest Plan 

Monitoring Report (USDA Forest Service 2008a, 2009a). Publications based on fieldwork 

performed in the Black Hills (e.g., Turner 1974, Peterson 1995, Tigner and Aney 1994, 

Frest and Johannes 2002), the Expert Interview Summary for the Black Hills National 

Forest Plan Phase I, Species Conservation Assessments and current research documents 

were also used. Data and results of all surveys performed in the area can be found in the 

Mystic Range Project file. 

Field reconnaissance of the Mystic Range Project Area was completed during the summers 

of 2004 through 2009. Field visits were performed with intent to identify suitable and/or 

occupied habitat for R2 sensitive species and to determine the effects of current livestock 

use on wildlife and their habitats. Several Frest and Johannes (2002) snail survey sites and 

known snail colonies are located near or within the Mystic Range Project allotments, along 

with several forest bird and butterfly monitoring transects (Rocky Mountain Bird 

Observatory 2001-2009, Marrone 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007). 

Analysis of Effects 

The analysis of direct and indirect effects for wildlife species focuses on Management 

Indicator Species (MIS), Species of Local Concern (SOLC) and R2 Sensitive species (See 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 132

MRP Biological Evaluation), their habitat needs and their prey species availability as it 

relates to livestock grazing and associated rangeland improvements (e.g. prescribed 

burning, riparian improvement) and range structural improvements (e.g., fences, water 

developments, cattleguards). Fragmentation and connectivity of habitat communities as it 

relates to MIS species were analyzed as part of the Forest Plan EIS (USDA Forest Service 

1996b), and analyzed in relation to SOLC species in the Phase II EIS (USDA Forest 

Service 2005a). The best available science for each species was taken in to account, which 

may include additional information and referencing (e.g., conservation assessments). 

The cumulative effects analysis area for wildlife species are geographically bounded by the 

project area boundary (including private lands). This was chosen because it is significantly 

larger than the home ranges of most wildlife residing in the Mystic Range Project Area, 

excluding migrations that occur outside of the Black Hills. For deer and elk, geographic 

bounding includes migratory routes and winter ranges. The temporal bounding of 

cumulative effects evaluated varies among activities, but for the purposes of this document 

the temporal bounding is from 1970 and up to 15-20 years future. This range accommodates 

the period from the oldest allotment management planning period (1969) to a time in which 

actions are reasonably foreseeable. Activities evaluated are those most relevant to the area 

and to the species, and include fire suppression, fire occurrence, vegetative treatment (e.g., 

timber harvest, fuel treatments), prescribed burning, land development, and roads. With the 

notable exception of land development, all of the activities occur on both public and private 

lands. The wildlife analysis is dependent on and/or complimentary to other specialist reports 

(e.g., hydrology, range) for the Mystic Range Project EIS. The 1997 Forest Plan FEIS 

(USDA Forest Service 1996b) and the Phase II FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005a) 

addresses cumulative effects of Forest management at the eco-regional (Black Hills) scale; 

please see that document for effects appropriate to that scale. 

Management Indicator Species (MIS) 

Management Indicator Species (MIS) are species that represent a suite of wildlife and fish 

species and their habitats. MIS are evaluated based on observations and/or presence of 

suitable habitat within the Mystic Range Project’s eight allotments. The Phase II 

Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005a; Sec 3-3.3.6 through Sec 3-3.3.8.2) provides 

in-depth information (i.e., range, distribution etc.) for each MIS selected for analysis. The 

Mystic Range Project analysis for MIS is tiered to that document and to the 1997 Forest Plan 

FEIS (USDA Forest Service 1996b). Information from these documents is summarized for 

each MIS. Table 3-3 identifies MIS species selected for analysis for the Mystic Range 

Project, and reasons for their Forest Plan designation (USDA Forest Service 2005a). 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 133

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

Forest Plan MIS Status1 Habitat Represented 

Black-backed 

Woodpecker 

R2 Mature and late successional forest, burned forest, insects, and 

snag conditions. 

Brown Creeper SPI Late successional conifer forest, large trees, and snag 

conditions. 

Golden-crowned Kinglet SPI Spruce forest, mostly mature and late-successional. 

Beaver SPI Riparian/aquatic habitat conditions (hardwood forests and shrub 

component). 

Song Sparrow SPI Riparian habitats. 

Grasshopper Sparrow R2 Prairie grassland. 

Ruffed Grouse SPI Aspen quality and vigor in pure and mixed stands. 

White-tailed Deer SPI Variety of forest conditions, including occurrence of understory 

shrubs. 

Mountain Sucker R2 Aquatic habitat condition and connectivity. 

1

 R2 = Region 2 Sensitive. SPI = Species of Special Interest 

The MIS analysis focuses on how the alternatives would influence the Forest-wide 

population trend (if available), the Forest-wide habitat trend, and attainment of Forest Plan 

Objective 238. Trend data for all species was obtained from the FY 2008 and or 2009 

Forest Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Reports (FPMER) (USDA Forest Service 2008a, 

2009b) unless otherwise indicated. Viability analysis has been completed at the Forest 

Plan level (USDA Forest Service 2005a), and therefore beyond the scope of this project 

level analysis. If the MIS species or suitable habitat does not occur in the project area, or if 

the species or its habitat is not affected by the Mystic Range Project, then it is excluded 

from further evaluation. If a species is known or suspected to occur in the project area or if 

suitable but unoccupied habitat is present or adjacent to the area; then the species has been 

evaluated with respect to effects of the proposed project activities (Table 3-4). 

Table 3-4 MIS Species and Rationale for Mystic Range Project Analysis.

Species 

Species/

Habitat 

Present? 

Analyzed Habitat Description 

Black-backed woodpecker 

(Picoides arcticus) Yes Yes 

Burned areas with a high density of pre-burn 

snags; dense and/or mature forests with a high 

snag density (Anderson 2003, Rocky 

Mountain Bird Observatory 2001-2009). 

Brown creeper 

(Certhia americana) Yes Yes 

In the Black Hills, white spruce and late 

successional pine appears to be the most 

important habitat type for this species 

(Wiggins 2005c, Rocky Mountain Bird 

Observatory 2001-2009). 

Golden-crowned kinglet

(Regulus satrapa) Yes Yes 

Found almost exclusively in white spruce 

habitat but occasionally present in other 

habitats with a spruce component (Rocky 

Mountain Bird Observatory 2001-2009). 

Beaver 

(Castor canadensis) Yes Yes 

Large rivers and lakes down to streams, 

marshes and small lakes with seepage/weak 

flow adequate for damming and suitable 

woody vegetation (Boyle and Owens 2007). 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 134

Species 

Species/

Habitat 

Present? 

Analyzed Habitat Description 

Song sparrow 

(Melospiza melodia) Yes Yes 

Streamside thickets, particularly shrubby 

willows, are required. Occasionally found in 

adjacent spruce habitat (Rocky Mountain Bird 

Observatory 2001-2009). 

Grasshopper sparrow 

(Ammodramus savannarum) Yes Yes 

Found almost exclusively in native mixedgrass prairies (Slater 2004, Rocky Mountain 

Bird Observatory 2001-2009). 

Ruffed grouse 

(Bonasa umbellus) Yes Yes 

Variable aged aspen stands, other hardwoods, 

and pine forests provide habitat. Winter 

habitat is almost exclusively aspen (Tallman 

et al. 2002, Wiggins 2006a). 

White-tailed deer

(Odocoileus virginianus) Yes Yes 

Very adaptable species that can live in almost 

any habitat. In South Dakota, this includes 

grasslands, wetlands, and woodlands (USDA 

Forest Service 2005a). 

Mountain sucker 

(Catostomus platyrhynchus) Yes Yes See Fisheries Report. 

Tree Nesting MIS Species: 

The following species are dependent on trees for nesting, and are analyzed together in 

this section: black-backed woodpecker, brown creeper, and golden-crowned kinglet. 

Black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus)

The black-backed woodpecker has dual management status; it is both an MIS and a R2 

sensitive species. To reduce redundancy, most life history, current condition, and predicted 

effects information are provided in the Mystic Range Project BA/BE. Only MIS-specific 

documentation requirements are provided here (e.g., trend information and analysis of 

Objective 238). Forest Plan vegetation objectives that apply to the black-backed woodpecker 

in the Mystic Range Project are 11.03, 211, 218, 221, and 238, 4.1-203, 5.1-204, and 5.4-

206. These objectives relate to snags, pine structural stages, insects/fire, and maintenance of 

white spruce. Large trees are important habitat component for the black-backed woodpecker. 

Insect infested trees and large diameter snags provide foraging and nesting habitat. 

Forest monitoring indicates that where large wildfires have occurred over the past decade, the 

species has been observed much more frequently and in higher densities. The Forest-wide 

relative density for this species is probably higher than “normal” given the current habitat 

conditions, because black-backed woodpecker populations are ‘eruptive” as reflected in their 

densities in burned habitat. This pattern of rapid colonization and subsequent decline is 

consistent with findings of other studies (Anderson 2003). The “aging” of large burned 

areas, such as the Jasper Fire, into habitat less suitable for black-backed woodpeckers is 

likely being offset by the increasing acreage of insect-infested timber stands and the stable 

acreage of large diameter, older pine trees (USDA Forest Service 2009a). This species’ 

Forest-wide population trend is also likely to decline in the future as vegetation management 

efforts to reduce the fire-hazard and insect-risk continue. Blakesly et al. (2008) projected it 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 135

will take 25 years to detect a 3% annual decline for this species in burned habitats. Overall, 

habitat for this species is being provided across the Forest, consistent with Objective 238b, 

Objective 221 and Objective 11.03 (USDA Forest Service 2009a). 

In the Black Hills, this woodpecker’s distribution and abundance is closely associated with 

recent stand-replacing fires and insect outbreaks (Bonnot et al. 2009, Rocky Mountain Bird 

Observatory 2001- 2009). These conditions provide increased numbers of their main prey: 

larvae of wood-boring beetles, engraver beetles, and bark beetles (Saab et al. 2007). 

Currently the Hell Canyon Ranger District is preparing an EIS for vegetative treatments in 

the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve (Norbeck Wildlife Preserve Project) that would affect 

portions of the Palmer Gulch Allotment. These treatments are to enhance species diversity 

and improve habitat for selected focus species. The black-backed woodpecker is 

considered a Norbeck focus species (Griebel et al. 2007, USDA Forest Service 2004, 

2007). This species has been documented in all eight of the allotments. Livestock grazing

per se does not affect this species habitat or their prey species. 

Brown creeper (Certhia americana) 

The Forest vegetation objectives that most closely apply to the brown creeper in the 

Mystic Range Project are 211, 218, 238, 239-LVD, 4.1-203, 5.1-204 and 5.4-206, which 

relate to maintenance of snags, pine structural stages, very large trees, and white spruce. 

In the Black Hills, the brown creeper is well distributed but low in abundance and is closely 

associated with dense mature and late successional ponderosa pine stands (structural stages 4C 

and 5) and white spruce forests (USDA Forest Service 2005a). Within that context, dead or 

decaying trees are particularly important because they provide nesting and foraging substrates. 

Large trees are important habitat component for brown creepers for foraging. Insect infested 

trees and large diameter snags provide foraging and nesting habitat (Wiggins 2005). Evidence 

suggests this species is area-sensitive (prefers blocks of habitat >30 acres in size), and may be 

susceptible to timber management and forest fragmentation (Wiggins 2005). 

Forest-wide data suggests in the short-term, relative densities of the brown creeper declined 

in 2007 compared to previous years. Blakesly et al. (2008) projected it will take 25 years to 

detect a 3% annual decline for this species in pine-north, late successional and white spruce 

habitats, and 30 years in pine-south habitat. The Forest-wide habitat appears to be 

increasing based on preferred habitat (i.e., 4C, 5, & white spruce). It appears that Objective 

238a is being met, although the Forest’s ability to provide structural stage 5 and 4C with 

very large trees is not being met short-term. Continued effort and additional time is needed 

to increase the number of acres in structural stage 5 across the Forest (USDA Forest Service 

2008a, 2009a). 

The brown creeper is considered a Norbeck focus species (Griebel et al. 2007, USDA Forest 

Service 2004, 2007). This species has been documented in all of the allotments except for 

the Porcupine Allotment. Livestock grazing per se has no affect on this species’ habitat or 

their prey. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 136

Golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa) 

The Forest objectives that are most relevant to the golden-crowned kinglet are 211, 218, 

238, and 239-LVD, which encourage maintenance of large snags and management for 

20,000 acres of spruce across the Forest. 

The golden-crowned kinglet is found primarily in the northern Black Hills, with more 

localized occurrences in the southern hills and Bearlodge Mountains. This kinglet prefers 

spruce communities but it may be found in lower densities in other forest types. This

species forages on bark beetle larvae and may be found in heavily infested MPB areas, 

especially with a spruce component. It is assumed that spruce is the preferred habitat of 

golden-crowned kinglet on the Forest, although it is possible that this entire habitat is not 

occupied and that this species may be found in other areas (USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

Forest-wide monitoring data suggests in the short-term, the golden-crowned kinglet 

relative density in 2007 was the lowest since the forest bird monitoring program began in 

2001. Blakesly et al. (2008) projected it will take 20 years to detect a 3% annual decline 

for this species in white spruce habitat. The Forest is meeting Objective 238a based on 

the acres of preferred habitat. In addition, the habitat continues to increase and exceed 

Objective 239 (USDA Forest Service 2008a, 2009a). 

The golden crowned kinglet is considered a Norbeck focus species (Griebel et al. 2007, 

USDA Forest Service 2004, 2007). This species has been documented in all of the 

allotments except for the Porcupine Allotment. Grazing livestock per se does not affect the 

habitat of this species or its prey. 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Tree Nesting MIS Species: 

Alternative A - No Action 

There are no direct or indirect effects expected under this alternative. Since livestock 

grazing has no affect on the availability of foraging and nesting habitat for these tree nesting 

birds, there would be no effect to this species habitat if livestock grazing was terminated. 

Removal of livestock grazing, however, would likely increase available watering habitat for 

these species by raising water tables, and increasing riparian vegetation cover and 

composition that would protect them from predators. 

Alternative B 

There are no direct effects expected to tree nesting species from the grazing of livestock 

per se. Potential direct effects to these species may come from possible nest disturbance 

and associated nesting failure (loss of eggs and hatchlings) resulting from activities 

related to livestock grazing such as maintenance and reconstruction of range 

improvement structures (e.g. fence line clearing). Indirect effects for tree nesting species 

would be minimal, although livestock overuse in riparian areas may alter riparian 

vegetation species composition, decrease cover, and watering sources that could lead to 

increased potential for predation (see Riparian/Aquatic MIS Species section). 

Although livestock grazing in riparian areas would be reduced, grazing would still affect 

stream bank stability, extent, and diversity of riparian vegetation more than Alternative A. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 137

In riparian areas where site specific resource problems have been identified, stream 

morphology and hydrology would continue to be of concern in the absence of management 

options to address those concerns (e.g., additional fencing, off-site water developments). 

These site-specific areas of concerns would improve but at a slower rate compared to 

Alternative A. Prey species availability (e.g., arthropods) would not be affected by this 

alternative. 

Reduced grazing impact in riparian areas and increased streambank stability, 

improvement in riparian vegetation extent and diversity, and restoration of hydrologic 

function would benefit tree nesting MIS species similar to Alternative C. 

Alternative C 

There are no direct effects expected to tree nesting species from the grazing of livestock 

per se. Potential direct effects to these species come from nest disturbance and possible 

loss of nests (eggs and hatchlings) as a result of associated activities like fence line 

maintenance/construction, and prescribed burning. Prescribed burning in the Porcupine 

Allotment could decrease black-backed woodpecker preferred habitat (recently created 

snags) in the Jasper Fire area but may increase nesting/foraging habitat for these bark 

gleaning birds by creating new snags in previously unburned areas of this allotment. 

Prey species availability (e.g. arthropods) would not be affected by this alternative. 

As in Alternative B, adjustments in actual grazing use would occur to meet desired 

conditions. Although livestock grazing in riparian areas would be reduced, grazing 

would still affect stream bank stability, extent, and diversity of riparian vegetation more 

than Alternative A. Reduced grazing impact in riparian areas and increased streambank 

stability, improvement in riparian vegetation extent and diversity, and restoration of 

hydrologic function would benefit tree nesting MIS species similar to Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects to Tree Nesting MIS Species 

The exclusion of fire has increased stand densities that limit post-fire conditions preferred 

by black-backed woodpeckers. However, this increase in dense stand conditions and 

spruce habitat has benefited the golden-crowned kinglet and brown creeper. 

Past activities that affect tree nesting species’ habitat include timber harvest (salvage and 

green) by the removal of large trees and snags that would have provided nesting habitat. 

Management practices, including patch-cutting, overstory removal, salvage, and shelter 

wood harvest of ponderosa pine have converted many stands previously dominated by 

open, large diameter pine to stands now characterized as young even-aged stands. 

Treatment in spruce stands has generally been limited, and occurred primarily to manage 

fuels or to enhance hardwoods. Ponderosa pine stands have also experienced reductions 

in snag and down wood habitat due the firewood cutting, which was allowed forest-wide 

until 1997. Personal use firewood collection of non-standing dead would continue to 

occur, along with removal of standing and downed wood in designated firewood 

gathering areas, which may remove nest trees and foraging substrates. High road 

densities in some areas provide access for firewood gatherers. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 138

Recent wildfires such as the Jasper Fire (Porcupine Allotment) and the Horse Creek Burn 

(Bald Horse Allotment) have increased habitat short-term for the black-backed 

woodpecker but have reduced habitat for the brown creeper and golden-crowned kinglet. 

The current mountain pine beetle epidemic (USDA Forest Service 2009a) has increased 

nesting and foraging habitat for tree nesting species in the short-term, but would reduce 

nesting and foraging habitat long-term. Future prescribed burns are expected to be 

beneficial for these species. However, as mountain pine beetle (MPB) tree mortality 

increases, there is a greater chance of large stand replacing fires such as the Jasper Fire, 

which would ultimately reduce habitat for these species long-term. 

Changes in private land from agricultural purposes to developed communities has reduced 

habitat for these species. In addition, past and future fuel reduction projects including 

removal of standing and downed wood within 200 feet of private land, construction of fuel 

breaks, thinning of spruce stands adjacent to private land, and prescribed burns to protect 

private property from wildfire would likely reduce habitat for these species. Alternatives B 

and C are expected to contribute to cumulative effects but not to a greater degree than 

currently exists. 

Conclusions for Tree Nesting MIS Species 

Overall, livestock grazing would not change forest canopy, reduce large trees, reduce large 

snags, or affect foraging substrates for tree nesting species. The implementation of Alternatives 

B or C would have minimal cumulative effect on tree nesting species due to livestock grazing 

and associated range improvements. None of the alternatives would influence the Forest-wide 

population trend, Forest-wide habitat trend, or attainment of Objective 238a for the blackbacked woodpecker, brown creeper, and golden-crowned kinglet. 

Riparian/Aquatic MIS Species: 

The beaver and song sparrow are dependent on riparian habitat/vegetation, and are analyzed 

together in this section. 

Beaver (Castor canadensis) 

Forest Plan objectives that most closely apply to beaver in the Mystic Range Project 

allotments are 103, 104, 108, 201, 213, 214, and 238. Long-term stream health and 

sustained water flows as they relate to the Mystic Range Project are discussed in the 

Hydrology Report. Objectives 201 and 213 encourage maintenance of aspen and riparian 

area diversity, physical structure, and size. Such habitats are used by beaver for food, 

dams, and shelter. Forest Plan standards and guidelines 1301, 1302, 2207, 2505c &d, 

3210, and 3212 would maintain or enhance habitat for this species. 

Beaver occur throughout much of North America. They are semi-aquatic, and in the 

Black Hills and elsewhere, are widely distributed in streams, lakes, and marshes where 

permanent water is present. Beaver require aspen, willow, or cottonwood as a main food 

source. Beaver also use these and other woody plants to construct their dams and lodges. 

Beavers are considered a keystone species, because of their ability to restore degraded 

wetlands and provide habitat for many other species. Other than overharvest for fur, the
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 139

most serious threats to beaver populations are habitat destruction and degradation due to 

human land uses such as water manipulations, livestock grazing in riparian areas, and 

urban and agricultural development in riparian/wetland areas. Human population growth 

and increasing demands on water resources have led to water storage, diversion, and 

channelization projects that affect water available in rivers, lakes, and wetlands (Boyle 

and Owens 2007). Large herbivores such as deer, elk may compete with beavers for 

riparian vegetation. These native species may reduce beaver food supply by eating

shoots of aspen and other woody species or by trampling willow stands and suppressing 

stand reproduction. Livestock, especially cattle grazing in riparian areas can also degrade 

beaver habitat by removing woody vegetation (Boyle and Owens 2007). Restoring 

beaver populations to their maximum capability on the Forest would require restoring and 

maintaining healthy riparian ecosystems that would increase the potential for beaver reestablishment (Boyle and Owens 2007). In South Dakota beaver are classified as 

furbearers, and as such are legally harvested during a three month period. 

Baseline beaver surveys conducted on the Forest during 2004 indicated 259 - 392 beaver 

existed in nearly 80 known colonies. The long-term beaver population trend has 

increased in the Black Hills since heavy trapping was moderated by hunting regulations 

but it is less than its potential. The long-term habitat trend suggests decline, as evidenced 

by the decreasing quality of riparian habitats since European settlement, and a decrease in 

the amount of aspen over the past 30 years. In 2007, beaver abundance and distribution 

was monitored. Surveys were performed via helicopter to locate beaver food caches. 

Preliminary data resulted in a food cache density of approximately one cache for every 24 

miles of perennial stream. Overall, 20 of the 52 sixth level watersheds (38%) surveyed 

had beaver food caches present (USDA Forest Service 2008a). Additional time is needed 

to determine the trend in beaver abundance and distribution based on the food cache 

protocol (USDA Forest Service 2008a). Beaver have been documented in all allotments 

except for the Porcupine Allotment. 

Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) 

Forest Plan objectives that most closely apply to the song sparrow are 103, 104, and 213, 

214, and 238 which encourages management that promotes long-term stream health and 

riparian area diversity, physical structure, and size. Forest Plan riparian area objectives 

(i.e., 213 and 214) that promote restoration of riparian habitats may be accomplished 

long-term through management of livestock. Forest Plan standards and guidelines 1301, 

1302, 2505c and d, 3210, and 3212, would maintain or enhance habitat for this species. 

This species is a summer resident of many Black Hills riparian areas, but it is most 

common in the northern hills. It occurs mainly in streamside thickets, especially willows, 

and is dependent upon these habitats throughout the breeding season. This sparrow has 

also been found in spruce areas adjacent to streams. The song sparrow forages on the 

ground in dense underbrush for invertebrates, seeds, and fruits. Nests are low to the 

ground in shrubs and understory vegetation (Arcese et al. 2002, USDA Forest Service 

2005a). Greatest threats to this species are loss of deciduous riparian habitat to human 

development, conversion to agricultural land and livestock grazing (Tewksbury et al. 

2002). Human population growth and increasing demands on water resources have led to 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 140

water storage, diversion, and channelization projects that affect water available in rivers, 

lakes, and wetlands. Livestock grazing in riparian areas can degrade song sparrow 

habitat by removing woody vegetation, destroying nests, and increase parasitism and 

predation rates (Tewksbury et al. 2002). 

Forest-wide monitoring data suggests in the short-term, the relative density of song 

sparrows in 2008 had slightly declined since the forest bird monitoring program began in 

2001. Blakesly et al. (2008) projected it will take 20 years to detect a 3% annual decline 

for this species in the three riparian habitat types monitored (Rocky Mountain Bird 

Observatory 2001-2009). Riparian habitats have decreased in quantity and quality since

the pre-European settlement era, indicating a long-term declining habitat trend (Parrish et 

al. 1996). Implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines, regional watershed 

conservation practices and best management practices maintain riparian habitat, but at 

less than its full potential. Small riparian protection projects that have improved riparian 

conditions in some areas contribute to habitat enhancement and achievement of Objective 

238a. The song sparrow is considered a Norbeck focus species (Griebel et al. 2007, 

USDA Forest Service 2004, 2007). This species has been documented in all of the 

allotments. 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Riparian/Aquatic MIS Species: 

Alternative A- No Action 

There are no direct effects expected under this alternative to either of the riparian/aquatic 

MIS species. The possibility of song sparrow egg or nestling mortality due to livestock 

trampling would be eliminated. Indirect effects from a lack of grazing include increased 

herbaceous vegetation (e.g., willow, aspen) used for nesting and concealment cover, 

elevated water tables, improved water quantity and quality, lower water temperatures, 

and increasing the size and width of riparian/stream habitat. Since over-utilization of 

riparian habitat affects food resources for beaver, the lack of grazing could potentially 

increase populations of beaver in these allotments. Song sparrows have been found to 

increase significantly in areas where livestock grazing was discontinued (Krueper 1992). 

The overall available habitat for these species would improve in these allotments. 

Riparian recovery would occur but the rate of recovery would be slower in more 

degraded riparian habitat. In some cases where non-native plant communities have

become established or hydrologic function has been severely altered, restoration to 

historic conditions may not be achievable. In general, Alternative A would improve 

habitat for riparian dependent species at a greater rate compared to Alternatives B and C. 

Alternative B 

Direct effects to beaver are not anticipated. Direct effects to song sparrows may include 

potential mortality from crushing song sparrow eggs or chicks, knocking eggs or chicks 

out of nests, or covering nests with manure. 

Livestock grazing may indirectly affect riparian species that utilize understory and midstory vegetation for cover, feeding, building nests, or creating dams. Livestock grazing 

would trample stream banks, removing overhanging vegetation, widen channels, 

aggrading channels, increasing water temperatures and lowering the water table; all of 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 141

which lead to reduced riparian shrub habitat (Boyle and Owens 2007, Jellison et al. 2007, 

Belsky et al. 1999, Finch et al. 1997, Kauffman et al 1983, Kauffman and Krueger 1984, 

Belica and Nibbelink 2006, Boyle and Owens 2007). Livestock grazing has the potential 

to accelerate the breakdown of beaver ponds, degrade springs/seeps, and to over-utilize 

riparian vegetation (i.e., willows, aspen, and other hardwood components), therefore 

reducing habitat suitability for beaver (NatureServe 2009). For ground nesting birds, 

such as the song sparrow, removal of vegetation adjacent to a nest can increase the risk of 

predation on eggs or chicks (Ammon and Stacey 1997). Tewksbury et al. (2002) found 

that song sparrows responded negatively to livestock grazing. 

Under current management, residual levels of key riparian plant species have not been 

established, which has resulted in grazing levels higher than desired. In general, utilization 

of willows in riparian areas by livestock and/or big game is currently exceeding Forest Plan 

levels in some areas. Designated Monitoring Area (DMA) data suggest stream banks in 

seven of the eight allotments are stable (Bald Horse, Palmer Gulch, Rimmer, Redfern, Slate 

Prairie, and Tigerville); the remaining area indicate declining streambank stability 

(Deerfield). The extent and diversity of riparian vegetation varies between allotments. 

While none of the allotments currently meet desired conditions for hydric plant species, 

two of the eight allotments (Palmer Gulch and Redfern) are closer to desired conditions 

than the remaining allotments. 

Under this alternative, adherence to Forest Plan standards, guidelines and utilization 

standards, identifying residual levels for riparian areas, and adjustments to livestock use 

based on monitoring should improve riparian plant communities, hydrologic function, 

and in-stream habitat from existing conditions. Design criteria include a Drought 

Management approach that would allow for temporary adjustment of the annual livestock 

numbers and season of use during periods of drought. Current utilization patterns would 

continue or be adjusted based on annual monitoring results, and other factors (e.g., 

drought, fire) on a pasture by pasture basis. Some improvement in upland and riparian 

conditions and trends would occur with adjustments in the Annual Operating Instructions 

(AOI) and those management options (e.g., herding, mineral placement) available under

this alternative that would improve livestock distribution away from riparian areas. In 

allotments where the capability assessments indicate over-stock conditions; there is a 

greater probability that AUMs would be reduced to meet Desired Conditions long term. 

For allotments where the capability assessments indicate under-stocked conditions, there 

is less potential that AUMs would be reduced long-term. However, to meet desired 

conditions, a reduction in actual use could occur in some allotments. 

Livestock are expected to be moved to the next pasture before thresholds for upland (50% 

utilization) or riparian (4” stubble heights) are reached. In general, upland areas would 

continue to receive disproportionate use when compared to riparian areas because 

riparian threshold would likely cause livestock to move to another pasture regardless of 

use in the uplands. By implementing riparian stubble height requirements, there is a 

greater potential livestock would leave the allotment earlier (removal) in the grazing 

season short term (3-5 years). This would depend on the permittees’ commitment to 

managing distribution of livestock, especially way from riparian areas. Reduced grazing 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 142

that result in increased streambank stability, improvement in riparian vegetation, extent, 

and diversity, and restoration of hydrologic function would benefit riparian dependent 

species. Although livestock grazing in riparian areas would be reduced, grazing would 

still affect stream bank stability, extent, and diversity of riparian vegetation more than 

Alternative A. A lag time between actual livestock use, implementation of various 

management options to improve livestock distribution, and effectiveness monitoring may 

lengthen the period before changes in riparian condition could be noted. 

In Alternative B, new structural improvements that have a potential to improve livestock 

distribution and reduce grazing impacts to riparian areas would not occur. In riparian 

areas where site specific resource problems have been identified, stream morphology and 

hydrologic function may continue to be of concern in the absence of management options 

to address those concerns (e.g. additional fencing, off-site water developments). Riparian 

areas with resource concerns include Slate Creek in both the Redfern and Slate Prairie 

Allotments, Crooked Creek in the Rimmer Allotment, Victoria Creek in the Bald Horse 

Allotment, and Spruce Gulch in the Redfern Allotment (See Range and Hydrology 

Specialist Reports). In general, negative effects to those riparian areas with resource 

concerns are higher in Alternative B compared to Alternative C. 

Since livestock prefer cooler mesic areas during hot dry periods (Parsons et al. 2003, McInnis 

and McIver 2009), permittees commitment to moving livestock out of the riparian areas 

becomes crucial to meeting desired conditions, especially later in the grazing season. If 

livestock distribution out of riparian areas does not occur, riparian thresholds would cause 

livestock to be moved earlier than planned in each pasture, potentially resulting in livestock 

removal from the allotment prior to late summer and fall (late August through October). 

Results from early removal would be beneficial to riparian/aquatic species in several ways. 

Livestock prefer to browse shrub species later in the season due to browse increased protein 

content and palatability compared with the declining quality of herbaceous components 

available (Parsons et al. 2003, Ehrhart and Hanson 1997, Gillen et al. 1985). Early removal 

would reduce browsing impacts to riparian shrub species. In addition, early removal may 

improve riparian areas by reducing stream bank instability and alteration caused by trampling, 

allow time for subsequent re-growth of plant species (e.g., carbohydrate storage, seed 

production) and lengthen the non-grazed recovery period before high flows the following year 

((McInnis and McIver 2009, Ehrhart and Hansen 1997, Boyd and Svejcar 2004). Potentially, 

movement toward desired conditions could take a shorter period of time compared to 

Alternative C if livestock continue to be moved from the pastures prior to planned dates long 

term (>5 years). However, there is a potential that actual use on some allotments, especially 

those under-stocked, would remain the same if permittees actively improve livestock 

distribution away from riparian areas. If distribution away from riparian areas allows for a 

longer season of use, Alternative B and C would be similar in effects in both long-term. 

Alternative C 

Direct and indirect effects to beaver and song sparrows and their habitats are similar to 

the effects discussed under Alternative B. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 143

Livestock management options available in Alternative B would be the same in 

Alternative C. In addition, Alternative C would allow for new structural improvements 

such as fence lines, water developments, riparian exclosures, and riparian pastures that 

would help achieve better distribution of livestock across the allotment pastures. In 

riparian areas where site specific resource problems have been identified, stream 

morphology and hydrologic function are likely to improve if fences are constructed that 

limit livestock use in those areas. Off-site water developments and relocation of watering 

structures appear to be an important tool to encourage livestock to move away from 

riparian areas (Ehrhart and Hansen 1997). Where riparian exclosures are created, these 

non-grazed areas would likely improve riparian conditions similar to Alternative A. In 

general, these additional management options should improve riparian vegetation 

composition, increase stream bank stability, and restore hydrologic function in riparian 

areas more so than Alternative B. 

As with Alternative B, livestock are expected to be moved to the next pasture before

thresholds for upland and riparian stubble heights are reached. In general, upland areas 

would continue to receive disproportionate use when compared to riparian areas because 

riparian utilization levels would cause livestock to move to another pasture regardless of 

use in the uplands. By implementing riparian stubble height requirements, there is a 

greater potential livestock would leave the Forest earlier in the grazing season short term 

(3-5 years), similar to Alternative B. This would depend on the permittees’ commitment to 

implementation of structural improvements and managing distribution of livestock, 

especially away from riparian areas. As in Alternative B, adjustments in actual grazing use 

would occur to meet desired conditions. Although livestock grazing in riparian areas 

would be reduced, grazing would still affect stream bank stability, extent, and diversity of 

riparian vegetation more than Alternative A. Reduced grazing impact in riparian areas and 

increased streambank stability, improvement in riparian vegetation extent and diversity, 

and restoration of hydrologic function would benefit riparian dependent species similar to 

Alternative B. A lag time between actual livestock use, implementation of structural 

improvements (funding and construction), and effectiveness monitoring may lengthen the

period before changes in riparian condition would be noted. 

It is anticipated that structural improvements, when implemented, would improve livestock 

distribution. This could likely increase the duration that livestock spend in a pasture before 

riparian thresholds are exceeded. Therefore, in the long term (>5 years), there is less 

potential for early removal of livestock before their forage preferences change to browse 

species. Late season use may be detrimental to the health of riparian areas when browsing 

of willows is more likely to occur, re-growth period is shortened, streambank instability due 

to trampling increases and non-grazed recovery period is reduced. Such impacts to shrub 

species and reduced vegetation productivity would reduce habitat for riparian/aquatic 

species. Potentially, movement toward desired conditions could take a longer period of time 

as compared to Alternative B due an extended grazing season. Therefore, there is slightly 

greater potential to increase the effects to riparian communities and the species that use 

them compared to Alternative B. However, as in Alternative B, the permittees’ commitment 

to moving livestock out of riparian areas becomes crucial to meeting desired conditions, 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 144

especially later in the grazing season. With setting riparian stubble height requirements, 

Alternative B and C would be similar in effects in the short term. 

Prescribed burning in the Porcupine Allotment would not affect these species, due to the 

lack of riparian habitats and stream courses. 

Cumulative Effects 

Historic livestock overgrazing, the reduction of beaver, road construction, timber harvest 

activities, recreation use, mining activities, land development and the resulting

degradation of the majority of stream channels, and lowering of water tables in the 

allotments have affected the function and potential for many riparian areas to support 

riparian shrub and hardwood component. The resultant decline in hydrologic function 

has reduced riparian species such as green ash, cottonwood, aspen, birch, and willow to 

isolated, fragmented patches. Drought conditions over the past decade exacerbated the 

poor condition of most riparian areas. Ungulate browse and conifer encroachment has 

also led to the suppression of hardwood regeneration and development. 

Past harvest activities, forest succession and fire suppression activities have resulted in a 

much denser forest condition. Higher conifer densities have resulted in decreased water 

to riparian habitat and thus negatively affected riparian areas. Fire suppression has 

eliminated a primary disturbance agent for regeneration of aspen. Conversely, beneficial 

effects to riparian habitats have resulted from past and current removal of pine trees, 

prescribed burns, and wildfires. Riparian hardwood and grassland habitats have been 

enhanced by removing encroaching conifers. Future removal of pine through vegetative 

treatments is expected. Effects would be similar to those previously described. 

Stand replacing wildfires have increased grassland and hardwood communities but have 

negatively affected riparian areas in those burns. Sediment, changes in stream morphology 

and hydrologic function has affected water temperatures, pH and water quality needed for 

aquatic invertebrates. These changes may influence distribution of riparian dependent 

species. Future prescribed burns are not expected to have the adverse effects associated 

with high intensity, high severity wildfires. 

Road/trail location and recreation use (motorized vehicles) has negatively affected some 

aquatic habitat through trampling of vegetation, increased sediment, destabilizing banks, 

and the spread of noxious weeds. High road densities increase the chances of beaver 

being trapped out of drainages, which reduces the effectiveness of beaver complexes to 

improve water tables and increase willows. In addition, due to the close proximity of 

streams to roads and residents, beaver are commonly removed to prevent flooding and 

damage to structures. However, the Black Hills National Forest is in the process of 

determining a forest-wide travel management plan, which would eliminate motorize 

travel off-road and limit motorized use to specific areas/roads and limit use periods, 

reducing the impacts to these species. 

Private land uses increase the potential for loss of hydrologic function in many of the 

allotment riparian areas. Road construction, water impoundments, wells, draining of 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 145

wetlands, clearing and development would likely impact available water and would reduce 

habitat for riparian dependent species. Overgrazing on private land would have a negative 

effect on these riparian dependent species as well as their habitat. 

Livestock grazing and grazing by wild ungulates would continue in riparian areas. For 

riparian/aquatic MIS species, loss of hardwood and shrub habitat, trampling of beaver 

dams, reduced nesting success, and hydrologic problems are likely to continue, to varying 

degrees. Alternatives B and C are expected to contribute to cumulative effects but not to 

a greater degree than currently exists. 

Conclusions for Riparian/Aquatic MIS Species 

Assuming Forest Plan utilization standards are met in the future, Forest-wide song sparrow, 

and beaver populations would likely remain stable, and allow for the attainment of Forest 

Plan Objective 238. Riparian dependent species would benefit most from Alternative A. 

The Phase II Amendment FEIS determined that there would be adequate habitat for 

maintaining riparian/aquatic species if standards and guidelines are followed, and if 

conditions move towards riparian restoration objectives. Implementation of Alternatives B 

and C would follow Forest Plan standards and guidelines and contribute to riparian stability 

or improvement. 

Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) 

The grasshopper sparrow has dual management status; it is both an MIS and a R2 

sensitive species. To reduce redundancy, most life history, current condition, and 

predicted effects information are provided in the Mystic Range Project Wildlife BA/BE. 

Only MIS-specific documentation requirements are provided here (e.g., trend 

information, analysis of Objective 238). Forest Plan objectives that most closely apply to 

the grasshopper sparrow are 205, 218, 221, and 238. Objective 205 provides direction to 

manage for 122,000 acres of prairie grassland and 3,600 acres of meadow. Forest Plan 

standards 2107, 2505, and 3125 would be applicable to this species. 

In the Black Hills, this species is found mostly in native mixed-grass prairies but is 

documented in other types of grasslands (RMBO 2001-2009, Vickery 1996). This species 

appears to be “area sensitive” (>30 ha), with a close association with grasslands of 

intermediate height. Over-grazing in mixed- and short grass prairies is a serious threat to 

grasshopper sparrow habitats. Livestock grazing has replaced the native grazers (bison, 

pronghorn, and prairie dogs) that do not mimic the historical grazing patters of these native 

herbivores. These native ungulates movements provided a variety of successional stages 

and conditions. Current livestock practices cause the vegetation to become too short, too 

open, and uniform heights for grasshopper sparrow use. However, when grazing was 

restricted to light to moderate levels, there was little effect to grasshopper sparrow densities 

(Slater 2004). Threats to this species are habitat loss due to conifer encroachment, habitat 

fragmentation, and habitat degradation from grazing and fire regimes that often fail to 

replicate the natural dynamics under which these species and their habitat evolved (Slater 

2004, USDA Forest Service 2005a). 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 146

According to the FPMER, density estimates for the grasshopper sparrow have continued 

to increase since 2002. Grassland cover types are currently below management 

objectives. The general perception is that grassland habitats have been declining due to 

pine encroachment. However, the forest is maintaining existing grassland habitat 

consistent with Objective 238a and additional time and effort is needed to achieve the 

grassland acreage identified in Objective 205 (USDA Forest Service 2008a, 2009a). 

In Mystic Range Project area, there are approximately 6,185 acres of grassland 

communities. Additional acres of grassland probably exist, especially on soils that have 

formed under grass. This species has been documented in the Jasper Fire area, Reynolds 

and Slate Prairies, and the Bald Hills. 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Grasshopper Sparrow: 

Alternative A - No Action 

There are no direct effects expected under this alternative. Indirect effects include 

increasing the amount of nesting habitat, foraging habitat and prey abundance. However, 

this species evolved with sporadic grazing by ungulates (e.g., bison, deer, and elk) which 

created a patchy mosaic of short and tall grass. Light to moderate grazing has had a 

beneficial effect on nesting and forage quality for this species. Therefore, the potential 

exists that with no livestock grazing, nesting and forage quality along with grasshopper 

sparrow abundance could decline. Studies have shown that grasshopper sparrows avoid 

tall dense grassland areas (Slater 2004). In the absence of grazing, pine encroachment 

into native grasslands may increase, negatively affecting this species by increasing 

predation rates due to cover, providing raptor perches along with a reduction of grassland 

patch size. This alternative would provide habitat for this grassland species to a lesser 

degree compared to the action alternatives. 

Alternative B 

Direct effects from livestock grazing include potential mortality of eggs and nestlings due to 

trampling nests, crushing eggs or chicks, knocking eggs or young out of nests or beds, or 

covering eggs, chicks or young with manure piles. Light to moderate grazing has had 

beneficial effect on nesting and forage quality for this species. However, cattle grazing may 

indirectly affect the grasshopper sparrow by reducing its ability to avoid predators by 

removing required cover, increasing parasitism, changing grassland species composition, and 

reducing prey abundance, especially if grazing practices favor uniformly grazed areas (Finch 

et al. 1997). Under current management, some areas are currently over-stocked or livestock 

are poorly distributed in allotments, which results in grazing levels higher than desired. This 

results in low graminoid stubble height, thus eliminating important hiding cover that may 

increase predation. Under this alternative, grazing would continue but livestock are expected 

to be moved to the next pasture before thresholds for upland (50% utilization) or riparian (4” 

stubble heights) are reached. This would be based on annual variations in weather (e.g., 

drought) and range readiness, and the rate at which utilization or thresholds are met. In 

general, upland areas would continue to receive disproportionate use when compared to 

riparian areas because riparian utilization levels would cause livestock to move to another 

pasture regardless of use in the uplands. However, grazing large grasslands during the 

nesting season would have more effect on grasshopper sparrows than grazing them in the 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 147

dryer/hotter season by increasing nest disturbance, loss of nesting cover and increasing 

predation rates (DelCurto et al. 2005). Early season grazing could negatively affecting 

reproduction rates for these sparrows at a greater rate compared to Alternative A. The 

Porcupine Allotment is managed under HRM system which may result in reduced stubble

height and increased forage utilization to more than 50%. These stubble heights may have a 

negative short-term effect on grasshopper sparrow habitat by reducing stubble heights below 

three inches, but would have a positive long-term effect on this species by maintaining native 

grasses and increasing plant species diversity. Adherence to Forest Plan standards, 

guidelines and utilization standards should provide adequate habitat for these species but to a 

lesser degree than Alternative A. Effects would be similar to Alternative C. 

Alternative C 

Direct effects from livestock grazing include potential mortality of eggs and nestlings due 

to trampling nests crushing eggs or chicks, knocking eggs or young out of nests or beds, or 

covering eggs, chicks or young with manure. In direct effects are similar to Alternative B. 

Under this alternative, management options that allow new structures would help achieve 

better distribution of livestock across the allotment pastures and protect some 

riparian/stream areas from livestock damage (See riparian/aquatic MIS section). 

Construction of new structures would change distribution and use in areas currently underutilized, especially where additional water sources are made available. This could increase 

the effects to the grasshopper sparrow, if light grazing changes to moderate grazing 

intensity. Adherence to Forest Plan standards, guidelines and utilization standards should 

provide adequate habitat for these species. 

Prescribed burning in the Porcupine Allotment could affect grasshopper sparrow nesting and 

foraging habitat depending on timing, intensity, and severity. Prescribed burning could 

benefit this species by maintaining and/or increasing patch size of grasslands. However, 

frequent disturbances negatively affect sparrow habitat on short-grass and mixed grass 

prairies. Light to moderate grazing during the spring and the fall, along with well-timed 

prescribed fire that mimics the natural dynamics of grasslands, has been shown to enhance 

grasshopper sparrow habitat, thus increasing abundance (Bock et al. 1992, Dechant et al. 

1998). Alternative C would improve nesting and foraging habitat for this sparrow species 

similar to Alternative B but to a lesser degree than Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

Forest succession and fire suppression activities have resulted in a much denser forest 

conditions. Fire suppression has eliminated a primary disturbance agent needed to 

maintain large expanses of grassland needed by this species. The lack of fire has allowed 

pine to encroach into former grasslands, thus reducing habitat for this species over time. 

Past harvest activities that cause soil disturbance, usually results in pine regeneration. 

Vegetative treatments that cause ground disturbance in native grassland areas likely have 

increased the potential for invading pine in these plant communities. Conversely, 

beneficial effects to upland grasslands have resulted from past and current removal of 

encroaching pine trees, grassland restoration projects, prescribed burns, and wildfires. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 148

Future removal of pine through vegetative treatments is expected. However, forest 

succession and fire suppression would likely continue. 

Development of private land, construction of roads, conversion of native grasslands 

through agricultural practices, and introduction of non-native species to native prairies 

have fragmented habitats, reduced grasshopper sparrow nesting habitat, increased 

predation and reduced traditional prey species habitat for this species in the allotments. 

Removal of vegetation through mowing, wildfire, and prescribed burning during the 

critical nesting/brooding period have likely reduced suitable habitat for nesting, caused 

mortality, and reduced reproductive success, especially if these activities did not provide 

a mosaic of various grass successional stages that provide refuge for chicks and provide 

habitat for re-nesting. 

Use of herbicides on both private and forest have decreased vegetation species diversity in 

native, forb- rich grasslands (e.g., montane grasslands). This likely affected the abundance 

of prey host/nectar plants. Pesticide use on private could reduce prey abundance that 

would affect grasshopper sparrow distribution. 

Livestock grazing and grazing by wild ungulates would continue in grassland areas, to 

varying degrees. For the grasshopper sparrow, loss of cover nesting habitat, along with the 

potential for destruction of nests and eggs through trampling, and increased predation would 

likely continue on both private and forest land. Although this species evolved with ungulate 

grazing, overgrazing on both forest and private land would have a negative effect on this 

grassland dependent species as well as their habitat. Alternatives B and C are expected to 

contribute to cumulative effects but not to a greater degree than currently exists. 

Conclusion for Grasshopper Sparrow 

Assuming Forest Plan utilization standards are met in the future; Forest-wide grasshopper 

sparrow populations would likely remain stable, and allow for the attainment of Forest 

Plan Objective 238. The Phase II Amendment FEIS determined that there would be 

adequate habitat for maintaining this species, if standards and guidelines are followed, 

and if conditions move towards grassland restoration objectives. Implementation of

Alternatives B and C would follow Forest Plan standards and guidelines and contribute to 

maintaining this species’ habitat. 

Ruffed Grouse (Bonasa umbellus) 

The Forest Plan objectives that most closely apply to ruffed grouse are 201, 213, 217, and 

238. Objective 201 encourages the Forest to provide at least 92,000 acres of aspen and 

16,000 acres of bur oak. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines 2107, 2202, and 2207, 

2505c, and 2505d would be applicable to maintaining habitat for this species. 

Ruffed grouse are widespread throughout the Black Hills, but occur in low abundance. This 

species is associated with hardwoods in a variety of age classes, including mature aspen 

stands used for drumming. Although found in conifers and hardwoods, this species is 

closely tied to aspen communities, relying on aspen buds and catkins in winter and spring, 

respectively. They typically nest at the base of a tree, bush, or stump. During the breeding 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 149

season, drumming areas and broods are found in forests with a tall, dense understory of 

shrubs and abundant ground cover (Wiggins 2006, NatureServe 2009). Undisturbed 

riparian areas are highly valuable ruffed grouse habitat. Livestock grazing and consequent 

understory trampling reduce the dense understory, making it easier for nest abandonment 

and predation. Browsing by livestock may impede regeneration of aspen, especially where 

elk and deer are common, and when livestock grazing was not carefully controlled (Wiggins 

2006, Jones et al. 2009). Threats are identified that likely affect grouse populations; lack of 

mixed-seral stage forest habitat, degradation of existing habitat due to fire suppression, and 

overgrazing by livestock and wild ungulates, and perturbations to local hydrology (Wiggins 

2006). The ruffed grouse is classified by SDGFP as an upland game bird with an annual 

hunting season in the fall (Wiggins 2006, USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

According to FPMER, the long-term habitat trend for ruffed grouse is one of decline given 

the reduction of aspen acreage compared to historic conditions. This has likely resulted in an 

associated population decline for ruffed grouse. Loss of aspen habitat is attributed to conifer 

encroachment and lack of periodic natural fire. There has been a slight decline in aspen acres 

over the ten-year period and additional time and effort would be needed to meet Objective 

238a. Development and implementation of a ruffed grouse monitoring protocol should allow 

for the detection of long-term population trend (USDA Forest Service 2008a, 2009a). 

The ruffed grouse is considered a Norbeck focus species (Griebel et al. 2007, USDA

Forest Service 2004, 2007). Currently the Hell Canyon District is preparing an EIS for 

vegetative treatments in the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve (Norbeck Wildlife Preserve 

Project) that would affect portions of the Palmer Gulch Allotment. These treatments are 

to enhance species diversity and improve habitat for selected focus species. In the Mystic 

Range Project, there are approximately 3,118 acres dominated by aspen. Ruffed grouse 

has been documented in the all of the allotments except the Bald Horse Allotment. 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Ruffed Grouse: 

Alternative A - No Action 

There are no direct effects expected under this alternative. The possibility of loss of nests, 

eggs, and chicks due to livestock trampling is eliminated. Indirect effects include 

increasing aspen/birch regeneration by reducing browsing, raising water tables, increased 

water quality and increases in riparian composition and structure. Kilpatrick (2001) found 

that restricting cattle grazing led to improved aspen regeneration. However, browsing of 

young aspen by wild ungulates would continue. The overall available habitat for ruffed 

grouse would improve if livestock grazing is no longer allowed on these allotments. 

Alternative B 

Direct effects may include potential mortality from crushing grouse eggs or chicks, 

knocking eggs or chicks out of nests, or covering nests with manure. Indirect effects

include the potential for livestock grazing to impede succession of aspen stands by 

browsing aspen leaders (Jones et al. 2009, Ehrhart and Hanson 1997), soil compaction 

due to trampling that would reduce suckering, and creating trails for predators. Loss of 

vegetation adjacent to a nest can increase the risk of predation on nests by predators 

(Ammon and Stacey 1997). Livestock grazing has the potential to accelerate the 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 150

breakdown of beaver ponds, degrade springs/seeps, and to over-utilize riparian vegetation 

(i.e., willows, aspen, and other hardwood components) which reduces brood habitat for 

grouse. Insect prey availability for broods may decrease in hardwood and riparian 

habitats. Thus livestock grazing can influence this species by changing vegetation 

structure and food supplies (See riparian/aquatic MIS discussion- Alternative B). 

Under this alternative, adherence to Forest Plan standards, guidelines and utilization 

standards, identifying residual levels for riparian areas, and adjustments to livestock use 

based on monitoring should improve riparian plant communities, hydrologic function, and 

in-stream habitat from existing conditions. Design criteria include a Drought Management 

approach that would allow for temporary adjustment of the annual livestock numbers and 

season of use during periods of drought. Current utilization patterns would continue or be 

adjusted based on annual monitoring results, and other factors (e.g., drought, fire) on a 

pasture by pasture basis. Some improvement in upland and riparian conditions and trends 

would occur with adjustments in the Annual Operating Instructions (AOI) and those 

management options (e.g., herding, mineral placement) available under this alternative that 

would improve livestock distribution away from riparian areas. In allotments where the 

capability assessments indicate over-stock conditions; there is a greater probability that 

AUMs would be reduced to meet desired conditions long term. For allotments where the 

capability assessments indicate under-stocked conditions, there is less potential that AUMs 

would be reduced long-term. However, to meet desired conditions, a reduction in actual 

use could occur in some allotments. 

Livestock are expected to be moved to the next pasture before thresholds for upland (50% 

utilization) or riparian (4” stubble heights) are reached. In general, upland areas would continue 

to receive disproportionate use when compared to riparian areas because riparian threshold 

would likely cause livestock to move to another pasture regardless of use in the uplands. 

Since livestock prefer cooler mesic areas during hot dry periods (Parsons et al. 2003, 

McInnis and McIver 2009), permittees commitment to moving livestock out of the riparian 

areas becomes crucial to meeting desired conditions, especially later in the grazing season. 

If livestock distribution out of riparian areas does not occur, riparian thresholds would cause 

livestock to be moved earlier than planned in each pasture, potentially resulting in livestock 

removal from the allotment prior to late summer and fall (late August through October). 

Livestock prefer to browse shrub species later in the season due to browse increased protein 

content and palatability compared with the declining quality of herbaceous components 

available (Parsons et al. 2003, Ehrhart and Hanson 1997, Gillen et al. 1985). Early removal 

would reduce browsing impacts to hardwood species. Less browsing on aspen terminal 

leaders would improve growth, increasing the amount of aspen in the MRPA (Jones et al. 

2009). Jones et al. (2009) suggests that both livestock grazing intensity and season of 

browse affects aspen regeneration, especially when terminal leaders are browsed greater 

than 20% and grazing occurred after July. In addition, early removal may improve riparian 

areas by reducing stream bank instability and alteration caused by trampling, allow time for 

subsequent re-growth of plant species (e.g., carbohydrate storage, seed production), and 

lengthen the non-grazed recovery period before high flows the following year (McInnis and 

McIver 2009, Ehrhart and Hansen 1997, Boyd and Svejcar 2004). Potentially, movement 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 151

toward desired conditions could take a shorter period of time compared to Alternative C if 

livestock continue to be moved from the pastures prior to planned dates long term (>5 

years). However, there is a potential that actual use on some allotments, especially those 

under-stocked, would remain the same if permittees actively improve livestock distribution 

away from riparian areas. If distribution away from riparian areas allows for a longer 

season of use, Alternative B and C would be similar in effects long-term. 

Alternative C 

Direct effects and indirect effects to ruffed grouse are similar to the effects discussed under 

Alternative B. Livestock management options available in Alternative B would be the 

same in Alternative C. In addition, Alternative C would allow for new structural 

improvements such as fence lines, water developments, riparian exclosures, and riparian 

pastures that would help achieve better distribution of livestock across the allotment 

pastures. In riparian areas where site specific resource problems have been identified, 

stream morphology and hydrologic function are likely to improve if fences are constructed 

that limit livestock use in those areas. Off-site water developments and relocation of 

watering structures appear to be an important tool to encourage livestock to move away

from riparian areas (Ehrhart and Hansen 1997). Where riparian exclosures are created, 

these non-grazed areas would likely improve riparian conditions similar to Alternative A. 

In general, these additional management options should improve riparian vegetation 

composition, increase stream bank stability, and restore hydrologic function in riparian 

areas more so than Alternative B. 

As with Alternative B, livestock are expected to be moved to the next pasture before

thresholds for upland and riparian stubble heights are reached. In general, upland areas 

would continue to receive disproportionate use when compared to riparian areas because 

riparian utilization levels would cause livestock to move to another pasture regardless of 

use in the uplands. By implementing riparian stubble height requirements, there is a 

greater potential livestock would leave the Forest earlier in the grazing season short term 

(3-5 years), similar to Alternative B. This would depend on the permittees’ commitment to 

implementation of structural improvements and managing distribution of livestock, 

especially away from riparian areas. As in Alternative B, adjustments in actual grazing use 

would occur to meet desired conditions. Although livestock grazing in riparian areas 

would be reduced, grazing would still affect stream bank stability, extent, and diversity of 

riparian vegetation more than Alternative A. Reduced grazing impact in riparian areas and 

increased streambank stability, improvement in riparian vegetation extent and diversity, 

and restoration of hydrologic function would benefit riparian dependent species similar to 

Alternative B. A lag time between actual livestock use, implementation of structural 

improvements (funding and construction), and effectiveness monitoring may lengthen the

period before changes in riparian condition would be noted. 

It is anticipated that structural improvements, when implemented, would improve 

livestock distribution. This could likely increase the duration that livestock spend in a 

pasture before riparian thresholds are exceeded. Therefore, in the long term (>5 years), 

there is less potential for early removal of livestock before their forage preferences 

change to browse species. Due to changes in livestock distribution, upland utilization is
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 152

expected to increase in areas where currently there is little or no use occurring, which 

could affect ruffed grouse forage and cover habitat. Livestock browsing from August 

through the rest of the season would likely reduce aspen regeneration potential, especially 

when terminal leaders are browsed more than 50%. In addition, late season use may be 

detrimental to the health of riparian areas when; browsing of willows is more likely to 

occur, re-growth period is shortened, streambank instability due to trampling increases 

and non-grazed recovery period is reduced. Potentially, movement toward desired 

conditions could take a longer period of time as compared to Alternative B due an 

extended grazing season. Therefore, there is slightly greater potential to increase the 

effects to ruffed grouse habitat compared to Alternative B. However, as in Alternative B, 

the permittees’ commitment to moving livestock, especially out of riparian areas becomes 

crucial to meeting desired conditions, especially later in the grazing season. With 

implementation of riparian stubble height requirements, Alternative B and C would be

similar in effects in the short term. 

Prescribed burning in the Porcupine Allotment would likely increase habitat, if burn 

intensity and duration is conducive to regenerating aspen. Direct and indirect effects 

from prescribed burning should have a minimal effect short-term but would likely 

increase hardwood habitat long-term. However, grazing management under the Holistic 

method may negatively affect aspen stands if grazing intensity is high and occurs after 

July. Adherence to Forest Plan standards, guidelines and utilization standards should 

maintain suitable habitat for the ruffed grouse similar to Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects to Ruffed Grouse 

The greatest effect to ruffed grouse has been the loss of healthy aspen stands due to fire 

suppression and forest succession. Past harvest activities, forest succession and fire 

suppression activities have resulted in a much denser, later seral forest condition. Fire 

suppression has eliminated a primary disturbance agent for aspen regeneration. Early 

successional species such as aspen are slowly declining, negatively affecting grouse 

habitat. In addition, higher conifer densities have resulted in decreased water to riparian 

areas and thus negatively affected riparian habitats. Loss of early seral stage aspen due to 

forest succession contributes cumulatively with loss of aspen in riparian areas from past 

over-utilization by livestock. Wildlife preference for aspen as an important browse 

species has likely impacted aspen regeneration, especially in the winter when forage is 

scarce. Conversely, beneficial effects to grouse habitat occur from past and future 

vegetative treatments, since open canopies stimulate hardwood regeneration and growth. 

Removal of pine in hardwood stands and riparian areas, prescribed burns, and hardwood 

regeneration improves habitat for this species. Forest plan goals to increase the number 

of acres of aspen/birch/oak would improve conditions for this species. Future removal of

pine and hardwood restoration through vegetative treatments is expected. Effects would 

be similar to those previously described. 

Recent stand replacing wildfires have increased aspen communities but have negatively 

affected riparian areas in those burns. Sediment, and changes in stream morphology and 

hydrology has affected water temperatures, pH and water quality needed for most 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 153

species. However, the increase in early seral aspen would benefit the ruffed grouse longterm. Future prescribed burns are expected to provide benefits to this species.

Road/trail location and recreation use (motorized vehicles) has negatively affected some 

aquatic habitat through trampling of vegetation, increased sedimentation, destabilized 

banks, and the spread of noxious weeds. A common forest practice to regenerate aspen is 

to cut mature stems and leave slash at a sufficient height and density to deter ungulate 

browsing. High road densities increase the potential for downed aspen in these areas to 

be removed for fuel wood, thus removing barriers to ungulates. In addition, open road 

densities increase the potential for beaver trapping, grouse hunting, and road kill. Beaver 

being trapped reduces the effectiveness of beaver complexes to improve water tables and 

increase aspen and willows. 

Land uses on private land increases the potential for loss of hydrologic function in many 

of the allotment riparian areas. Road construction, water impoundments, wells, draining 

of wetlands, clearing, and development would likely impact available water, and affect 

downstream habitat. 

Livestock grazing and grazing by wild ungulates would continue on both forest and private

land in hardwoods and riparian areas. For ruffed grouse, loss of hardwoods, understory 

shrub habitat, trampling of beaver dams, reduced nesting success, and hydrologic problems 

are likely to continue. Overgrazing on both forest and private land would have a negative 

effect on this species as well as their habitat. Alternatives B and C are expected to 

contribute to cumulative effects but not to a greater degree than currently exists. 

Conclusion for Ruffed Grouse 

Assuming Forest Plan standards are met in the future, all alternatives would allow the 

Forest-wide ruffed grouse population to remain stable, and would allow for the attainment 

of Forest plan Objectives 217 and 238. Aspen and other hardwood habitat is expected to be 

maintained because of Forest-wide standards and guidelines mentioned above. 

Ruffed grouse species would benefit most from Alternative A. However, the Phase II 

Amendment FEIS determined that there would be adequate habitat to maintain a viable

population of ruffed grouse if standards and guidelines are followed, and if conditions 

move towards hardwood restoration objectives. Alternatives B and C comply with Forest 

Plan standards and guidelines. This project is not expected to limit hardwood restoration 

(Objective 201). Under all alternatives, there would be adequate habitat for maintaining 

viable populations of ruffed grouse on the Forest. 

White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)

The Forest Plan objectives that most closely apply to white-tailed deer are 201, 203, 205, 

213, 217, 238, and 301, 4.1-203, 4.2B-201-203, 5.1-203-204, 5.4-206, 5.4A-203-206. 

5.4A-209. Objective 301 allocates 127 million pounds of forage annually (128,000 

AUMs) to livestock use and 106 million pounds of forage to wildlife (70,000 deer and 

4,500 elk). Hardwood forests, meadows, and riparian areas are particularly important 

because these are the sites that produce the most forage (e.g., grasses, aspen, and various 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 154

shrubs). Forest objectives strive to increase and maintain grassland, meadow, and 

hardwoods forest-wide. Certain ponderosa pine structural stages provide cover and 

forage for white-tailed deer and other big game. Forest Plan standards and guidelines 

2107, 2207, 2505, 3202, 3210, 3212, 5.4-2501, 5.4-2502, 5.4A-2501-2503, 5.4A-2505 

would maintain or enhance habitat for this species. 

White-tailed deer are year-round residents in the Black Hills. They require a diversity of 

habitat types including conifer forests, hardwoods, meadows, and riparian areas to 

provide forage and cover. This species may utilize different areas during the summer and 

winter months, especially if snow pack prevents access to an adequate food supply 

(USDA Forest Service 2005a). Hardwood stands of aspen and birch are prominent 

features in white-tailed deer’s selection of home ranges and their use of sites within these 

ranges (SAIC 2003, Stefanich 1995). Kennedy (1992) suggested aspen stands are highly 

selected during fawning. Suitable deer habitat should have quality forage (tall forbs and 

shrubs) in adequate quantities in close proximity to cover (protection from weather and 

predators) and water within home ranges. These requirements become important on 

winter range and transitory range (SAIC 2003). However, there is no indication that 

these resources are limiting (USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

This species is considered big game in South Dakota, with yearly harvest objectives set by 

the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks (SDGFP 2008b). Deer migrate 

from the allotments onto traditional, lower elevation winter ranges which are primarily on 

private lands. Prudent management of domestic livestock can be a tool to maintain wildlife 

habitat. However, many of the same shrub and forb species that benefit deer also are 

palatable for livestock. In addition, livestock prefer to utilize aspen communities over pine 

or mixed pine stands in the Black Hills with a preference related to understory grass 

production. Considerable debate exists about the degree to which competition occurs for 

forage between deer, elk, and cattle (Findholt et al. 2004, Chaikina and Ruckstuhl 2006, 

SAIC 2003). The removal of forage by cattle can improve forage quality by enhancing regrowth or by changing forage quality, especially in the spring (Anderson and Scherzinger 

1975). Prior livestock grazing may or may not have beneficial effects on elk nutrition. 

Although both cattle and elk changed their diets in response to a lack of their preferred 

forage from previous grazing, competition for forage resources becomes greater during the 

late summer (SAIC 2003). This has been attributed to poor forage quality that does not 

meet nutritional requirement of either wild ungulates or cattle (Findholt et al. 2004). 

Findholt et al. (2004) also suggest that inter- and intra-specific competition for forage may 

exist among all three herbivores and that the probability of increased competition would 

occur during years of low forage production, heavy herbivore stocking, or both. Sieg and 

Severson (1996) and Jenks and Leslie (2003) suggested that livestock be removed from 

winter ranges before they start consuming browse. Competition between deer and elk for 

forage is usually not an important management issue on the Forest but when competition 

does occur, elk would dominate (Coe et al. 2001). In general, deer tend to be more 

compatible with livestock use but elk avoid livestock during the summer (Coe et al. 2001). 

According to forest-wide monitoring, the most recent Black Hills South Dakota 

population estimate is approximately 62,000 deer (Huxoll 2008). Forest Plan Objective 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 155

217 supports habitat for management of 60,000 deer in the Black Hills, which matches 

state population objectives. According to the FPMER, the Black Hills deer population 

peaked in 2006 and showed a slight decline in 2007 (USDA Forest Service 2008a). The 

Forest-wide summer habitat trend showed an increase, and the winter habitat trend is 

stable to slightly decreasing (USDA Forest Service 2008a, 2009a). 

Currently the Hell Canyon District is preparing an EIS for vegetative treatments in the 

Norbeck Wildlife Preserve (Norbeck Wildlife Preserve Project) that would affect portions 

of the Palmer Gulch Allotment. These treatments are to enhance species diversity and 

improve habitat for selected focus species. The white-tailed deer is considered a Norbeck 

focus species (Griebel et al. 2007, USDA Forest Service 2004, 2007). All allotments in 

the Mystic Range Project are used year-round by white-tailed deer, although many deer 

migrate to traditional winter ranges in August. Management Area 5.4 is managed for

winter populations of big game. 

Direct and Indirect Effects to White-tailed Deer: 

Alternative A - No Action 

There are no direct effects to white-tailed deer expected under this alternative. However, 

as fences deteriorate, injury may occur. In general, there would be no displacement of deer 

by livestock through competition for high quality forage, especially in hardwoods and 

riparian areas. Indirect effects include improvement in understory composition and 

structure, improved aspen/birch regeneration, and increases in the amount of available 

forage on both summer and winter ranges. In addition, lack of grazing would likely 

improve vegetation composition and structure in riparian areas by raising the water table, 

improving water quality, and improving shrub and understory production that provide 

forage and cover. Light to moderate grazing can have a beneficial effect on forage quality 

by removing the rough or dried seed heads and stems, while leaving the more palatable 

leaves for deer or elk to graze later in the season (Anderson and Scherzinger 1975, Clark et 

al. 2000). Therefore, potential exists that with no livestock grazing, forage quality and 

production could decline for deer and elk. However, during periods of little or no 

vegetation growth such as in winter or during drought, vegetation removal by livestock can 

be detrimental to deer habitat quantity and quality. Competition for the same resources 

between elk and deer would continue. The overall available habitat for deer would 

improve in the absence of grazing in this alternative compared to Alternatives B or C. 

Alternative B 

Direct effects to white-tailed deer due to livestock grazing are not anticipated. 

Under current management, residual levels of key riparian plant species have not been 

established, which has resulted in grazing levels higher than desired. Indirect effects include 

potential loss of foraging and cover habitat in uplands, riparian areas, meadows, and 

hardwood stands due to livestock grazing and browsing. In addition, decreased vegetation 

diversity in riparian habitats attributable to livestock grazing may result in increased 

predation on deer and sight-ability by hunters. The greatest potential for effects between 

deer and livestock would likely occur in hardwood stands and riparian zones. The effects are 

attributed to the limited amount of riparian and hardwood habitats on the Forest, the fact that 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 156

these areas satisfy deer requirements for cover, food, water, and because of their extensive 

use during fawning periods. The possibility of competition exists between deer and livestock 

(SAIC 2003), especially if this competition leaves poor habitat conditions (poor quality and 

reduced availability of forage) on summer and winter range (See riparian/aquatic and ruffed 

grouse MIS discussion). Effects to winter grounds could be compounded by persistent over 

utilization of native plant communities altering their composition, vigor, and quality

especially where browse has been replaced by invasive species. 

Under this alternative, adherence to Forest Plan standards, guidelines and utilization 

standards, identifying residual levels for riparian areas, and adjustments to livestock use 

based on monitoring should improve upland and riparian plant communities from existing 

conditions. Design criteria include a Drought Management approach that would allow for 

temporary adjustment of the annual livestock numbers and season of use during periods of 

drought. Current utilization patterns would continue or be adjusted based on annual 

monitoring results, and other factors (e.g., drought, fire) on a pasture by pasture basis. 

Some improvement in upland and riparian conditions and trends would occur with 

adjustments in the Annual Operating Instructions (AOI) and those management options 

(e.g., herding, mineral placement) available under this alternative that would improve 

livestock distribution away from riparian areas. In allotments where the capability 

assessments indicate over-stock conditions; there is a greater probability that AUMs would 

be reduced to meet desired conditions long term. For allotments where the capability 

assessments indicate under-stocked conditions, there is less potential that AUMs would be 

reduced long-term. However, to meet desired conditions, a reduction in actual use could 

occur in some allotments. 

Livestock are expected to be moved to the next pasture before thresholds for upland (50% 

utilization) or riparian (4” stubble heights) are reached. In general, upland areas would 

continue to receive disproportionate use when compared to riparian areas because riparian 

threshold would likely cause livestock to move to another pasture regardless of use in the 

uplands. By implementing riparian stubble height requirements, there is a greater potential 

livestock would leave the allotment earlier (removal) in the grazing season short term (3-5 

years). This would depend on the permittees’ commitment to managing distribution of

livestock, especially way from riparian areas. Effects from early turn off would be 

beneficial to big game, especially later in the grazing season as livestock start browsing 

shrub species when other herbaceous components are unavailable (Parsons et al. 2003, 

Gillen et al. 1985). Jones et al. (2009) suggests that both livestock grazing intensity and 

season of browse affects aspen regeneration, especially when terminal leaders are browsed 

greater than 20% and grazing occurred after July. Early removal would reduce browsing 

impacts to shrub species (e.g. aspen, chokecherry, willow), providing high quality browse 

for deer long-term. In addition, early removal may improve riparian areas by reducing 

stream bank instability and alteration caused by trampling, allow time for subsequent regrowth of plant species (e.g., carbohydrate storage, seed production) and lengthen the nongrazed recovery period before high flows the following year (McInnis and McIver 2009, 

Ehrhart and Hansen 1997, Boyd and Svejcar 2004). 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 157

Although livestock grazing would be reduced, grazing would still affect upland and 

riparian communities more so than Alternative A. Potentially, movement toward desired 

conditions could take a shorter period of time compared to Alternative C if livestock 

continue to be moved from the pastures prior to planned dates long term (>5 years). 

However, there is a potential that actual use on some allotments, especially those understocked, would remain the same if permittees actively improve livestock distribution 

away from riparian areas. If distribution away from riparian areas allows for a longer 

season of use, Alternative B and C would be similar in effects in both long-term. Both 

action alternatives should provide adequate forage, cover, and water for deer but to a

lesser degree than Alternative A. 

Alternative C 

Livestock management options available in Alternative B would be the same in Alternative 

C. In addition, Alternative C would allow for new structural improvements such as fence 

lines, water developments, riparian exclosures, and riparian pastures that would help 

achieve better distribution of livestock across the allotment pastures. In riparian areas 

where site specific resource problems have been identified, stream morphology and 

hydrologic function are likely to improve if fences are constructed that limit livestock use 

in those areas. Off-site water developments and relocation of watering structures appear to 

be an important tool to encourage livestock to move away from riparian areas (Ehrhart and 

Hansen 1997). Where riparian exclosures are created, these non-grazed areas would likely 

improve riparian conditions similar to Alternative A. In general, these additional 

management options should improve riparian vegetation composition, increase stream bank 

stability, and restore hydrologic function in riparian areas more so than Alternative B (See 

riparian/aquatic MIS discussion). 

As with Alternative B, livestock are expected to be moved to the next pasture before

thresholds for upland and riparian stubble heights are reached. In general, upland areas 

would continue to receive disproportionate use when compared to riparian areas because 

riparian utilization levels would cause livestock to move to another pasture regardless of 

use in the uplands. By implementing riparian stubble height requirements, there is a 

greater potential livestock would leave the Forest earlier in the grazing season short term 

(3-5 years), similar to Alternative B. This would depend on the permittees’ commitment to 

implementation of structural improvements and managing distribution of livestock, 

especially away from riparian areas. As in Alternative B, adjustments in actual grazing use 

would occur to meet desired conditions. Although livestock grazing would be reduced, 

grazing would still affect upland and riparian communities more so than Alternative A. 

It is anticipated that structural improvements, when implemented, would improve livestock 

distribution. This could likely increase the duration that livestock spend in a pasture before 

riparian thresholds are exceeded. Therefore, in the long term (>5 years), there is less 

potential for early removal of livestock before their forage preferences change to browse 

species. Late season use may be detrimental to white-tailed deer where browsing of shrubs is 

more likely to occur, plant re-growth period is shortened, loss of riparian function and 

vegetation due to trampling increases and non-grazed recovery period is reduced. Livestock 

browsing from August through the rest of the season would likely reduce aspen regeneration 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 158

potential, especially when terminal leaders are browsed more than 50% (See MIS ruffed 

grouse discussion for aspen). Such impacts to hardwood and shrub species’ productivity may 

reduce habitat for deer long-term. Potentially, movement toward desired conditions could 

take a longer period of time as compared to Alternative B due to an extended grazing season. 

Therefore, there is slightly greater potential to increase the effects deer habitat (forage and 

cover) compared to Alternative B. However, as in Alternative B, the permittees’ 

commitment to moving livestock out of riparian areas becomes crucial to meeting desired 

conditions, especially later in the grazing season. With setting riparian stubble height 

requirements, Alternative B and C would be similar in effects short term. 

In MA 5.4 and 5.4A, opportunities to reduce the affects of livestock grazing in Norbeck and 

big game winter range are possible where conflicts between these ungulates are identified. 

Grazing would continue to affect deer winter foraging habitat (riparian areas and shrub 

component), more than Alternative A. Prescribed burning in the Porcupine allotment would 

move the area to an early seral stage community of grasses and forbs. Depending on the burn 

intensity and duration there could be an increase in aspen communities, providing forage and 

fawning cover long-term. However, shrub species and cover will be reduced in the short 

term (<5 years). Grazing management under the Holistic method may negatively affect 

aspen stands if grazing intensity is high and occurs after July. Prescribed burning in the 

Porcupine Allotment would not increase forage for deer and elk from existing conditions but 

could improve access for ungulates by decreasing the amount of down dead in the area. Both 

action alternatives should provide adequate forage, cover, and water for deer but to a lesser 

degree than Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects to White-tailed Deer 

Several factors can affect deer populations including the harvesting of animals, climatic changes, 

quality of summer and winter ranges, and predation. Predators such as mountain lions have 

increased in recent years, which likely have an effect on big game populations. Legal and illegal 

harvesting of animals, and mortality caused by vehicles also impact deer populations. 

Past vegetation harvest activities, forest succession and fire suppression activities have resulted 

in much denser forest conditions. Fire suppression has eliminated a primary disturbance agent, 

thus affecting early seral communities such as grassland and aspen. Higher conifer densities 

have resulted in the decline of understory shrub and grass component, and influenced 

vegetation composition, growth and vigor (SAIC 2003). Vegetative treatments such as timber 

harvest, thinning, hardwood restoration, meadow restoration, and prescribed fire have 

improved forage availability for deer by reducing dense overstory conditions and maintaining 

grassland/meadow and hardwood communities. Additionally, beneficial effects to foraging 

habitats have resulted from past and current removal of pine trees, prescribed burns, and 

wildfires. Riparian hardwood and grassland habitats have also been enhanced by removing 

pine trees. Future removal of pine through timber sales is expected. Effects would be similar 

to those previously described. 

Historic livestock overgrazing, the reduction of beaver, road construction, timber harvest 

activities, recreation use, mining activities, and land development and the resulting degradation 

of the majority of stream channels and lowering of water tables in the allotments have affected 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 159

the function and potential for many riparian areas to support riparian shrub and hardwood 

communities. Drought conditions over the last 10 years have exacerbated the poor condition of

most riparian areas. The drought has also likely made deer more prone to disease as they have 

had to concentrate at limited watering areas. Deer succumbing to epizootic hemorrhagic 

disease were noted every year during the drought. Ungulate browse and conifer encroachment 

has also led to the suppression of hardwood regeneration and development. 

Wildfires in the Mystic Range Project area (e.g., Jasper and Horse Creek) increased 

grasslands and hardwoods, and have increased diversity of plant species and available 

habitats. However, large fires reduce the spatial mosaic of cover and forage, making deer 

more susceptible to predation and hunting. Prescribed burns both past and future would 

reduce the negative effects of wildfires, while stimulating improved forage growth and 

vigor. Future prescribed burns expected to have mostly beneficial effects. 

White-tailed deer are migratory and move between distinct summer and winter ranges. They 

are therefore affected cumulatively by activities occurring within the Mystic Range Project 

allotments, along their migratory routes and on lower elevation winter ranges. Deer 

distribution and habitat use has been affected by high road densities and associated 

disturbance from motorized recreation, including increased OHV use, and hunting pressure. 

Seasonal restrictions on open road densities in MA 5.4 help reduce the effects of human 

disturbance on deer during the critical winter months. In addition, the Black Hills National 

Forest is in the process of determining a forest-wide travel management plan, which would 

eliminate motorized off-road travel, and limit motorized use to specific areas/roads and use 

periods. This would benefit deer by providing areas of security, especially where escape 

cover is limited. 

Most of the meadows, grasslands, and riparian habitats are privately owned, especially in 

traditional winter range areas. Changes in private land from agricultural purposes to 

residential developments has greatly reduced habitat for deer on private land. Loss of 

habitat due to development, competition for forage from livestock, increased human 

disturbance, and the presence of dogs has altered distribution and habitat use of deer. 

Habitat loss or degradation adds cumulatively to other effects influencing white-tailed 

deer in the allotments. Loss of grazing permits on NFS lands could mean that the 

ranchers would go out of business and their private property converted to other uses (e.g. 

developed) resulting in additional loss of winter range habitat for deer on private lands. 

Livestock grazing and grazing by wild ungulates would continue to remove herbaceous

and shrubby vegetation on both forest and private land. Alternatives B and C are 

expected to contribute to cumulative effects but not more than what currently exists. 

Conclusion for White-tailed Deer 

Assuming Forest Plan standards are met in the future, all alternatives would allow the 

Forest-wide white-tailed deer population to remain stable, and would allow for the 

attainment of Forest plan Objectives 217 and 238. Deer habitat is expected to improve

from current conditions. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 160

The Phase II Amendment FEIS determined that there would be adequate forage allocated 

towards big game so that competition between livestock and wild ungulates for similar 

resources does not affect meeting South Dakota big game population objectives. In addition, 

habitat would be provided to maintain a viable population of white-tailed deer if Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines are followed, especially when conditions move towards riparian 

restoration objectives, structural stage objectives, and hardwood restoration objectives. All 

action alternatives in this project follow Forest Plan standards and guidelines. 

Species of Local Concern 

Species of Local Concern (SOLC) are defined as species that do not meet the criteria for 

sensitive species status but show a decline in only a portion of Region 2, or those that are 

important components of diversity in a local area. A list of SOLC for the Black Hills 

National Forest can be found in FSM 2620, Supplement r2_bh_2600-2005-1. The Phase II 

Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005a; Sec 3-3.3.3 through Sec 3-3.3.5.8) provides 

in-depth information (i.e., range, distribution etc.) on Forest SOLC analyzed for the Mystic 

Range Project. The Mystic Range Project analysis for SOLC is tiered to that document, 

which is summarized in each species section. The most relevant Forest Plan objective for 

SOLC is Objective 221 which directs the BHNF to “conserve or enhance habitat” for SOLC 

and to maintain long-term persistence forest-wide. There are no specific standards or 

guidelines to further direct attainment of the objective for the SOLC group as a whole. 

However, species-specific guidance would be addressed as appropriate below. 

Table 3-5 below lists the SOLC identified in the Black Hills National Forest Phase II 

Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2005a). If a species is known or suspected to occur in the 

project area or if suitable but unoccupied habitat is present or adjacent to the area, then the 

species has been evaluated with respect to effects of the proposed project activities. Table 3-5 is 

a summary of each species and a discussion of the effects of the proposed alternatives. 

Table 3-5 Species of Local Concern of the Black Hills

Common Name 

(Scientific Name) 

Species 

Present1

Suitable 

Habitat 

Present2

Habitat Requirements 

Long eared Myotis 

(Myotis evotis) Yes Yes 

Mostly coniferous montane habitats; uses large snags, 

caves, mines, abandoned buildings as 

maternity/hibernacula, also roosts in abandoned mines 

and buildings, rock crevices, and under bark. No known 

hibernacula in Black Hills (USDA Forest Service 

2005a). 

Long-legged Myotis 

(Myotis volans) Yes Yes 

Primarily in montane coniferous forests; uses caves, 

mines, and snags as maternity/hibernacula, also roosts in 

abandoned buildings, rock crevices, and under bark 

(USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

Northern Myotis 

(Myotis septentrionalis) Yes Yes 

Dense ponderosa pine and mixed coniferous/deciduous 

forest. Hibernates in caves and mines. Maternity and 

day roosts in snags, buildings, caves and mines (USDA 

Forest Service 2005a). 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 161

Common Name 

(Scientific Name) 

Species 

Present1

Suitable 

Habitat 

Present2

Habitat Requirements 

Small Footed Myotis 

(Myotis ciliolabrum) Yes Yes 

Variable habitats, but usually associated with rocky 

areas like bluffs, dissected breaks, ridges, cliffs and 

major rock outcrops. Roosts include mines, caves, rock 

features, and under bark (USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

Meadow Jumping 

Mouse 

(Zapus hudsonicus 

campestris) 

Yes Yes 

Strongly associated with riparian habitats along small 

streams in meadows (Cryan and Ellison 2005). Found 

throughout the Black Hills of Wyoming and South 

Dakota (USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

Mountain Goat 

(Oreamnos americanus) Yes Yes 

Rugged terrain with cliffs, rock faces, ledges and talus 

slopes, typically in higher elevations of the BHNF. 

Limited primarily to Black Elk Wilderness Area and 

Norbeck Wildlife Preserve (USDA Forest Service 

2005a). 

Northern Flying 

Squirrel 

(Glaucomys sabrinus) 

Yes Yes 

Dense ponderosa pine and mixed coniferous/deciduous 

forest; roosts in cavities or builds nests. Most often 

associated with cool moist habitat with abundant snags. 

Large openings may inhibit gliding (USDA Forest 

Service 2005a). 

American Dipper 

(Cinclus mexicanus) Yes Yes 

Clear, fast-flowing streams, feeds on aquatic insects and 

insect larvae. Nests adjacent to streams on rocky ledges, 

cliffs, and under bridges. Limited primarily to Spearfish 

and Rapid Creeks in the BHNF (USDA Forest Service 

2005a). 

Black and White 

Warbler 

(Mniotilta varia) 

Yes Yes 

Prefers mature and second growth deciduous and mixed 

deciduous coniferous forest with dense understory of 

shrubs/trees (USDA Forest Service 2005a). Limited 

primarily to the foothills in the BHNF (Tallman et al. 

2002). 

Broad-winged Hawk 

(Buteo platypterus) No Yes 

Found primarily in mixed ponderosa pine and deciduous 

habitats. Nesting in SS4B, SS4C, and SS5 (USDA 

Forest Service 2005a). 

Cooper’s Hawk 

(Accipiter cooperii) Yes Yes 

Found in ponderosa pine, spruce, shrublands and burned 

areas. Nests in mature riparian, conifer, and aspen 

forests with moderate to high canopy closure. 

Associated with SS3C, SS4B, SS4C, and SS5 (USDA 

Forest Service 2005a). 

Northern Saw-whet 

Owl 

(Aegolius acadicus) 

Yes Yes 

Prefers dense coniferous or mixed forest for nesting 

habitat. Dense sapling-pole sized stands are preferred 

for roosting, also associated with riparian habitats 

(USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

Pygmy Nuthatch 

(Sitta pygmaea) Yes Yes 

Prefers relatively open canopied, very mature 

undisturbed ponderosa pine forests with large trees and 

abundant large diameter snags (USDA Forest Service 

2005a). Communal winter roosts in large diameter 

snags (Ghalambor and Dobbs 2006). 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 162

Common Name 

(Scientific Name) 

Species 

Present1

Suitable 

Habitat 

Present2

Habitat Requirements 

Sharp-shinned Hawk 

(Accipiter striatus) Yes Yes 

Forages in a variety of dense forest habitats. Nesting 

habitat typically restricted to dense young conifer stands 

such as SS3B and SS3C (USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

Atlantis Fritillary 

(Speyeria atlantis 

pahasapa) 

Yes Yes 

Riparian areas adjacent to openings and moist meadows 

in boreal forests in Pennington, Custer, and Lawrence 

Co. Larvae of this genus feed exclusively on violets 

(USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

Tawny Crescent 

(Phycoides batesii) Yes Yes 

Open meadows, riparian wet meadows, and woodlands 

that provide diverse floral nectar species such as 

dogbane and composite flowers. Larvae feed mostly on 

asters (USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

Callused Vertigo 

(Vertigo arthuri) Yes Yes 

Moist shaded coniferous habitats mixed with 

hardwoods, exhibiting a deep litter layer and DWM. 

Most sites are associated with limestone substrates, but 

have been found in other soil types. Forages on decayed 

deciduous leaves and herbaceous plants (USDA Forest 

Service 2005a). 

Cockrell’s Striate Disc 

(Discus shemekii) Yes Yes 

Moist shaded coniferous habitats mixed with 

hardwoods, exhibiting a deep litter layer and DWM. 

Often bordering or ranging slightly into stream 

floodplains. Most sites are associated with limestone 

substrates, but have been found in other soil types. 

Forages on decayed deciduous leaves and herbaceous 

plants (USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

Frigid Ambersnail 

(Catinella gelida) Yes Yes 

Duff specialist usually associated with limestone soils. 

Moist to dry coniferous forest with a deep litter layer, 

DWM, and deciduous tree/shrub understory. (USDA 

Forest Service 2005a). 

Mystery Vertigo 

(Vertigo paradoxa) Yes Yes 

Moist shaded coniferous forest mixed with hardwoods, 

exhibiting a deep litter layer and DWM. Most sites are 

associated with limestone substrates, but have been 

found in other soil types. Forages on decayed deciduous 

leaves and herbaceous plants (USDA Forest Service 

2005a). 

Predatory species 

The following species all prey upon small mammals or birds that are dependent on the 

lower vegetative strata and are analyzed together in this section: broad-winged hawk, 

Cooper’s hawk, northern saw-whet owl and sharp-shinned hawk. The Monitoring Birds of 

the Black Hills (MBBH) program provides a means to loosely track occurrences of the 

above species. More intensive and focused efforts involving call-response surveys to 

monitor raptors or night-time surveys to monitor the northern saw-whet owl would be 

needed to effectively monitor these species (USDA Forest Service 2008a, 2009a). Forestwide monitoring suggests that progress is being made to achieve the desired condition for 

pine structural stages in Management Areas 4.1, 5.1, 5.4, 5.43 and 5.6. Additional time and 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 163

effort is needed to achieve the structural stage percentages. Subsequently, habitat is being 

conserved for these predator species (USDA Forest Service 2008a, 2009a). 

Broad-winged hawk (Buteo platypterus)

The broad-winged hawk is the most common woodland hawk throughout its range but is 

rare in the Black Hills. In the Black Hills, this bird is associated with ponderosa pine in 

mixed pine and deciduous habitats, occasionally with a white-spruce component. The 

Forest’s bird monitoring program has recorded this species mostly in the Bearlodge 

Mountains and the northern Black Hills (USDA Forest Service 2008a). This hawk hunts in 

a diversity of habitats, taking primarily a variety of small to mid-sized birds and mammals, 

but it is also an opportunistic raptor, and would feed on amphibians, reptiles, and insects. 

An active broad-winged hawk nest was found near Reno Gulch, making this pair the 

southernmost extent of this species’ distribution in the Black Hills. The primary risk factor 

for this species appears to be habitat alteration or loss that decreases nest site availability 

(Stephens and Anderson 2003). This species has been documented in the Reno Gulch area 

adjacent to the Palmer Gulch Allotment. 

Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) 

The Cooper’s hawk is uncommon but well-distributed in the Black Hills. This species is 

considered a habitat generalist, requiring mature forest with 60-90% canopy closure for 

nesting. This hawk usually nests in riparian, conifer, and aspen forests. Nest tree diameters 

are typically smaller than goshawk nest trees, although Cooper’s hawks appear to select 

trees larger than what is randomly available. This hawk hunts in a diversity of habitats, 

taking a variety of small to mid-sized birds and mammals. In general, the species is more 

tolerant of human presence and habitat fragmentation than other accipiters. Habitat loss or 

alteration, predation, and prey availability appear to be the most threat to this species’ 

persistence (Stephens and Anderson 2002, USDA Forest Service 2005a). This species has

been documented in all of the allotments. 

Northern Saw-whet owl (Aegolius acadicus) 

There are few documented observations of the northern saw-whet owl in the Black Hills, but 

this may be attributable more to its nocturnal habits than to actual demographics. 

Monitoring indicates this species may be common throughout the Black Hills (Rocky 

Mountain Bird Observatory 2001-2009, Fauna West Wildlife Consultants 2003, Drilling 

2010). The saw-whet is considered a habitat generalist usually found in coniferous and 

riparian forests. The species prefers mature forest, and selects large snag cavities excavated 

by primary cavity nesters (e.g., woodpeckers). The saw-whet owl often forages along forest 

edges, where it preys upon small mammals and birds. Limiting factors are availability of 

mature forests (structural stages 4C and 5) and nesting cavities (e.g., snags) within suitable 

breeding habitats (Johnson and Anderson 2003, USDA Forest Service 2005a). This species 

has been documented in all of the allotments (Drilling 2010). 

Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus) 

This hawk occurs widely within the Black Hills, but it is also one of the rarest hawks 

here. Only a few nests have been documented on the Forest, primarily in conifer stands. 

Conifer stands of young age, with high tree density and high canopy closure have all been 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 164

identified as potentially important breeding habitat parameters range-wide. This equates 

to white spruce and ponderosa pine in structural stages 3B and 3C. The sharp-shinned 

hawk preys upon numerous species of small animals, primarily birds. It is thought that

foraging habitat for this hawk is represented by a variety of different vegetation 

conditions, especially those that provide a diverse prey base within their territories. 

Habitat loss or alteration, predation, and prey availability appear to be the most threat to 

this species’ persistence (Stephens and Anderson 2002, Rocky Mountain Bird 

Observatory 2001-2009). This species has been documented on all of the allotments. 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Predator Species: 

Alternative A - No Action 

Potential direct effects to predator species include nest disturbance and possible 

abandonment associated with fence removal activities. Potential indirect effects of removing 

50% or more of annual herbaceous growth is eliminated, which would likely increase prey 

availability (improved prey productivity and survival), especially within riparian areas and 

meadows. Prey species may be harder to detect, however, due to increased cover. The 

overall available foraging habitat for predatory species would not change substantially if 

livestock grazing is no longer allowed on these allotments. However, foraging habitat would 

be enhanced and prey abundance would be increased with this alternative. 

Alternative B 

There are no direct effects expected to predator species from livestock grazing per se. 

Potential direct effects to these species could occur with associated activities such as 

fence reconstruction/maintenance and water storage reconstruction/maintenance if nest 

trees/snags were removed, or cause nest abandonment due to loss of habitat or 

disturbance. These could have a negative effect to these species if conducted during the 

nesting period. Indirect effects include the potential to remove 50% of annual herbaceous 

growth, which may reduce prey availability in forested environments, especially within 

riparian areas and meadows (Stephens and Anderson 2002, Stephens and Anderson 2003, 

Belsky et al. 1999, Giuliano and Homyack 2004). Under this alternative, adherence to 

Forest Plan standards, guidelines and utilization standards, identifying residual levels for 

riparian areas, and adjustments to livestock use based on monitoring should improve 

riparian plant communities, hydrologic function, and in-stream habitat from existing 

conditions (See riparian/aquatic MIS and ruffed grouse discussion). 

Because of the large number of prey species that utilize riparian habitats, reduced grazing 

impact, and increased streambank stability, improvement in riparian vegetation extent 

and diversity, and restoration of hydrologic function would benefit prey species. 

However, grazing in riparian areas would still affect stream bank stability and riparian 

vegetation more than Alternative A. Reduced prey abundance may affect reproductive

and survival rates of predator species. However, loss of understory structure and 

composition would increase foraging effectiveness of predator species. Alternative B 

should provide adequate habitat for these species. 

Alternative C 

Direct and indirect effects to predator species are similar to the effects discussed under 

Alternative B. Livestock management options available in Alternative B would be the 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 165

same in Alternative C. In addition, Alternative C would allow for new structural 

improvements such as fence lines, water developments, riparian exclosures, and riparian 

pastures that would help achieve better distribution of livestock across the allotment 

pastures (see Alternative C riparian/aquatic MIS and ruffed grouse discussion). 

Construction of fences, water developments, and prescribed burning could cause loss of the 

nest trees or nest abandonment, and reduce foraging effectiveness for these species. 

Because of the large number of prey species that utilize riparian and hardwood habitats, 

improvement in riparian vegetation composition and structure and hydrologic function 

would benefit prey species. Upland utilization is expected to increase in areas where 

currently there is little or no use occurring, although this is not expected to have large effect 

on prey species. Adherence to Forest Plan standards, guidelines and utilization standards 

would protect these species from nest loss, reduce the potential for nest abandonment, and 

improve habitat for prey species more than Alternative B, but to a much lesser degree than 

Alternative A. All alternatives would be consistent with Objective 221. 

Cumulative Effects to Predator Species 

A variety of activities have affected the distribution and amount of habitat available for 

predator species and their prey. Past harvest activities have focused on opening the forest 

canopy and the removal of large diameter trees, which decreased habitat for those species 

dependent on large diameter, closed canopied stands used for foraging and nesting. 

Timber harvest, fuels treatments, and thinning have reduced within-stand structure

needed for most nesting predator species. In addition, these activities have reduced the 

size and distribution of down wood habitat, which has affected prey species dependent on 

this habitat. Past harvest activities, forest succession and fire suppression activities have 

resulted in a much denser forest condition. Higher conifer densities have resulted in the 

decline of understory shrub and grass species, which may has likely impacted a variety of 

prey species. Conversely, beneficial effects to diverse foraging habitats have resulted 

from past and current removal of pine trees, prescribed burns, and wildfires. Riparian 

hardwood and grassland habitats have been enhanced by removing encroaching pine 

trees. Future removal of pine through vegetative treatments is expected. Effects would 

be similar to those previously described. 

Historic livestock overgrazing, the loss of beaver, road construction, timber harvest 

activities, recreation use, mining activities, and land development and the resulting 

degradation of the majority of stream channels and loss of water tables in the allotments 

have affected the function and potential for many riparian areas to support riparian shrub 

and hardwood communities. Drought conditions over the past decade have exacerbated 

the poor condition of most riparian areas. Ungulate browse and conifer encroachment 

has also led to the suppression of hardwood regeneration and development. Fire 

suppression has eliminated a primary disturbance agent for regeneration of aspen. 

Wildfires in the Mystic Range Project area (e.g., Jasper and Horse Creek) increased grassland 

and hardwood cover, and have improved plant species diversity and available habitats in those 

areas. Fires have both enhanced and diversified some predator foraging habitat, but made 

other habitats too open, where predation by owls are more likely to occur. Future prescribed 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 166

burns are expected to have mostly beneficial effects. Recreation use and motorized traffic may 

also cause nest disturbance and possible abandonment for accipiter hawks. 

Livestock grazing and grazing by wild ungulates would continue to remove herbaceous and 

shrubby vegetation on private and forest land, affecting vegetation availability of cover, 

forage and nesting habitat for a variety of prey species. Alternatives B and C are expected 

to contribute to cumulative effects but not to a greater degree than currently exists. 

Insectivore species 

The following species are insectivorous species, and are analyzed together in this section: 

pygmy nuthatch, long-eared myotis, long-legged myotis, northern myotis, and small-footed 

myotis. 

Pygmy nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea) 

The pygmy nuthatch is an uncommon resident in the Black Hills and has been 

documented in a variety of ponderosa pine habitats, as well as in white spruce forests and 

recently burned areas. This nuthatch has been observed in late successional pine but may

not be limited to this habitat type in the Black Hills (Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory 

2001-2009). This small bird is often associated with undisturbed old growth or mature 

pine stands. Large trees and snags (15-27” DBH) are preferred for nesting, foraging, and 

communal roosting. Limiting factors appear to be loss of available large diameter snags 

for nesting and roosting habitat, and availability of productive foraging habitat 

(Ghalambor and Dobbs 2006). The nuthatch feeds on ants, wasps, moths, beetles, 

grasshoppers, spiders, and pine seeds. 

According to FPMER, the highest number of occurrences of pygmy nuthatch was recorded 

in 2007 and previous years. This species’ population fluctuates yearly, and it has been 

observed more frequently in recent years, but its status is uncertain in the northern hills 

(USDA Forest Service 2008a, Tallman et al. 2002). Structural stage objectives for 

ponderosa pine are moving toward Forest Plan objectives, and along with stable to 

increasing snag availability forest-wide, indicates that the Forest is conserving and 

enhancing habitat for the pygmy nuthatch (USDA Forest Service 2009a). This species has 

been recorded in the Bald Horse Allotment. 

SOLC Bats: Long-eared (Myotis evotis), Long-legged (Myotis volans), Northern 

(Myotis septentrionalis), and Small-footed (Myotis ciliolabrum)

Each of these bat species has similar limiting factors, response to management actions, and 

applicable Forest Plan direction. Because of this, they are summarized here as a group, with 

major similarities and differences discussed below. 

All four SOLC bats appear to be widely distributed throughout the Black Hills region (also 

see Tigner and Stukel 2003). Abundance varies between the species; the long-legged 

myotis may be the most common in the Black Hills, and the long-eared myotis is probably 

the least common. All four bats utilize coniferous and mixed coniferous/deciduous forests 

in the Black Hills and in other parts of their ranges. Flying insects, especially moths and 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 167

beetles, are important prey items for these species. Roosts, considered the primary limiting 

factor, include very large trees (live and dead), caves, mines, and rocks. Roosts provide 

relatively stable temperatures and moisture patterns compared to nearby external 

environments (Schmidt 2003a-2003d, Tigner and Stukel 2003, USDA Forest Service 

2005a). For these bat species, Forest-wide monitoring suggests roost protection and snag 

availability are stable to increasing, therefore the Forest is conserving and enhancing habitat 

for the SOLC bats (USDA Forest Service 2009a). These species have been documented on 

all of the allotments. Although research is lacking, grazing intensities that reduces 

vegetation height and species diversity would likely decrease prey availability, especially if 

prey species require specific plants for forage and oviposition. Loss of stagnant water 

sources would also reduce insect prey availability. 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Insectivores: 

Alternative A - No Action 

There are no direct effects expected under this alternative. Overall available habitat for 

the pygmy nuthatch would not change substantially if livestock grazing is no longer 

allowed on these allotments. No grazing would likely improve foraging and watering 

habitat for bats by increasing prey availability and abundance, improving riparian 

vegetation cover and composition, increasing water tables, and stabilizing stream 

morphology. Beaver ponds where bats forage would likely remain on the landscape 

longer due to a lack of trampling. In areas where aggressive non-native species (e.g., 

smooth brome) occur, lack of grazing would increase the potential for non-native plants 

to replace native host and nectar plants for the bat’s prey species. This alternative would 

likely provide the best habitat for their prey species compared to the action alternatives. 

Alternative B 

There are no direct effects expected to these insectivorous species from livestock grazing 

per se. Hibernacula, day roosts, maternity roosts or snags would not likely be affected by 

the presence of livestock grazing. Direct effects to bats from associated range structures 

could occur, such as drowning in livestock watering tanks and being caught on barbed 

wire fences in flight. Potential direct effects to most bat species could occur as a result of 

associated activities such as fence or water development reconstruction/maintenance that 

unintentionally remove nest trees/snags or roosts, and/or cause nest/roost abandonment 

due to loss of habitat or disturbance. These could have a negative effect to these species 

if conducted during communal roosting periods. Indirect effects for the pygmy nuthatch 

would be minimal. However, overgrazing facilitates the invasion on non-native annual 

grasses, which tend to be fire-adapted. The introduction and spread of cheat grass 

(Bromus tectorum) threatens the structure and function of native habitats. Spread of 

cheat grass may promote more frequent, larger, more severe, and less complex fires that 

are allowed by native vegetation (Ghalambor and Dobbs 2006) which could affect 

nesting habitat long-term. 

Because of the large number of insect species that are found in riparian habitats, affects to 

riparian habitat would affect prey species (See Riparian/aquatic MIS section). Livestock 

grazing may indirectly effect riparian prey species that utilize understory to mid-story 

vegetation by trampling stream banks, removing vegetation, widening channels, 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 168

aggrading channels, increasing temperatures and lowering the water table, all of which 

lead to reduced riparian shrub habitat (Boyle and Owens 2007, Jellison et al. 2007, 

Belsky et al. 1999, Finch et al. 1997, Kauffman et al 1983, Kauffman and Krueger 1984). 

Under this alternative, adherence to Forest Plan standards, guidelines and utilization 

standards, identifying residual levels for riparian areas, and adjustments to livestock use 

based on monitoring should improve riparian plant communities, hydrologic function, 

and in-stream habitat from existing conditions. Current utilization patterns would 

continue or be adjusted based on annual monitoring results, and other factors (e.g., 

drought, fire) on a pasture by pasture basis. In general upland areas would continue to 

receive disproportionate use when compared to riparian areas which would be expected 

to benefit prey species that utilize upland habitats. In both the upland and riparian areas, 

understory structure can influence the abundance and availability of many species of 

insects including Coleoptera, Lepidoptera, and Orthoptera by removing vegetative cover 

necessary for shelter, breeding, and feeding. Because of the large number of prey species 

that utilize riparian habitats, reduced grazing impact, and increased streambank stability, 

improvement in riparian vegetation extent, diversity, and restoration of hydrologic

function would benefit prey species. In Alternative B, new structural improvements that 

have a potential to improve livestock distribution and reduce grazing impacts to riparian 

areas would not occur. In riparian areas where site specific resource problems have been 

identified, stream morphology and hydrologic function may continue to be of concern in 

the absence of management options to address those concerns (e.g. additional fencing, 

off-site water developments). In general, negative effects to those riparian areas with 

resource concerns are higher in Alternative B compared to Alternative C. 

Open water (unobstructed) sources are necessary for bats to obtain water on the wing. 

Wet areas around ponds, seeps, wet meadows, and springs support the insects on which 

bats forage. Management practices that alter wet areas (ponds, seeps, springs, and wet 

meadows), hydrology, and vegetative cover and composition would have a great effect on 

foraging bats (Gruver and Keinath 2006). However, often these species can switch from 

one source of insect prey to another as these sources become available. 

Grazing in riparian areas would still affect stream bank stability and riparian vegetation 

more than Alternative A. These effects are similar to Alternative C. Reduced prey 

abundance may affect reproductive and survival rates of insectivore species. However, 

loss of understory structure and composition would increase foraging effectiveness of 

insectivore species. Alternative B should provide adequate habitat for these species. 

Alternative C 

Direct and indirect effects to insectivore species are similar to the effects discussed under

alternative B. Livestock management options available in Alternative B would be the 

same in Alternative C. In addition, Alternative C would allow for new structural 

improvements such as fence lines, water developments, riparian exclosures, and riparian 

pastures that would help achieve better distribution of livestock across the allotment 

pastures. In riparian areas where site specific resource problems have been identified, 

stream morphology and hydrologic function are likely to improve if fences are

constructed that limit livestock use in those areas. Off-site water developments and 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 169

relocation of watering structures appear to be an important tool to encourage livestock to 

move away from riparian areas (Ehrhart and Hansen 1997). Where riparian exclosures 

are created, these non-grazed areas would likely improve riparian conditions similar to 

Alternative A. In general, these additional management options should improve riparian 

vegetation composition, increase stream bank stability, and restore hydrologic function in 

riparian areas more so than Alternative B (See riparian/aquatic MIS discussion). 

Hibernacula, day roosts, maternity roosts, or snags should not be affected by the presence 

of livestock grazing. Additional indirect effects under this alternative could be caused by 

activities related to livestock grazing, such as construction of fences and water

developments and prescribed burning activities that could cause loss of nest trees or roost 

sites, cause nest/roost abandonment, and reduce foraging effectiveness for these species. 

Indirect effects for the pygmy nuthatch would be minimal, except that prescribed burning 

in the Porcupine allotment could decrease the pygmy nuthatch’s preferred habitat

(snags/old growth) (Ghalambor and Dobbs 2006). 

Because of the large number of insect prey species that are found in riparian habitats, 

improvement in riparian vegetation composition and structure and hydrologic function 

would benefit insectivore species. Upland utilization is expected to increase in areas 

where currently there is little to no use occurring, although this is not expected to have a 

large effect on insectivore species. Adherence to Forest Plan standards, guidelines and 

utilization standards should improve habitat for insectivores and their prey in this 

alternative similar to Alternative B, but to a much lesser degree than Alternative A. 

All alternatives would be consistent with Objective 221. 

Cumulative Effects to Insectivore Species 

Past activities on private and public land have affected the distribution and amount of 

habitat available for the pygmy nuthatch and SOLC bats, and for their prey species. 

Changes in private land from agricultural purposes to residential development has 

reduced habitat for these species not only on private but on adjacent forest land. Past fuel 

reduction projects have included removal of standing and downed wood within 200 feet 

of private land, construction of fuel breaks, thinning old growth stands adjacent to private

land, and prescribed burning, all of which likely reduce habitat for these species. 

Past harvest activities have focused on opening the forest canopy and removal of large 

diameter trees, decreasing habitat for those species dependent on large diameter closedstand conditions for foraging, nesting, and roosting. Timber harvest, fuel treatments, and 

thinning have also reduced the number of dead/dying trees and snags that provide 

roosting habitat for these species. Past harvest activities, forest succession, and fire 

suppression activities have resulted in a much denser forest condition. Higher conifer

densities have resulted in the decline of understory shrub and grass species, which may 

have affected a variety of prey species. Conversely, beneficial effects to diverse foraging 

habitats have resulted from past and current removal of pine trees, prescribed burns, and 

wildfires. Riparian hardwood and grassland habitats have been enhanced by removal of 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 170

encroaching pine trees. Future removal of pine through various vegetative treatments is 

expected. Effects would be similar to those previously described. 

Historic livestock overgrazing, decline of beaver, road construction, timber harvest activities, 

recreation use, mining activities, and land development and the resulting degradation of the 

majority of stream channels and loss of water tables in the allotments have affected the function 

and potential for many riparian areas to support riparian shrub and hardwood communities. The

loss of hydrologic function has reduced riparian species such as green ash, cottonwood, aspen, 

birch, and willow to isolated patches and fragmented habitat. Drought conditions over the past 

decade have exacerbated the poor condition of most riparian areas. Ungulate browsing and 

conifer encroachment has also led to the suppression of hardwood regeneration and 

development. Management practices that alter wet areas (ponds, seeps, springs, and wet 

meadows), hydrologic function, and vegetative cover and composition are likely to continue on 

both forest and private land. This would reduce foraging habitat for SOLC bats. 

Livestock grazing and grazing by wild ungulates would continue to remove herbaceous and 

shrubby vegetation on both private and forest land, which would affect insect availability for 

these species. Alternatives B and C are expected to contribute to cumulative effects but not 

to a greater degree than currently exists. 

Riparian Dependent Species 

The following species are dependent on riparian habitat/vegetation, and are analyzed together 

in this section: black-and-white warbler, meadow jumping mouse, Atlantis fritillary 

butterfly, tawny crescent butterfly and the American dipper. 

Black-and-white warbler (Mniotilta varia) 

The black-and-white warbler breeds in mature deciduous forests of the eastern United States 

and throughout Canada. The Black Hills is at the edge of the black-and-white warbler’s 

range in the United States. In the Black Hills, this warbler uses mature aspen stands, bur oak 

woodlands, and forested riparian areas (Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory 2001-2009, 

Tallman et al. 2002). Nests are placed on or near the ground and are well concealed at the 

base of a stump, log, or rock (Kricher 1995). Grazing has been attributed to a reduction in 

nest success and loss of insect prey species (Finch et al. 1997). This species forages on 

insects and spiders. It is a rare breeder in the Black Hills, with breeding records confirmed in 

South Dakota (Tallman et al. 2002, Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory 2001-2009). Habitat 

fragmentation of hardwood forests in the eastern United States has been identified as the 

main threat to this species (NatureServe 2009). 

Limited observations of this species during Forest bird monitoring do not provide adequate 

data to determine densities (Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory 2001-2009). There are no 

population trends available from breeding bird survey routes in the Black Hills or in South 

Dakota (Sauer et al. 2008). In terms of habitat availability, progress is being made to achieve 

the desired condition for bur oak (Objective 201); subsequently, habitat is being conserved 

for this species (USDA Forest Service 2009a). Overall, black-and-white warbler populations 

are stable throughout North America (Sauer et al. 2008). This species has been documented 

in the lower elevations of the Bald Horse Allotment. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 171

Meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonicus campestris)

This subspecies occurs in the Black Hills and its range is thought to be limited to 

mountainous portions of eastern Wyoming and western South Dakota (Cryan 2004, Cryan 

and Ellison 2005, King et al. 2006). This species was found to be relatively common in 

riparian habitat sampled in the Black Hills (Krueger 2004). The meadow jumping mouse is

strongly associated with riparian and meadow habitats that occur along small streams. A 

dense understory of deciduous shrubs, grasses, forbs, and downed wood are often present. 

The mouse’s diet varies, and includes seeds, berries, leaves, buds, fungi, and insects. This 

dense, diverse understory requirement in riparian areas may limit the species’ distribution 

and abundance (Cryan 2004, Cryan and Ellison 2005, Duckwitz 2001). 

Domestic animal overgrazing, which consistently removes dense vegetation along creeks in 

eastern Wyoming, is thought to have contributed to this species’ scarcity (Schulz and 

Leininger 1991, Griscom et al. 2008). Meadow jumping mice tend to occur in relatively 

low abundance and it is uncertain whether current abundance is different than the past. In 

Wyoming, as livestock utilization increases, meadow jumping mouse abundance decreases 

(Griscom et al. 2008). Fragmentation of appropriate riparian habitat may limit this species’ 

ability to disperse. 

No Forest-wide monitoring data on riparian resource condition was collected in FY 2008. 

Implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines, Regional watershed conservation 

practices, and best management practices maintain riparian habitat Forest-wide, but probably 

at a level less than its full capability. Progress is being made in achieving Objective 214 

(USDA Forest Service 2009a). Projects to restore riparian and wetland habitat or to 

rehabilitate stream reaches have increased in the last five years which could partially indicate 

trend of jumping mouse habitat. These projects have a small positive influence on the habitat 

trend for these mice to meet the intent of Objective 221. Limited data suggest that the Forest 

is conserving habitat for the meadow jumping mouse (USDA Forest Service 2009a). This 

species likely occurs on all of the allotments since it was commonly found in riparian zones 

sampled (Cryan and Ellison 2005). 

SOLC Butterflies: Atlantis Fritillary (Speyeria atlantis pahasapa) and Tawny 

Crescent (Phycoides batesii)

These two species have similar limiting factors, response to management actions, and 

applicable Forest Plan direction. Because of this, they are summarized here as a group. In 

South Dakota, both species are restricted to the Black Hills. Both of these butterflies are 

associated with meadows and riparian areas, particularly when found adjacent to each other 

(meadows along a stream). Specific plant species are important to each butterfly for nectar 

supplies and/or larval hosts. The Pahasapa fritillary is most dependent on violets, and the 

tawny crescent is most closely associated with smooth aster, dogbane, and other composites. 

These butterflies have been documented feeding on noxious weed species such as leafy spurge 

and Canadian thistle. Limiting factors include the loss of nectar and larval host species 

through habitat loss and invasive species (Marrone 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007). Stefanich (2001) 

hypothesized that the limiting factor in the Black Hills is the destruction of this butterfly’s 

habitat or isolation of colonies to the extent that populations are unable to disperse. These 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 172

butterflies have been documented in most of the allotments. However, the Pahasapa fritillary 

is found primarily along riparian areas in the higher elevations of the Black Hills. 

No Forest-wide monitoring data on riparian resource condition was collected in FY 2008. 

Implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines, Regional watershed conservation 

practices, and best management practices maintain riparian habitat Forest-wide, but 

probably at a level less than its full capability. Progress is being made in achieving 

Objective 214. Projects to restore riparian and wetland habitat or to rehabilitate stream 

reaches have increased in the last five years, which could partially indicate trend of 

butterfly habitat. These projects have a small positive influence on the habitat trend for 

these butterflies to meet the intent of Objective 221 (USDA Forest Service 2009a). 

American Dipper (Cinclus mexicanus) 

The American dipper is uncommon and isolated to clear, fast-flowing streams in the Black 

Hills. Dipper populations in South Dakota are declining, hence given state status of 

threatened. The South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks monitor dippers 

during the breeding and winter seasons (Backlund 2007). The Forest’s bird monitoring 

program has recorded this species in Spearfish Creek and several of its tributaries but it has 

also been found in other streams (e.g., Bear Butte, Elk, Iron, Spearfish, Little Spearfish, 

East Spearfish, Whitewood, French, and Rapid Creeks). DNA analyses suggest that the

Black Hills dipper population may be genetically distinct from other populations (USDA 

Forest Service 2008a, Backlund 2007). The USDI Fish and Wildlife Service recently 

announced is 90-day finding on a petition to list the Black Hills population as a distinct

population segment (DPS). Based on their review, the Fish and Wildlife Service concluded 

that this population is not a listable entity under the Endangered Species Act (USDI Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2009b). 

This bird usually nests within 25 feet of streams on rocky ledges, cliffs, boulders, and 

bridges. It feeds primarily on aquatic insects and insect larvae caught while diving 

underwater. The primary risk factor for the dipper appears to be flow reductions, degraded 

water quality due to sedimentation, and other pollutants that affect prey availability. 

Limiting factors include prey availability, suitable winter habitat, stream connectivity, and 

availability of nest sites (Anderson 2002). Nesting attempts in Spearfish Creek have 

remained fairly stable, and nesting success has increased, but additional monitoring is needed 

to determine long-term trends. Nesting attempts and success have declined in Whitewood 

Creek, although the cause of this decline is unknown. Additional monitoring would 

determine the long-term trend. Over-grazing has a negative effect on dippers. Birds were 

absent in areas with stream damage from heavy grazing in a Montana study (Osborn 1999). 

Fleischner (1994) reviewed the effects of livestock on riparian areas, including: changing or 

removing streamside vegetation, increasing sedimentation due to erosion, and changing water 

chemistry and temperature. The dipper has been documented in the Bald Horse and Palmer 

Gulch Allotments along Rapid Creek and Sunday Gulch but these observations are sporadic. 

There is no indication that the American Dipper has successfully nested in the MRP area. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 173

Direct and Indirect Effects to Riparian Dependent Species: 

Alternative A - No Action 

There are no direct effects expected under this alternative, therefore the possibility of 

mortality due to livestock grazing is eliminated. Indirect effects include raising the water 

table, increased water quantity and quality, decreased water temperature, and increased 

herbaceous vegetation for nesting and concealment cover. Understory grasses and forbs 

would increase, as would riparian shrubs such as willow. The overall available habitat 

would improve if livestock grazing is no longer allowed on these allotments. Flowering 

plant species, needed for nectar and larval host plants (e.g. violets and asters) for butterflies, 

would be more available in the absence of grazing. Where non-native grasses (e.g., smooth 

brome) occur, flowering plants may decline in the absence of grazing. However, increases 

in water table would likely limit the spread of non-native invasive grasses long-term. 

Improvements in riparian vegetation composition, structure, and stream 

hydrology/morphology would likely decrease sediments and provide for cooler water 

temperature. This would increase aquatic invertebrate prey for the dipper. Lack of grazing 

would provide cover for the meadow jumping mouse. This alternative would provide 

habitat for riparian species at an increased rate compared to Alternatives B and C. 

Alternative B 

Direct effects from livestock grazing include potential mortality of adult jumping mice and 

their offspring due to trampling of nests and burrows, knocking young out of nests or beds, 

crushing warbler and dipper eggs or chicks, butterfly larvae or cocoons, or covering larvae, 

eggs, chicks or young with manure. Grazing has been shown to decrease small mammals in 

riparian areas (Belsky et al. 1999, Giuliano and Homyack 2004). Schulz and Leininger

(1991) documented that the meadow jumping mice dominated un-grazed sites whilst the deer 

mouse dominated grazed sites. Livestock grazing may indirectly affect riparian species that 

utilize understory to mid-story vegetation for cover, feeding or building nests by consuming 

vegetation and trampling the stream bank and vegetation, compacting soil, removing required 

cover, widening channels, aggrading channels, increasing water temperatures, reducing water 

quality and lowering the water table leading to reduced riparian shrub land habitat (Belsky et 

al. 1999, Bock et al. 1992, Kauffman et al. 1983, Kauffman and Krueger 1984). For ground 

nesting birds, such as the black-and-white warbler and dippers, removal of vegetation 

adjacent to a nest can increase the risk of predation on eggs or chicks (Ammon and Stacey 

1997, Backlund 2007). Decreased water quality and higher water temperatures would 

decrease aquatic invertebrate prey for the dipper (Feck and Hall 2004). 

Under this alternative, adherence to Forest Plan standards, guidelines and utilization 

standards, identifying residual levels for riparian areas, and adjustments to livestock use 

based on monitoring should improve riparian plant communities, hydrologic function, 

and in-stream habitat from existing conditions. However, direct and indirect effects such 

as dipper and warbler egg loss, nest disturbance, breakdown of beaver dams and loss of 

essential nectar and larval host plants would likely occur, similar to Alternative C. 

Although livestock grazing in riparian areas would be reduced, grazing would still affect 

stream bank stability and extent and diversity of riparian vegetation, more than 

Alternative A (see riparian/aquatic MIS Alternative B discussion). 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 174

In Alternative B, new structural improvements that have a potential to improve livestock 

distribution and reduce grazing impacts to riparian areas would not occur. In riparian areas 

where site specific resource problems have been identified, stream morphology and 

hydrologic function may continue to be of concern in the absence of management options 

to address those concerns (e.g. additional fencing, off-site water developments). In general, 

negative effects to those riparian areas with resource concerns are higher in Alternative B 

compared to Alternative C. 

Movement toward meeting desired condition that would improve habitat for riparian 

dependent SOLC species would depend upon the permittees’ commitment to keep livestock 

away from riparian areas. Implementation of riparian utilization standards would improve 

habitat conditions for riparian dependent SOLC species from existing. Alternative B should 

provide adequate cover and water for these species, but to a lesser degree than Alternative A. 

Alternative C 

Direct effects and indirect effects to the black-and-white-warbler, meadow jumping 

mouse, SOLC butterflies, and the American dipper are similar to the effects discussed 

under Alternative B. 

Livestock management options available in Alternative B would be the same in 

Alternative C. In addition, Alternative C would allow for new structural improvements 

such as fence lines, water developments, riparian exclosures, and riparian pastures that 

would help achieve better distribution of livestock across the allotment pastures. In 

riparian areas where site specific resource problems have been identified, stream 

morphology and hydrologic function are likely to improve if fences are constructed that 

limit livestock use in those areas. Off-site water developments and relocation of watering 

structures appear to be an important tool to encourage livestock to move away from 

riparian areas (Ehrhart and Hansen 1997). Where riparian exclosures are created, these 

non-grazed areas would likely improve riparian conditions similar to Alternative A. In 

general, these additional management options should improve riparian vegetation 

composition, increase stream bank stability, and restore hydrologic function in riparian 

areas more so than Alternative B. 

Adherence to Forest Plan standards, guidelines and utilization standards should protect 

riparian nesting birds, maintain adequate nectar and host plants for butterflies and maintain 

adequate cover habitat for the meadow jumping mouse similar to Alternative B, but to a 

much lesser degree than Alternative A. Direct and indirect effects such as dipper and 

warbler egg loss, nest disturbance, breakdown of beaver dams and loss of essential nectar 

and larval host plants would likely occur, similar to Alternative B. Although livestock 

grazing in riparian areas would be reduced, grazing would still affect stream bank stability, 

extent, and diversity of riparian vegetation, more than Alternative A (See riparian/aquatic 

MIS Alternative C discussion). Prescribed burning in the Porcupine Allotment would not 

affect these species, due to the lack of riparian habitats and stream courses. 

Movement toward meeting desired condition that would improve habitat for riparian 

dependent SOLC species would depend upon the permittees’ commitment to keep livestock 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 175

away from riparian areas. Implementation of riparian utilization standards would improve 

habitat conditions for riparian dependent SOLC species from existing. Alternative C should 

provide adequate cover and water for these species, but to a lesser degree than Alternative A. 

All alternatives would be consistent with Objective 221. 

Cumulative Effects to Riparian Species 

Historic livestock overgrazing, the loss of beaver, road construction, timber harvest 

activities, recreation use, mining activities, and land development and the resulting 

degradation of the majority of stream channels and loss of water tables in the allotments 

have affected the function and potential for many riparian areas to support riparian shrub 

and hardwood communities. The loss of hydrologic function has reduced riparian species 

such as green ash, cottonwood, aspen, birch and willow species to isolated patches and 

fragmented habitat. The drought conditions over the past decade have exacerbated the poor 

condition of most riparian areas. Browsing by ungulates and conifer encroachment has 

also led to the suppression of hardwood regeneration and development. 

Past harvest activities, forest succession, and fire suppression activities have resulted in a 

much denser forest condition. Higher conifer densities have resulted in decreased water to 

riparian habitat and thus negatively affected riparian areas. Fire suppression has eliminated 

a primary disturbance agent for regeneration of aspen. Conversely, beneficial effects to 

riparian habitats have resulted from past and current removal of conifer, prescribed burns, 

and riparian restoration projects. Riparian hardwood and grassland habitats have been 

enhanced by removing encroaching conifers. Future removal of pine through various 

vegetative treatments is expected. Effects would be similar to those previously described. 

Stand replacing wildfires have increased grassland and hardwood communities but have 

negatively affected riparian areas in those burns. Sedimentation, and changes in stream 

morphology and hydrology have affected water temperatures, pH and water quality needed 

for aquatic invertebrates. These changes may influence distribution of riparian dependent 

species, especially the American dipper. Future prescribed burns are not expected to have 

the adverse effects associated with high intensity, high severity wildfires. 

Improper road/trail location and recreation use (motorized vehicles) have negatively affected 

some aquatic habitats through trampling of vegetation, increasing sedimentation, destabilizing 

banks, and facilitated the spread of noxious weeds. These effects are likely to continue. 

However, the Black Hills National Forest is in the process of determining a forest-wide travel 

management plan, which would eliminate motorize travel off-road, limit motorized use to 

specific areas/roads, and limit use periods which should improve stream habitat.

Land use on private land increases the potential for loss of hydrologic function in many 

of the allotment riparian areas. Road construction, water impoundments, wells, draining 

of wetlands, clearing and development would likely continue to impact water availability, 

and reduce habitat for riparian dependent species. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 176

Livestock grazing and grazing by wild ungulates would continue in riparian areas on both 

forest and private land. For SOLC butterflies, there is a risk that host plants, larvae, or 

pupae may be consumed or trampled. American dipper nests would also be affected. 

Overgrazing on both forest and private land would have a negative effect on these 

riparian dependent species as well as their habitat. Alternatives B and C are expected to 

contribute to cumulative effects but not to a greater degree than currently exists. 

SOLC Snails: Callused Vertigo (Vertigo arthuri), Frigid Ambersnail (Catinella 

gelida), Mystery Vertigo (Vertigo paradoxa), and Striate Disc (Discus shemekii)

Gastropods are typically found in well-developed litter (but not thick or fungus matted) 

with very rich and comparatively wet, loose soil. Most sites have dense overstory and a 

deciduous component. Snail colonies in the Black Hills have patchy distribution (Frest and 

Johannes 1993, 2002). This may be due to habitat preferences, foraging requirements, 

and/or hostile environmental conditions. Some snail species can tolerate somewhat dryer 

site conditions, where others may not. Most snail species prefer calcareous substrate 

materials but others (e.g., Vertigo spp.) have been found in other soil types (Frest and 

Johannes 1993, 2002, and Anderson 2004a, 2004b). Snails are generally susceptible to 

activities that change the temperature and moisture at the soil or litter level. Additional 

microhabitat conditions such as soil type, amount and type of plant ground cover, soil pH, 

depth and type of litter, and amount of cover from rocks or woody debris also play a role in 

where these snails can survive. Research indicates low snail diversity may be due to 

changes in the moist microclimate (lack of moss/lichen), increased environmental effects, 

and loss of overstory cover which creates drier site conditions that are detrimental to land 

snails (Anderson 2004a, 2004b). Threats to gastropods include loss of suitable habitat, 

predators, desiccation, soil compaction, trampling, and barriers to dispersal (Anderson 

2004a, 2004b). Frest and Johannes (2002) identified that these snails are affected by roads 

(and their associated activities), livestock trampling, and timber harvesting. 

Recently, the US Fish and Wildlife Service made a positive 90-day finding that the frigid 

ambersnail may warrant listing under the Endangered Species Act (USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2009). The Fish and Wildlife Service determined that substantial 

information exists that listing may be warranted due to the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or curtailment of the frigid ambersnail’s habitat or range 

resulting from the effects from roads, livestock trampling, and logging disturbances. The 

Fish and Wildlife Service is currently undertaking a 12-month status review. The Vertigo

species have been documented in and/or adjacent to most of the allotments, associated 

primarily with riparian areas and spring/seeps. Due to their small size, these species are 

often overlooked. The striate disc has been found in and adjacent to the Palmer Gulch, 

Deerfield, Rimmer, Redfern, and Slate Prairie Allotments. The frigid ambersnail is 

difficult to identify but has been found in the Palmer Gulch Allotment and adjacent to the

Redfern and Deerfield Allotment. 

Monitoring for these species was not funded in 2008. Forest Plan standard 3103 requires 

known SOLC snail colonies to be managed to retain favorable site conditions and to 

avoid/minimize the effects of land management activities to protect SOLC snails and 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 177

their habitat. Subsequently, habitat is likely to be conserved for these species consistent 

with Objective 221 (USDA Forest Service 2009a). 

Direct and Indirect Effects to SOLC Snails: 

Alternative A - No Action 

No direct effects to SOLC snails are expected under this alternative due to mortality 

caused by livestock trampling. Springs and seeps, where the Vertigo ssp. is likely to 

occur, would not be trampled, thereby allowing colonies to expand. Indirect effects 

include raising water tables, increasing water quantity and quality, decreased water 

temperature, and increased herbaceous vegetation that would protect snails from 

desiccation. The lack of grazing should provide more overstory vegetation which may

increase snail dispersal. However, other factors (e.g., slope, exposure, soil, habitat type) 

play more of a role in SOLC snail patterns of movement. Overall, available habitat for 

SOLC snails would improve if livestock grazing were no longer allowed on these 

allotments. This alternative would improve habitat for riparian snail species at an 

increased rate compared to Alternatives B and C. 

Alternative B 

Direct effects include potential mortality to snails caused by livestock trampling through 

colonies and a reduction in vegetation that increases radiant heat and wind to colonies 

causing desiccation. Livestock grazing may have indirect effects to snails that are 

dependent on wet areas (Vertigo ssp.), streamside habitats, and/or hardwood stands by 

reducing moist micro-climates required by snails, reducing hardwood regeneration, 

trampling vegetation, and lowering the water table, all of which lead to reduced riparian 

habitat (Anderson 2004a, 2004b, Belsky et al. 1999, Jellison et al. 2007). Livestock 

grazing reduces understory and midstory vegetation, which allows more sunlight and wind 

to dry out moist habitats, altering litter/duff depth and decay processes (Frest and Johannes 

2002). Removal of vegetation in and adjacent to snail colonies may also make snails more 

vulnerable to predation. Frigid ambersnail and striate disc snail colonies are usually found 

on steeper northerly aspects that are rarely traversed by livestock, thus colonies of these 

two snail species are less affected by livestock grazing. Some protection of springs/seeps 

from livestock trampling would protect some colonies of Vertigo ssp. 

Under this alternative, adherence to Forest Plan standards, guidelines and utilization 

standards, identifying residual levels for riparian areas, and adjustments to livestock use 

based on monitoring should improve riparian plant communities, hydrologic function, 

and in-stream habitat from existing conditions. In general upland areas would continue to 

receive disproportionate use when compared to riparian areas which would be expected 

to affect the striate disc and frigid ambersnail that utilize upland habitats. In both the 

upland and riparian areas, the loss of herbaceous understory structure can influence snail 

dispersal and colony expansion by removing vegetative cover necessary for shelter, 

breeding, and feeding. Since snail species are dependent on mesic habitat, reduced 

grazing impact, and increased streambank stability, improvement in riparian vegetation 

extent, diversity and restoration of hydrologic function would benefit these snails. 

However, grazing would still occur affecting their habitat more than Alternative A. 

These effects are similar to Alternative C. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 178

In Alternative B, new structural improvements that have a potential to improve livestock 

distribution and reduce grazing impacts to riparian areas would not occur. In riparian areas 

where site specific resource problems have been identified, stream morphology and 

hydrologic function may continue to be of concern in the absence of management options to 

address those concerns (e.g. additional fencing, off-site water developments). In general, 

negative effects to those riparian areas with resource concerns are higher in Alternative B 

compared to Alternative C. Alternative B should provide adequate habitat for these species. 

Alternative C 

Direct and indirect effects to SOLC snail species are similar to the effects discussed 

under Alternative B. 

Livestock management options available in Alternative B would be the same in Alternative 

C. In addition, Alternative C would allow for new structural improvements such as fence 

lines, water developments, riparian exclosures, and riparian pastures that would help achieve 

better distribution of livestock across the allotment pastures. In general, these additional 

management options should improve riparian vegetation composition, increase stream bank 

stability, and restore hydrologic function in riparian areas more so than Alternative B. 

Additional direct effects to these snails may come from prescribed burning, construction 

of new water developments, and changes in livestock distribution from active livestock 

management. Protection of springs/seeps from livestock trampling would protect some 

colonies of Vertigo ssp. 

Under this alternative, adherence to Forest Plan standards, guidelines and utilization 

standards, identifying residual levels for riparian areas, and adjustments to livestock use 

based on monitoring should improve riparian plant communities, hydrologic function, 

and in-stream habitat from existing conditions. In general upland areas would continue to 

receive disproportionate use when compared to riparian areas which would be expected 

to benefit the striate disc and frigid ambersnail that utilize upland habitats. As in 

Alternative B, grazing would still occur in uplands and riparian areas, affecting 

herbaceous cover, stream bank stability, and riparian vegetation more than Alternative A. 

Alternative C should maintain or improve suitable habitat for the SOLC species but to a

much lesser degree than Alternative A. 

Prescribed burning proposed in the Porcupine Allotment could result in loss of snail 

colonies on drier sites, or reduce colony size to pockets of moist habitat (unburned areas), 

depending on intensity and severity of the fire. However, snail colonies in this allotment 

have already been affected by the Jasper Fires of 2000. As a result, remnant populations 

may be restricted to narrow niches surrounded by inhospitable habitat in the fire area. 

All alternatives would be consistent with Objective 221. 

Cumulative Effects to SOLC Snails 

There is no known evidence that the Black Hills was a stable ecosystem dominated by 

mature, dense conifer forests, especially in a ponderosa pine ecosystem. Evidence 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 179

suggests that the Black Hills is ever-changing from the effects of fire, insect outbreaks, 

drought, and human disturbances (USDA Forest Service 1996b). This fire dominated 

ecosystem has had the biggest effect on SOLC snail colonies, in terms of numbers and 

distribution. Insect epidemics along with stand replacing wildfires historically increased 

open areas that may drastically alter or eliminate these snail species’ habitat for long 

periods (e.g., >50 years). Over the past century, however, harvest activities, forest 

succession, and fire suppression have resulted in a much denser forest condition than 

occurred historically. Higher conifer densities have resulted in a loss of mesic hardwood 

habitats and decreased hydrologic function in bottomlands, ultimately reducing the 

quantity and quality of habitat available for some land snails. 

Historic livestock overgrazing, the loss of beaver, road construction, timber harvest 

activities, recreation use, mining activities, and land development which resulted in 

degradation of the majority of stream channels and lowering of water tables have affected 

the function and potential for many riparian areas to support riparian shrub and hardwood 

communities. Loss of hydrologic function has reduced riparian species to isolated 

patches and fragmented habitat, which has also limited the size of snail colonies and their 

ability to disperse. The drought conditions over the past decade have exacerbated the

poor condition of most riparian areas. Browsing by ungulates and conifer encroachment 

has also led to the suppression of hardwood regeneration and development, which affects 

moist understory vegetation, litter layer and decay processes that snails require. 

Management activities such as timber harvest, thinning, fuel treatments, and prescribed 

fire likely result in increased solar radiation, altered mesic site conditions, a reduction in 

down woody material, and disturbed ground cover. These activities are likely to affect

snail colony expansion and increase isolation between colonies. 

Livestock grazing and grazing by wild ungulates would continue to remove herbaceous

and shrubby vegetation on both private and forest land especially in riparian areas and 

hardwoods, which would direct and indirectly affect SOLC snails and their habitat. 

Alternatives B and C are expected to contribute to cumulative effects but not to a greater 

degree than currently exists. 

Northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus)

The flying squirrel resides in a variety of forested habitats including pure ponderosa pine 

and pine mixed with aspen, birch, or spruce in the Black Hills (Krueger 2004). This 

species is well dispersed across the forest but is found primarily in the northern and 

central hills (Krueger 2004, Hough 2008). The species is nocturnal and utilizes mostly 

spruce and mature pine (SS 3C and 4) for foraging habitat, and snags for denning in the 

Black Hills (Hough 2008). Flying squirrels consume a varied diet, including fungi, 

lichens, seeds, insects, and bird eggs (Higgins et al. 2000). They nest and shelter in 

cavities of large trees, snags, and in small structures (dreys) that they build from twigs, 

bark, and roots. The flying squirrel tends to avoid large openings and early seral pine 

stages, which may prevent crossing small openings by gliding from one tree to the next 

(Hough 2008, Duckwitz 2001). 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 180

Turner (1974) noted that the highest densities of flying squirrels are likely found in white 

spruce forests in moist canyons of the northern Black Hills. Hough (2008) found that the 

highest densities were found where habitat features such as snags, dead/down material, and 

a moist microclimate with fungi were most abundant. Aspen/birch stands were important 

denning habitat but avoided for foraging habitat (Hough 2008). This species has been 

documented in the Tigerville, Palmer Gulch, Bald Horse, and Deerfield Allotments.

The Forest is conserving habitat for the northern flying squirrel in regards to spruce habitat, 

but progress towards increasing the proportion in structural stage 5 and the very large tree 

component in Management Areas 5.4 and 5.43 is still needed to enhance habitat (USDA 

Forest Service 2009a). Hough (2008) determined that the population appeared to be stable. 

Direct and Indirect Effects to northern flying squirrel: 

Alternative A - No Action 

Flying squirrels can be killed while gliding if they get wrapped around barbed wires in 

flight or land in stock tanks. Stock watering tanks can cause drowning mortalities, 

especially if there is no escape ramp. Fences and stock tanks may still exist with the 

potential for mortality if these are not removed. Indirect effects to foraging habitat from 

livestock grazing would be eliminated. The overall available foraging habitat along 

riparian/moist bottomlands would likely improve by reducing the negative effects of 

grazing on wetlands. Concealment cover near the ground would also be enhanced. 

Alternative B 

No direct effects would be anticipated from livestock grazing because of the mobility of 

this species. However, direct effects to this squirrel from associated range structures 

could occur, such as drowning in livestock watering tanks and being caught on barbed 

wire fences in flight. Livestock grazing does not normally alter tree stand structure, patch 

size, or affect availability and condition of snags but heavy grazing can impede hardwood 

regeneration. Indirect effects to this squirrel may include loss of foraging habitat due to 

over use in riparian area and moist micro-climates that affect food sources (e.g., fungi), 

and increased potential of predation in riparian areas due to reduced vegetative cover. 

Loss of nest trees and dreys may occur during fence maintenance/reconstruction. Indirect 

effects may also include loss of preferred food items (fungi) due to trampling, and 

reduced understory vegetation and structure, especially in riparian habitats. Loss of 

concealment cover near the ground likely increases potential for predation. 

Under this alternative, adherence to Forest Plan standards, guidelines and utilization 

standards, identifying residual levels for riparian areas, and adjustments to livestock use 

based on monitoring should improve riparian plant communities, hydrologic function, and 

in-stream habitat from existing conditions. In general upland areas would continue to 

receive disproportionate use when compared to riparian areas which would be expected to 

affect prey species that utilize upland habitats. In both the upland and riparian areas, the 

loss of understory structure and trampling can influence the abundance and availability of 

fungi species. In addition, browsing of hardwoods could reduce regeneration of these 

species, limiting nesting and foraging habitat. Reduced grazing impact and increased 

streambank stability, improvement in riparian vegetation extent, diversity, and restoration 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 181

of hydrologic function would benefit this species. However, grazing in riparian areas 

would still affect stream bank stability and riparian vegetation more than Alternative A. 

These effects are similar to Alternative C. Reduced food availability, especially in mesic 

habitats could affect reproductive and survival rates of the northern flying squirrel. 

In riparian areas where site specific resource problems have been identified, stream 

morphology and hydrologic function would continue to be of concern in the absence of 

management options to address those concerns (e.g. additional fencing, off-site water 

developments). These site-specific areas of concern would improve at a much slower 

rate as compared to Alternative A and Alternative C. Alternative B should provide 

adequate habitat for this squirrel. 

Alternative C 

Direct and indirect effects are expected to be similar to those described for Alternative B. 

Livestock management options available in Alternative B would be the same in 

Alternative C. In addition, Alternative C would allow for new structural improvements 

such as fence lines, water developments, riparian exclosures, and riparian pastures that 

would help achieve better distribution of livestock across the allotment pastures. In 

general, these additional management options should improve riparian vegetation 

composition, increase stream bank stability, and restore hydrologic function in riparian 

areas more so than Alternative B. Upland utilization is expected to increase in areas 

where currently there is little to no use occurring, although this is not expected to have an 

effect on the flying squirrel. Prescribed burning in the Porcupine Allotment would not

likely affect this species in this already open habitat. Adherence to Forest Plan standards, 

guidelines and utilization standards should provide adequate foraging and cover habitat

for this squirrel similar to Alternative B but to a lesser degree than Alternative A. 

All alternatives would be consistent with Objective 221. 

Cumulative Effects to Northern Flying Squirrel: 

Vegetative treatments that focused on opening the forest canopy and removing large 

diameter trees, decreased habitat for those species dependent on large diameter, closed 

stand conditions for foraging and nesting. Timber harvest, fuel treatments, prescribed 

burning and thinning have also reduced dead/dying trees and snags that provide roosting 

habitat for the flying squirrel. However, past harvest activities, forest succession, and fire 

suppression activities have contributed to a much denser forest condition. Such 

treatments have likely had mixed results by increasing late successional characteristics 

but resulted in the decline of hardwood stands, understory shrubs and grasses, which may 

have affected a change in a variety of food items. Beneficial effects to diverse foraging 

habitats have resulted from past and current removal of conifers and prescribed burns that 

have increased the potential for fungi growth on down wood material. Riparian 

hardwood and grassland habitats have been enhanced by removing pine trees. Future 

removal of pine through various vegetative treatments is expected. Effects would be 

similar to those previously described. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 182

Historic livestock overgrazing, the loss of beaver, road construction, timber harvest 

activities, recreation use, mining activities, and land development which resulted in 

degradation of the majority of stream channels and lowering of water tables in the 

allotments, have reduced the potential for many riparian areas to support riparian shrub and 

hardwood communities. The past drought conditions have exacerbated the poor condition 

of most riparian areas. Management practices that alter wet areas (ponds, seeps, springs, 

and wet meadows), hydrologic function, and vegetative cover and composition are likely to 

continue on both forest and private land. 

Livestock grazing and grazing by wild ungulates would continue to remove herbaceous and 

shrubby vegetation on both private and forest land, which would affect food availability for 

these squirrels. Alternatives B and C are expected to contribute to cumulative effects but not 

to a greater degree than currently exists. 

Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis) 

The Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep was recently added to the R2 Sensitive species list. To 

reduce redundancy, most life history, current condition, and predicted effects information 

are provided in the Mystic Range Project Biological Evaluation document. Bighorn sheep 

are found in the Palmer Gulch, Bald Horse, Redfern, and Tigerville Allotments (J. Kanta, 

South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks, Pers. Comm.). All alternatives would be consistent

with Objective 221. 

Mountain Goat (Oreamnos americanus)

The mountain goat is distributed from southeast Alaska through the Canadian Rockies to 

various mountain ranges in the northern US. The goat was introduced to the Black Hills

in 1924, and became established in only one area: the Black Elk Wilderness and Norbeck 

Wildlife Preserve region. 

The mountain goat is typically found in alpine and subalpine habitats, which straddle the 

natural tree line. Neither of these high elevation habitats (or a tree line) exists in the 

Black Hills. Here, the species occupies among the highest and rockiest habitats available 

to it, including pine and spruce covered slopes. The bulk of the mountain goat population 

in the Black Hills occurs largely within the Black Elk Wilderness and the Norbeck 

Wildlife Preserve (Griebel et al. 2007). Current mountain goat populations are smaller 

than estimates by Richardson (1971). Mountain goats utilize a variety of forage plants in 

the Black Hills, including chokecherry, buffaloberry, grasses and sedges, aspen, 

serviceberry, wild rose, willow, and hazel (USDA Forest Service 2005a). Some literature 

suggests that during the summer, mountain goats feed mostly on grasses and sedges, 

herbaceous plants and willow but their diet becomes variable during the winter, ranging 

from grasses to mosses, lichens, and woody vegetation (Rideout and Hoffmann 1975). 

Hardwood forests, meadows, and riparian areas are particularly important because these 

are the sites that produce the most forage (e.g., aspen and various shrubs). Usually the 

most available forage rather than the most palatable forage is consumed (Richardson 

1971). Regardless, most of the forage plants listed above require at least moderate levels 

of sunlight, such as is found under open or moderately open tree canopies. Riparian areas 

and open grassland would likely provide summer and winter forage (grasses and sedges). 

Although difficult to ascertain, competitors for forage resources likely include elk, deer, 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 183

bighorn sheep, and livestock. There is no evidence that suggests competition for forage 

between livestock and mountain goats may be causing a decline in goat numbers in the

Black Hills. However, less than 5% of mountain goat range is used exclusively by goats, 

which includes the highest rocky peaks of the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve and Black Elk 

Wilderness area (Richardson 1971). Therefore, overlap of forage sources between other 

ungulates in the remaining portion of their range is likely. Water availability for 

mountain goats does not appear to be a limiting factor for this species due to snow pack 

and terrain (Rideout and Hoffmann 1975). 

The SDGFP administers a hunting season on this population but the harvest season has 

been closed since 2006. The original herd of six transplanted animals grew to an 

estimated 300-400 animal by 1971, but a 2007 survey suggests a current population of 

only 60 goats. The cause of this decline is unknown. Some possibilities include high 

predator (mountain lion) numbers, genetics, and/or possible habitat loss (USDA Forest

Service 2008a). The Forest continues to coordinate with the South Dakota Department of 

Game, Fish, and Parks to determine if more specific habitat management actions are 

needed to conserve/enhance habitat for this species (USDA Forest Service 2004, 2007). 

Mountain goats have been documented in the Palmer Gulch Allotment (Palmer and 

Rabbit pastures) and one stray was reported adjacent to the Redfern Allotment near the 

town of Mystic (J. Kanta, South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks, Pers. Comm.). 

Currently, the Hell Canyon District is preparing an EIS for vegetative treatments in the 

Norbeck Wildlife Preserve (Norbeck Wildlife Preserve Project) that would affect portions 

of the Palmer Gulch Allotment. These treatments are designed to enhance species 

diversity and improve habitat for selected focus species. The mountain goat is considered 

a Norbeck focus species (Griebel et al. 2007, USDA Forest Service 2004, 2007). 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Mountain Goat: 

Alternative A - No Action 

Direct effects may include mortality from being tangled in barbed wire fence material. 

Indirect effects would improve riparian habitat by elevating water tables and increase 

herbaceous vegetation (grasses and sedge) that would improve forage availability and 

quality. In the uplands (<30% slope), understory grasses and forbs would be more available 

for the mountain goat, and likely increase riparian shrubs such as willow. The overall 

available riparian and hardwood habitat for goats would improve if livestock grazing were 

no longer allowed in mountain goat home ranges. Available habitat for this species would 

improve if competition between mountain goat and livestock is no longer allowed. 

However, forage competition between elk, bighorn sheep, and deer would still occur. 

Therefore there may not be any appreciable increase in mountain goat numbers. Overall, 

habitat would likely improve in the absence of grazing compared to Alternatives B and C. 

Alternative B 

Direct effects may include mortality from being tangled in barbed wire fence material or if 

range riders causes goats to lose footing while moving to cover. Indirect effects include 

potential loss of foraging habitat in uplands, riparian areas, meadows, and hardwood stands

due to livestock grazing and browsing (See riparian/aquatic MIS and white-tailed deer 

discussion). In addition, lack of diverse understory grass and shrub communities in 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 184

riparian areas may increase predation and sight-ability by hunters. Periods of low forage 

production caused by drought would exacerbate poor forage quality and availability and 

increase competition with other ungulates for those resources. However, there is no 

indication that these resources are limiting (USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

Under this alternative, adherence to Forest Plan standards, guidelines and utilization 

standards, identifying residual levels for riparian areas, and adjustments to livestock use 

based on monitoring should improve upland and riparian plant communities from 

existing conditions. Design criteria include a Drought Management approach that would 

allow for temporary adjustment of the annual livestock numbers and season of use during 

periods of drought. Although livestock grazing in riparian areas would be reduced, 

grazing would still affect stream bank stability and extent and diversity of riparian 

vegetation, more than Alternative A (see riparian/aquatic MIS Alternative B discussion). 

In Alternative B, new structural improvements that have a potential to improve livestock 

distribution and reduce grazing impacts to riparian areas would not occur. In riparian 

areas where site specific resource problems have been identified, stream morphology and 

hydrologic function may continue to be of concern in the absence of management options 

to address those concerns (e.g. additional fencing, off-site water developments). In 

general, negative effects to those riparian areas with resource concerns are higher in 

Alternative B compared to Alternative C. 

Movement toward meeting desired condition would improve habitat for the mountain goat 

but the degree of effects would depend upon the permittees’ commitment to keep livestock 

away from riparian areas. Implementation of riparian utilization standards would improve 

habitat conditions for the mountain goat from existing. Alternative B should provide 

adequate cover and water for these species, but to a lesser degree than Alternative A. 

Alternative C 

Direct and indirect effects to mountain goat are similar to the effects discussed under 

Alternative B. 

Livestock management options available in Alternative B would be the same in 

Alternative C. In addition, Alternative C would allow for new structural improvements 

such as fence lines, water developments, riparian exclosures, and riparian pastures that 

would help achieve better distribution of livestock across the allotment pastures. In 

riparian areas where site specific resource problems have been identified, stream 

morphology and hydrologic function are likely to improve if fences are constructed that 

limit livestock use in those areas. In general, these additional management options 

should improve riparian vegetation composition, increase stream bank stability, and 

restore hydrologic function in riparian areas more so than Alternative B. Upland 

utilization is expected to increase in allotment pastures that overlap mountain goat use 

areas where currently there is little to no use occurring, although this is not expected to 

have an effect on the mountain goat. Indirect effect such as a reduction in forage quantity 

and availability, loss of hiding cover, reduced hardwood regeneration potential would 

likely occur similar to Alternative B. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 185

Movement toward meeting desired condition would improve habitat for the mountain goat 

but the degree of effects would depend upon the permittees’ commitment to keep livestock 

away from riparian areas. Implementation of riparian utilization standards would improve 

habitat conditions for the mountain goat from existing. Adherence to Forest Plan standards, 

guidelines and utilization standards should provide adequate foraging and cover habitat for 

the mountain goat similar to Alternative B but to a lesser degree than Alternative A. 

Prescribed burning in the Porcupine Allotment would have no effect on this species or its 

habitat. 

All alternatives would be consistent with Objective 221. 

Cumulative Effects to Mountain Goat 

Several factors can affect mountain goat populations including the harvesting of animals, 

climatic changes, quality of summer and winter range, parasites, and predation. Predators 

such as mountain lions have increased in recent years, which likely have resulted in direct 

mortality from actual predation but also mortality caused by trying to escape this 

predator. Juveniles are less adept at moving on steep granite terrain, and may fall to their 

death in the attempt to escape. However, Richardson (1971) indicates that predation at

that time was insignificant. Both the legal and illegal harvesting of animals, and 

mortality caused by vehicles also impact on the goat population. 

Past harvest activities, forest succession and fire suppression have resulted in a much 

denser forest condition. Higher conifer densities have resulted in the decline of 

understory shrub and grass species, which may have affected a change vegetation 

composition, growth, and vigor (SAIC 2003). Fire suppression has eliminated a primary 

disturbance agent, thus affecting early seral communities such as grassland and aspen. 

Richardson (1971) noted that goats that were trapped were in poor condition or toothless. 

At the time, browse in three key areas in the core goat range was moderately to severely 

hedged, which indicates excessive past use. Loss of new growth of desirable browse 

plants around the Harney Peak area was notable. Grasses and sedges in the same area 

were badly overgrazed by goats. It is likely that in the absence of fire, forage condition 

in core goat range is limiting. Competition for forage and cover resources between goats 

and other ungulates such as deer, elk, and livestock has not been evaluated. Starvation 

has been indicated as a cause for mortality in the Black Hills (Tallman et al. 2002) 

Due to this species preference for steep terrain mostly located in the Black Elk Wilderness 

and Norbeck Wildlife Preserve, very little vegetative treatments have occurred in their core 

range. Within their “grass range” (Richardson 1971), activities such as timber harvest, 

thinning, hardwood restoration, meadow restoration and prescribed fire have increased 

forage availability for big game by reducing dense stand conditions and maintaining 

grassland/meadow and hardwood communities. The Norbeck Wildlife Preserve Project is 

currently being planned to improve diversity and structure of major plant communities in 

the Norbeck boundaries. Proposed activities include meadow restoration, aspen 

regeneration/restoration, opening of forest canopies that would improve understory 

structure and vigor. Effects would be similar to those previously described. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 186

Increased recreation use in the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve and Black Elk Wilderness, 

especially rock climbing and bouldering, could be contributing to a decline in mountain 

goat numbers in the Black Hills range. Mortality can occur while trying to escape human 

presence, especially when kids are very young and easily disturbed. Several factors 

associated with recreation use include displacement to less suitable habitat, noise, 

disruption of traditional movement corridors, loss of suitable areas for shelter/cover, loss of 

lichen/mosses due to excessive climbing and increased chances of dog/goat interactions 

(Gaines et al. 2003). Mountain goat primary ranges in 1989 appear to be shifting to areas 

where human contact is minimal (USDA Forest Service 1989). Due to lack of data, it is 

unknown whether Alternatives B and C are contributing to cumulative effects (J. Kanta, 

South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks, Pers. Comm.).

Threatened, Endangered and Region 2 sensitive Species 

A biological assessment/Biological evaluation (BA/BE) would be completed for the 

Mystic Range Project Area for the final EIS. The effects of the various alternatives and 

activities proposed would be evaluated for all Endangered Threatened, Proposed, and R2 

Sensitive species, and their habitat. A BA/BE is prepared in accordance with legal 

requirement set forth under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (19 U.S.C. 

1536 (c)), and follows standards established in Forest Service Manual direction (2672.42)

and the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR S401). The Regional Forester issued a 

Sensitive species list for the Rocky Mountain Region (FSM 2670), and revised Sensitive 

species list (FSM Regional Supplement No. 2600-2009-1, dated June 9, 2009). The 

BA/BE tiers directly to the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Phase II 

Amendment to the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2005a). The BA/BE does not 

address species listed as threatened or endangered by the state of South Dakota, species 

tracked by the South Dakota Natural Heritage Program, or U. S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service candidate species (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2009c), unless they have been 

identified as Region 2 (R2) Sensitive species. 

The USDA Fish and Wildlife Service website (http://southdakota field office.fws.gov) 

was consulted on January 21, 2010 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2009d) to determine 

the current list of Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed species that occur or potentially 

occur in Pennington, Lawrence, and Custer Counties. The bald eagle was removed from 

the list of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife effective August 8, 2007, therefore this 

species is now considered an R2 Sensitive species. No further analysis is needed for the 

whooping crane, least tern, and black-footed ferret because these species are not known 

or suspected to occur in the project area, and there is no suitable habitat is present (USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2009d). 

A preliminary summary of effects and determinations for Region 2 Sensitive species can be 

found in Appendix E of this document and are subject to change until finalized. The 

preliminary determinations of effects for Region 2 Sensitive species were made based on the 

information gathered in the pre-field review, field reconnaissance and using information 

provided in the MRPA draft document. The basis for the preliminary determinations is
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 187

potential habitat, species distribution, and anticipated effects from proposed activities. The 

determination language is set forth in FSM Regional Supplement No. 2600-2009-1. 

The Phase II Forest Plan Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005a) evaluated 

population viability, and determined that all federally listed and R2 Sensitive species are 

likely to persist on the Forest over the next 50 years if standards and guidelines are 

followed, and if conditions move toward Forest Plan objectives. Project implementation 

would incorporate all Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. Furthermore, all alternative 

are consistent with Objective 221, which is to conserve or enhance habitat for R2 

Sensitive species. Therefore, persistence of all federally listed and sensitive species 

would not be affected by any alternative of the MRP. 

Norbeck Focus Species 

The Norbeck Wildlife Preserve (NWP) was established by Congress for the “protection of 

game animals and birds and to be recognized as a breeding place therefor” under the 

Norbeck Organic Act (NOA). In 2001, it was ruled that the Norbeck Organic Act is the

primary legislative mandate for the management of the NWP but that the Forest can 

continue to establish management plans under both the NOA and the National Forest 

Management Act (Sierra Club-Black Hills Group; American Wildlands, Inc; and Friends of 

the Bow v. USFS, 2001). Pursuant to public law 107-206 (2002), a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) was signed in 2004 between the Black Hills National Forest and the 

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks to further cooperate and consult in the 

management of the NWP. However, no definition of “game animals and birds” was 

developed, especially in defining terminology from the NOA such as “protection”. 

Because of the variety of game animal and bird species that occur in the NWP, “focus 

species” have been identified along with terminology definitions to guide management of 

the Norbeck area in accordance with its original spirit and intent (Griebel et al. 2007). A 

portion of the Palmer Gulch Allotment in the Mystic Range Project overlaps the “Norbeck 

Main Portion”; therefore “focus” species for this area are reviewed. Table 3-6 identifies 

the Norbeck focus species and how these species were evaluated for the Mystic Range 

Project. 

Table 3-6 Focus Species, Norbeck Wildlife Preserve 

Species Project Disposition 

Game Animals 

Mountain Goat (Oreamnos americanus) Species of Local Concern 

Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis) R2 Sensitive Species 

Rocky Mountain Elk (Cervus elaphus) See Below 

White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) Management Indicator Species 

Merriam’s Turkey (Meleagris gallepavo merriami) See Below 

Birds 

Mountain Bluebird (Sialia currucoides) See Below 

Golden-crowned Kinglet (Regulus satrapa) Species of Local Concern 

Brown Creeper (Certhia americana) Management Indicator Species 

Ruffed Grouse (Bonasa umbellus) Management Indicator Species 

Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia) Management Indicator Species 

Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) R2 Sensitive Species 

Black-backed Woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) R2 Sensitive Species 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 188

The Hell Canyon District has prepared an EIS for vegetative treatments in the Norbeck 

Wildlife Preserve (Norbeck Wildlife Preserve Project) that will affect portions of the 

Palmer Gulch Allotment. These treatments are to enhance species diversity and improve 

habitat for selected focus species. In the Mystic Range Project, there are approximately 

6,185 acres of grassland communities and 3,118 acres dominated by aspen. 

Rocky Mountain Elk 

The Forest Plan objectives, standards, and guidelines that apply to white-tailed deer (see 

MIS section) also apply to elk. Objective 301 allocates 127 million pounds of forage 

(128,000 AUMs) to livestock use and 106 million pounds of forage to wildlife (70,000 deer 

and 4,500 elk) annually. Hardwood forests, meadows, and riparian areas are particularly 

important because these are the sites that produce the most forage (e.g., aspen and various 

shrubs). Forest objectives strive to increase and maintain grassland, meadow, and 

hardwoods forest-wide. Various structural stages of ponderosa pine provide cover and 

forage for this species. Forest Plan standards and guidelines specific to the NWP are 5.4A2501 through 2503, and 5.4A-2505 would maintain or enhance habitat for this species. 

Rocky Mountain elk are found in all areas of the Black Hills, mostly in higher elevations. 

This species was analyzed as a demand species in the Phase II Amendment EIS (USDA 

Forest Service 2005a) and was dropped from MIS status in the 1997 Forest Plan (SAIC 

2005). Elk use a variety of vegetation types on the Forest but show a preference for 

forested riparian areas, meadow edges, and aspen/birch stands. Elk find cover (thermal, 

escape, security) on the Forest in dense conifer stands and in hardwoods. This large 

game animal’s diet changes from mostly grasses, forbs, and shrubs during the growing 

season to shrubs, hardwoods (aspen) and lichen during the winter. Competition with deer 

for forage is usually not an important management issue on the Forest but when 

competition does occur, elk would dominate (Coe et al. 2001). In contrast, livestock 

grazing can have a negative impact on wintering elk through competition for forage and 

displacement (SAIC 2003). In general, elk avoid livestock during the summer (Coe et al. 

2001). Changes in use of foraging areas have been associated with forage quality and 

quantity, thermal regulation in response to weather conditions, and disturbance. 

Rocky Mountain elk are considered a Norbeck focus species (Griebel et al. 2007, USDA 

Forest Service 2004, 2007). Elk were selected as a focus species because of being a

charismatic game animal, being sensitive to disturbance (e.g., roads) and that its predator 

was the mountain lion (Griebel et al. 2007). Population numbers have steadily increased 

since this species was introduced in the early 20th century and are near population 

objectives for the Black Hills. This species is considered a game species and is regulated 

by the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks through annual hunting permits 

(South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks 2008b). The most recent Black Hills 

population estimate is approximately 3,500 elk (Huxoll 2008). Forest Plan Objective 217 

supports habitat for management of 4,500 elk in the Black Hills, which matches South 

Dakota state population objectives. Elk have been documented in the all of the allotments. 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Elk 

Alternative A - No Action 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 189

There are no direct effects to elk expected under this alternative. However, as fences 

deteriorate within the NWP, injury may occur. In general, there would be no 

displacement of elk by livestock through competition for high quality forage, especially 

in hardwoods and riparian areas. Indirect effects include an increase in understory

composition and structure, improved aspen/birch regeneration, and increases in the 

amount of available forage on both summer and winter ranges. In addition, lack of 

livestock grazing would likely increase composition and structure of riparian areas by 

raising the water table, improve water quality and shrub and understory production 

(forage and cover). Light to moderate livestock grazing can have a beneficial effect on 

forage quality by removing the rough or dried seed heads and stems, while leaving the 

more palatable leaves for deer or elk to graze later in the season (Anderson and 

Scherzinger 1975, Clark et al. 2000). Therefore, potential exists that under no grazing, 

forage quality and production could decline for this ungulate. The overall available

habitat for elk would improve in the absence of grazing in this alternative compared to 

Alternative C and B. 

Alternative B 

There are no direct effects to elk expected under this alternative. However, existing 

fences within the MRP potentially could cause mortality and injury. Indirect effects 

include potential loss of foraging and cover habitat in uplands, riparian areas, meadows, 

and hardwood stands due to livestock grazing and browsing. In addition, lack of diverse 

understory grass and shrub communities in riparian areas potentially increase predation 

and sight-ability by hunters. The greatest potential for effects between elk and livestock 

would likely occur when competition for forage would be the greatest (late summer/fall), 

which could affect elk survivability during the winter. The possibility of competition for 

resources would be exacerbated during periods of low forage production and drought. 

Generally, effects on elk are similar for white-tailed deer (See White tailed deer -

Alternative B discussion). In the NWP, some riparian resource concerns have been 

identified due to livestock over use. For the Palmer Gulch allotment that overlaps the

NWP (MA 5.4A), adjustments in season of use, number of livestock, and the number of 

days spent in a given pasture may be necessary to move livestock before utilization 

standards or threshold are exceeded. Reduction in total livestock use in this allotment s 

may occur if grazing capacity determinations, resource conditions or both warrant these 

reductions. With implementing riparian stubble height requirements, riparian condition in 

the NWP pastures would likely improve from existing condition. This would depend on 

the permittees’ commitment to managing distribution of livestock, especially way from 

riparian areas. However, in Alternative B, the lack of new structural improvements that 

have a potential to protect water sources and improve livestock distribution would not 

occur. Potentially movement toward desired conditions could take a shorter period of time 

as compared to Alternative C. If livestock distribution does not improve, livestock would 

likely move earlier than planned, ultimately leaving the NWP prior to late summer and fall. 

This would benefit elk if livestock grazing effects on browse species (e.g., aspen, willow) 

is reduced. Effects from grazing would be greater than Alternative A but would be similar 

to Alternative C. Attainment of Standard 5.4A-2503 to prevent habitat degradation adjacent 

to water sources may be difficult without new structures to protect these areas. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 190

Alternative C 

Direct and indirect effects to elk are similar to the effects discussed under Alternative B. 

Generally, effects on elk are similar for white-tailed deer (See MIS white tailed deerAlternative C discussion). Alternative C would allow for new structural improvements in 

the NWP such as riparian exclosures and fences that would help achieve better distribution 

of livestock and prevent habitat degradation adjacent to water sources (MA 5.4A-2503). 

Reduced grazing impact and increased streambank stability, improvement in riparian 

vegetation extent, diversity, and restoration of hydrologic function would benefit elk and 

other big game species. Elk would benefit if livestock grazing effects on browse species 

(e.g., aspen, willow) is reduced. Better distribution may reduce spatial overlap of big game 

and livestock during the late summer and fall (Coe et al. 2004). Although livestock grazing 

in riparian areas would be reduced, grazing would still affect stream bank stability, extent, 

and diversity of riparian vegetation, more than Alternative A. 

Upland utilization is expected to increase in areas where currently there is no use occurring. 

This may have an effect on elk, since this species has been documented moving to the 

uplands to avoid livestock. In MA 5.4a, active livestock management would likely 

decrease foraging habitat in the NWP in on big game winter range. It is anticipated that 

structural improvements if implemented would improve livestock distribution, where it 

would take longer period of time before riparian thresholds are achieved. Potentially, 

movement toward desired conditions could take a longer period of time as compared to 

Alternative B due an extended grazing season. Therefore, there is a slightly greater 

potential to increase the effects to elk and their habitat compared to Alternative B. 

However, as in Alternative B, the permittees’ commitment to moving livestock out of 

riparian areas becomes crucial to meeting desired conditions, especially later in the grazing 

season. Adherence to Forest Plan standards, guidelines and utilization standards should 

provide adequate foraging and cover habitat for elk similar to Alternative B but to a lesser 

degree than Alternative A. Attainment of Standard 5.4A-2503 to prevent habitat 

degradation adjacent to water sources is likely under this alternative. 

Prescribed burning in the Porcupine Allotment would enhance elk habitat but this area is 

outside of the NWP. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects to elk would be similar to deer (See MIS-white-tailed deer discussion). 

Vegetative treatments such as thinning, hardwood restoration, meadow restoration, and 

prescribed burning planned the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve EIS would improve plant 

community diversity and provide additional forage for Elk in the NWP. Increase in 

recreational use would likely affect Elk by displacement, hunting, and predation, especially 

if roads used for timber harvest (Norbeck Wildlife Preserve Project) improve access to 

areas not previously available. 

Merriam’s Turkey 

Merriam’s turkeys are found in all areas of the Black Hills. This species was previously 

considered an MIS species under the 1997 Forest Plan (SAIC 2005), but that status was 

removed and the turkey was analyzed as a demand species in the Phase II Amendment 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 191

EIS (USDA Forest Service 2005a). The Merriam’s turkey is considered a Norbeck focus 

species (Griebel et al. 2007, USDA Forest Service 2004, 2007). In the Black Hills, 

turkeys use a variety of habitats. Winter habitat consists primarily of ponderosa pine 

with >70% canopy cover, while open stands of ponderosa pine with sufficient ground 

vegetation provide good summer habitat. Winter diets consist mainly of ponderosa pine 

seeds and summer diets are grass seed and foliage (Rumble and Anderson 1996). Nests 

usually are located near rock outcrops and shrubs located in meadows. Known predators 

include coyotes, magpies, and crows. Population levels have steadily increased since 

1998 but fluctuate considerably due to adverse weather conditions during nesting/brood 

seasons. This species is considered a game species, and is regulated by the South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish, and Parks through annual hunting permits (South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish, and Parks 2008b). 

Several concerns with grazing and turkey habitat management include reducing foraging 

habitat and nesting habitat. Loss of food sources including insects, grasses, and forbs can 

occur if livestock stocking rates are too high. Loss of nesting habitat can also occur as a 

result of livestock overuse. However, grazing can be an important management tool for

improving turkey habitat. In general, a light to moderate stocking rate, with deferred or 

rest rotation grazing system is best for turkey habitat management. These types of 

grazing practices can improve nesting habitat in areas where vegetation can become too 

thick, increasing plant diversity and nutritional value (reduce rankness), and provide 

water through watering structures/developments. Direct loss of egg/nest becomes a 

concern when stocking density is greater than 1 AUM/acre (Anderson and McCuistion 

2006). All of the allotments in the MRP have maximum stock rates less than 1 

AUM/acre. Merriam’s turkeys have been documented in the all of the allotments. 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Turkey 

Alternative A - No Action 

There are no direct effects expected under this alternative, therefore the possibility of 

mortality (egg loss) due to livestock grazing is eliminated. Indirect effects include 

improvement in riparian areas and an increase in herbaceous vegetation for nesting and 

concealment cover. A lack of grazing could increase invertebrates (e.g., grasshoppers) 

abundance in openings and meadows. However, a lack of grazing could affect nesting 

habitat. This alternative would provide habitat for turkey at an increased rate compared 

to Alternative C and Alternative B. 

Alternative B 

Direct effects from livestock grazing include potential mortality of eggs and nestlings due 

to trampling nests, crushing eggs or chicks, knocking eggs or young out of nests or beds, 

or covering eggs, chicks or young with manure piles. Livestock grazing may indirectly 

affect the Merriam’s turkey by changing grassland species composition, reducing prey 

abundance, and reducing turkey’s ability to avoid predators by removing required cover. 

 

Under this alternative, adherence to Forest Plan standards, guidelines and utilization 

standards, identifying residual levels for riparian areas, and adjustments to livestock use 

based on monitoring should improve riparian plant communities, hydrologic function, 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 192

and in-stream habitat from existing conditions. Current utilization patterns would 

continue or be adjusted based on annual monitoring results, and other factors (e.g., 

drought, fire) on a pasture by pasture basis. Some improvement in upland and riparian 

conditions and trends would occur with adjustments in the Annual Operating Instructions 

(AOI) and those management options (e.g., herding, mineral placement) available under

this alternative that would improve livestock distribution away from riparian areas. 

In Alternative B, new structural improvements that have a potential to improve livestock 

distribution and reduce grazing impacts to riparian areas would not occur. In riparian 

areas where site specific resource problems have been identified, stream morphology and 

hydrologic function may continue to be of concern in the absence of management options 

to address those concerns (e.g. additional fencing, off-site water developments). 

Although livestock grazing in riparian areas would be reduced, grazing would still affect 

stream bank stability, extent, and diversity of riparian vegetation more than Alternative 

A. In general, negative effects to those riparian areas with resource concerns are higher 

in Alternative B compared to Alternative C. 

Movement toward meeting desired condition would improve habitat for Merriam’s turkey 

but the degree of effects would depend upon the permittees’ commitment to improved 

livestock distribution, especially away from riparian areas. Implementation of riparian 

utilization standards would improve habitat conditions for turkeys from existing. 

Alternative B should provide adequate cover and water for these species similar to 

Alternative C, but to a lesser degree than Alternative A. Attainment of Standard 5.4A2503 to prevent habitat degradation adjacent to water sources may be difficult without 

new structures to protect these areas in this alternative. 

Alternative C 

Direct and indirect effects to Merriam’s turkey are similar to the effects discussed under 

Alternative B. However, mortality can also occur as a result of prescribed burning during 

the nesting/fledgling period (Porcupine Allotment) but this area is outside of the NWP. 

Livestock management options available in Alternative B would be the same in 

Alternative C. In addition, Alternative C would allow for new structural improvements 

such as fence lines, water developments, riparian exclosures, and riparian pastures that 

would help achieve better distribution of livestock across the allotment pastures. New 

structural improvements in the NWP such as riparian exclosures and fences would help 

achieve better distribution of livestock and prevent habitat degradation adjacent to water 

sources (MA 5.4A-2503). Better distribution of livestock would allow preferred grass, 

forb and shrub plants to recuperate and prevents their degradation from overuse. 

Although livestock grazing in riparian areas would be reduced, grazing would still affect 

stream bank stability, extent, and diversity of riparian vegetation, more than Alternative 

A. Movement toward desired conditions in the upland and riparian areas would benefit 

Merriam’s turkeys and their prey. In addition, reducing grazing effects on browse 

species (e.g., aspen, willow) would improve nesting sites. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 193

Upland utilization is expected to increase in areas where currently there is no use 

occurring. This may have an effect on turkey, especially where livestock use has been 

historically light. As in Alternative B, movement toward meeting desired condition 

would improve habitat for Merriam’s turkey but the degree of effects would depend upon 

the permittees’ commitment to improved livestock distribution, especially away from 

riparian areas. Adherence to Forest Plan standards, guidelines and utilization standards 

should provide adequate foraging and cover habitat for Merriam’s turkey similar to 

Alternative B but to a lesser degree than Alternative A. 

Attainment of Standard 5.4A-2503 to prevent habitat degradation adjacent to water sources

is likely under this alternative. 

Prescribed burning in the Porcupine Allotment would increase foraging habitat long-term but 

would reduce down woody components that provide cover from predators and nesting sites. 

Cumulative Effects 

Forest succession and fire suppression activities have resulted in much denser forest 

conditions. Fire suppression has eliminated a primary disturbance agent to maintain 

grassland and meadows needed by this species. The lack of fire has allowed pine to 

encroach into former grasslands, thus reducing habitat for this species over time. 

Mountain pine beetle mortality would change dense forest conditions to more open pine 

stands with an abundant amount of down dead. These areas would provide forage and 

nesting habitat for turkeys. In these affected areas, pine regeneration would continue 

providing cover and future seed source. Past harvest activities that cause soil 

disturbance, usually results in pine regeneration. Vegetative treatments would likely 

continue and increase nesting and foraging habitat for the turkey, especially by increasing 

pine seed availability. However, forest succession and fire suppression would likely 

continue that would provide pine seed, but may also reduce other prey items. Vegetative 

treatments such as thinning, hardwood restoration, meadow restoration, and prescribed 

burning planned the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve EIS would improve plant community 

diversity and provide additional habitat for Merriam’s turkeys in the NWP. 

Development of private land, roads, conversion of native grasslands through agricultural 

practices, and introduction of non-native species would continue. This would reduce 

habitat available for turkeys and increase the hunting opportunities. Increase in 

recreational use would likely affect turkeys by displacement, hunting, and predation, 

especially if roads used for timber harvest (Norbeck Wildlife Preserve Project) improve 

access to areas not previously available. 

Use of herbicides on both private and forest may decrease vegetation species diversity, 

reduce seed sources, and reduce prey availability. Pesticide use on private could reduce 

prey abundance that would affect turkeys in those areas. 

Livestock grazing, as well as grazing by wild ungulates, would continue on Forest and on 

private land. For turkeys, loss of cover and nesting habitat would likely continue, along 

with the potential for destruction of nest and eggs through trampling, and increased 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 194

predation would likely continue. Overgrazing on both forest and private land would have 

a negative effect on the Merriam’s turkey as well as their habitat. Alternatives B and C 

are expected to contribute to cumulative effects. 

Mountain Bluebird 

Mountain bluebirds are considered a Norbeck focus species (Griebel et al. 2007, USDA 

Forest Service 2004, 2007). This species is a common migrant and summer resident in 

the Black Hills (Tallman et al. 2002). This species prefers open areas in ponderosa pine 

forest and typically nests in woodlands intermixed with natural openings such as 

meadows, shrub sites, and burned areas as well as recently logged areas. These birds 

usually nest in old woodpecker cavities in both live and dead trees (Wiggins 2006b). The 

bluebird is considered a “hawking” type forager, usually hovering over the ground or 

flying from nearby perches. Dominate forage items include beetles, ants, caterpillars, and 

occasionally fruit (NatureServe 2009). There is conflicting evidence concerning the 

effects of livestock grazing on mountain bluebird habitat; grazing maintains short, open 

habitats that are preferred foraging areas, but it may also seriously reduce the recruitment 

of aspen and other edge tree species (Wiggins 2006b). Forest bird monitoring indicates 

that population levels are stable, although regionally numbers have declined (Sauer et al. 

2008). The mountain bluebird was selected to focus management activities towards 

meadow/grass restoration, open pine forests and any activity (prescribed fire) that would 

maintain snags adjacent to foraging areas. 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Mountain Bluebirds 

Alternative A - No Action 

There are no direct or indirect effects expected under this alternative. Livestock grazing 

has no affect on the availability of nesting habitat for tree nesting birds. There would be 

no effect to this species habitat if livestock grazing was terminated. However, no grazing 

would likely improve foraging and watering habitat by increasing prey availability and 

abundance, improving riparian vegetation cover and composition, increasing water tables, 

and stabilizing stream morphology (See SOLC –Insectivores section). 

Alternative B 

There are no direct effects expected to the mountain bluebird from the grazing of 

livestock per se. Potential direct effects may come from possible nest disturbance and 

associated nesting failure (loss of eggs and hatchlings) resulting from activities related to 

livestock grazing such as maintenance and reconstruction of range improvement 

structures (e.g. fence line clearing). Grazing could reduce plant species diversity and 

reduce important food sources if changes in the understory vegetation occur where 

specific plants to provide food and oviposition sites for prey species are removed. 

In Alternative B, new structural improvements that have a potential to improve livestock 

distribution and reduce grazing impacts to riparian areas would not occur. Therefore 

meeting Forest Plan guideline 5.4A-2503 would not be achieved. Bull et al. (2001) found 

that stock ponds that were fenced had higher bird densities (e.g., mountain bluebird) than 

ponds that were not fenced. In riparian areas where site specific resource problems have 

been identified, stream morphology and hydrologic function may continue to be of 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 195

concern in the absence of management options to address those concerns (e.g. additional 

fencing, off-site water developments). Therefore, this alternative would negatively affect 

this species more so than Alternative C. Under this alternative, adherence to Forest Plan 

standards, guidelines and utilization standards, identifying residual levels for riparian 

areas, and adjustments to livestock use based on monitoring should improve riparian and 

upland plant communities from existing conditions. Alternative B would provide 

adequate forage and cover habitat for the mountain bluebird and their prey. 

Alternative C 

Direct and indirect effects to mountain bluebirds are similar to the effects discussed under 

Alternative B. Additional direct effects come from nest disturbance and possible loss of 

nests (eggs and hatchlings) as a result of associated activities like fence line 

maintenance/construction, and prescribed burning. 

Livestock management options available in Alternative B would be the same in 

Alternative C. In addition, Alternative C would allow for new structural improvements 

such as fence lines, water developments, riparian exclosures, and riparian pastures that 

would help achieve better distribution of livestock across the allotment pastures. In 

riparian areas where site specific resource problems have been identified, stream 

morphology and hydrologic function are likely to improve if fences are constructed that 

limit livestock use in those areas. In general, these additional management options 

should improve riparian vegetation composition, increase stream bank stability, and 

restore hydrologic function in riparian areas more so than Alternative B. Although 

livestock grazing in riparian areas would be reduced, grazing would still affect stream 

bank stability and extent and diversity of riparian vegetation, more than Alternative A. 

Upland utilization is expected to increase in areas where currently there is no use 

occurring. This may have an effect on mountain bluebirds, especially where livestock 

use has been historically light, and prey species are abundant. As in Alternative B, 

movement toward meeting desired condition would improve habitat for mountain blue 

birds but the degree of effects would depend upon the permittees’ commitment to 

improved livestock distribution, especially away from riparian areas. Adherence to 

Forest Plan standards, guidelines and utilization standards should provide adequate 

foraging and cover habitat for the mountain bluebird similar to Alternative B but to a 

lesser degree than Alternative A. Attainment of Standard 5.4A-2503 to prevent habitat 

degradation adjacent to water sources is likely under this alternative. 

Prescribed burning in the Porcupine Allotment would increase foraging habitat long-term 

but could reduce nesting habitat availability depending on fire intensity and the number 

of snags created. However this proposed burn area is outside of the NWP. 

Cumulative Effects 

Past activities that affect the bluebird include timber harvest (salvage and green) by the 

removal of large trees and snags that would have provided nesting habitat. Since this 

species utilizes old woodpecker cavities, cumulative effects for mountain bluebirds would 

be similar to woodpeckers. Management practices, including patch-cutting, overstory 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 196

removal, salvage, and shelter wood harvest of ponderosa pine that reduce the number of 

large trees along openings and meadows, would also reduce nest site availability for the 

bluebird. Ponderosa pine stands have also experienced reductions in snag and down wood 

habitat due the firewood cutting, which was allowed Forest-wide until 1997. Vegetative

treatments such as thinning, hardwood restoration, meadow restoration, and prescribed 

burning planned the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve EIS would improve plant community 

diversity and provide additional habitat for mountain bluebirds in the NWP. However, 

removal of trees affected by mountain pine beetle, fuel breaks, and other treatment to reduce 

the potential for wildlife would reduce nesting habitat for this species. 

Personal use firewood collection of non-standing dead would continue to occur, along 

with removal of standing and downed wood in designated firewood gathering areas, 

which may remove nest trees and foraging substrates. High road densities in some areas 

provide access for firewood gatherers. 

Motorized travel on roads, especially near openings/meadows and grasslands increase the 

chance of collision with mountain bluebirds, especially if the roads are between nesting 

habitat and foraging habitat. Roads used for timber harvest (Norbeck Wildlife Preserve 

Project) improve access to areas not previously available may increase mortality during 

harvest operations and increase predation. The use of pesticides on private land and 

herbicides on both private and Forest, can reduce prey availability. 

Wildfires such as the Jasper Fire (Porcupine Allotment) and the Horse Creek Burn (Bald 

Horse Allotment), and the current mountain pine beetle epidemic (USDA Forest Service 

2008a) have increased nesting and foraging habitat short-term for the mountain bluebird. 

Future prescribed burns are expected to be beneficial for this species. However, habitat 

created by fires and insects would become less suitable long-term as openings become 

smaller and nesting/perch sites become less available. 

Changes in private land from agricultural purposes to residential developments has 

reduced habitat for these species not only on private land. Past and future fuel reduction 

projects including removal of standing and downed wood within 200 feet of private land 

would likely reduce habitat for this species. 

Migratory Birds 

Many species of migratory birds are of international concern due to naturally small ranges, 

loss of habitat, observed population declines and other factors. The BHNF recognizes the 

ecological and economic importance of birds, and approaches bird conservation at several 

levels by implementing: (1) Forest Plan objectives, standards and guidelines, (2) a Forestwide bird monitoring program, and (3) site-specific mitigation and effects analyses for 

identified species of concern. 

Bird monitoring is conducted at the Forest-level to determine species distribution, abundance, 

and trend (Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory 2001-2009). The monitoring is designed and 

conducted by the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory to provide statistically rigorous 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 197

population trend data for at least 61 species that breed in the Black Hills. Trend data would 

assist the Forest in determining whether additional conservation measures are necessary. 

Migratory birds of concern are identified by many sources, including the Endangered 

Species Act, the Regional Forester’s Sensitive species list, the BHNF MIS and SOLC lists, 

the USFWS list of Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

2008) and the South Dakota All Bird Conservation Plan (South Dakota Department of 

Game, Fish, and Parks 2005c). All of these sources and their respective species of concern 

except for the BCC have been examined elsewhere in this document and/or the Mystic 

Range Project Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation (BA/BE) report. 

The BCC 2008 publication lists 24 species in the conservation region that includes the 

Black Hills (BCR 17). However, not all of these species are found in the Black Hills 

National Forest. The South Dakota All Bird Conservation Plan developed priority bird 

species list within specific habitats in the state. For the Black Hills, Level I and II priority 

species have not been identified. Nineteen Level III species may be affected by either of 

the Mystic Range Project action alternatives (South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and 

Parks 2005), especially if they are riparian dependent. Most of the species do not need to 

be addressed here because: (1) specific species have another status designation that is 

already addressed in this document or the project BA/BE (e.g., MIS, SOLC, Sensitive), or 

(2) their habitat needs are addressed by Forest MIS species or (3) no habitat exists for them 

in the Mystic Range Project area. Please see Appendix C for the full list and specific 

project disposition of each species. 

Climate Change 

The U.S. Forest Service has embraced the management challenges posed by climate change. 

The agency’s “Strategic Framework for Responding to Climate Change” (Hayward et al. 

2009, USDA Forest Service 2008b) provides broad direction to guide future management 

and research to address climate change in all aspects of agency work. With this Framework, 

the agency has attempted to integrate climate change throughout its organizational structure. 

As a result, significant momentum is building from the individual Ranger District level up 

through the Washington Office to actively manage fish and wildlife habitat in a way that is 

mindful of climate change. The uncertainty associated with climate change and the potential 

risk associated with novel and untested management practices would require altogether new 

levels of institutional flexibility. Although it is recognized that climate change may affect 

wildlife and fish species, the potential impacts to species in Mystic Range Project are 

speculative at best, especially at the scale of the project area. 

FISHERIES 

Affected Environment 

A variety of native and non-native fish species are documented within the MRP analysis 

area. The lake chub and mountain sucker are Region 2 sensitive species that occur in the 

analysis area. These species are analyzed in the Biological Evaluation. The mountain 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 198

sucker has been documented in streams within or adjacent to the Rimmer Allotment

(Castle Creek), Redfern Allotment (Slate Creek), Bald Horse Allotment (Horse Creek) 

and Palmer Gulch Allotment (Spring Creek). 

The only population of lake chub on the Forest occurs in Deerfield Reservoir (Isaak et al. 

2003). The population trend for this species is one of decline, in contrast to habitat trend 

in Deerfield Reservoir, which appears to be stable (USDA Forest Service 2008). The 

Deerfield Allotment occurs adjacent to and upstream of Deerfield Reservoir.

Other native fish species documented in the analysis area include the creek chub, fathead 

minnow, longnose dace and white sucker. Non-native fish species documented in the analysis

area include brook, brown and rainbow trout, largemouth bass, rock bass and yellow perch. 

Suitable fish habitat in the form of perennial streams or lakes is not present in the Porcupine 

Allotment. All other allotments have perennial water to support native and non-native fisheries. 

Recreational fishing opportunities are provided by non-native gamefish species, primarily 

trout. Brook and brown trout fisheries are sustained almost entirely by natural reproduction, 

whereas rainbow trout are routinely stocked for high-use “put and take” fisheries. The 

principal stream fishing opportunities exist in Castle, Rapid and Spring creeks. 

There are no natural lakes in the Black Hills (Stewart and Thilenius 1964). Several 

impoundments provide recreational fishing opportunities within the analysis area. These 

include Deerfield Reservoir, Slate Creek Pond (Redfern Alloment) and Mitchell Lake 

(Palmer Gulch Allotment). 

Additional information on watershed conditions and aquatic resources can be found in the 

Hydrology discussion. 

Environmental Consequences 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Some effects are common to all alternatives. Stream connectivity and fish passage is similar 

under all alternatives because any new instream structures would allow for the free 

movement of fish consistent with Standard 1203 and no existing instream fish barriers are 

proposed for removal. None of the alternatives would have any direct or indirect effects on 

fisheries in the Porcupine Allotment because no suitable fish habitat exists in that allotment. 

Under Alternative A, no direct effects to fish would occur because livestock grazing would 

cease. Alternatives B and C are expected to have a similar direct effect (mortality/injury) to 

fish. This impact relates primarily to fish eggs and fry that may be trampled by livestock 

while watering or crossing streams. Impacts to trout are expected to be discountable due to 

the minimal or nonexistent overlap between their spawning season (October 15 – April 1) 

and livestock grazing. Livestock grazing may directly impact native fish spawning and egg 

incubation because they overlap in time, but the magnitude of this effect is likely to be

minor because livestock are not constantly watering in all suitable spawning habitat. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 199

Changes to aquatic and riparian habitat constitute the indirect effects to fisheries. These 

effects are disclosed in the hydrology section of this document. In summary, Alternative A 

would have the greatest positive indirect effect on fisheries because aquatic and riparian 

habitat conditions would improve the quickest and be maintained with the greatest certainty. 

These improved conditions would enhance rearing, foraging and spawning habitat for Black 

Hills fish species that require cool, clear water and clean, gravel stream substrate. 

Implementation of the proposed action (Alternative C) is predicted to have a positive 

indirect effect on fish compared to Alternative B by improving those aquatic and riparian 

conditions that are not currently at the desired condition, but these positive benefits would 

be to a lesser degree than Alternative A (no grazing). 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects area is bounded in space as the allotments and in time as approximately 

the next 10-15 years into the future. 

The greatest positive incremental impact to fisheries due to improved aquatic and riparian 

habitat conditions occurs under Alternative A, followed by Alternative C. These improved 

conditions are likely to maintain recreational fishing opportunities consistent with Executive 

Order 12962. Additional cumulative effects discussion to aquatic and riparian habitat 

conditions can be found in the Hydrology discussion. 

None of the alternatives have an additive incremental impact on stream connectivity and 

fish movements because any existing instream barriers are unaffected.

Management Indicator Species – Fish 

Mountain Sucker 

Effects to the mountain sucker are disclosed in the hydrology and fisheries environmental 

consequences discussion and the Biological Evaluation (BE). 

Long-term viability for this species was evaluated in the BE for the Forest Plan Phase II 

Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2005c). The Phase II BE determined that the 

mountain sucker was likely to persist for the next 50 years if land management activities 

are implemented consistent with the Forest Plan. 

The Forest-wide population trend for mountain sucker is one of decline when comparing 

past to present abundance and distribution (USDA Forest Service 2008). All alternatives 

will have a neutral effect on the Forest-wide population trend for the mountain sucker 

because of this species’ limited occurrence in the analysis area. Alternatives A and C 

meet the intent of Objective 238d better than Alternative B, with Alternative A providing 

the most habitat enhancement potential. 

Cumulative Effects 

Under either Alternative B or C, changes in mountain sucker abundance or distribution 

may be difficult to detect because of the limited occurrence of this species in the analysis 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 200

area. Instream barriers that may impede mountain sucker distribution will persist. The 

increased aquatic and riparian habitat enhancement that is more likely to occur under 

Alternative C will not be of a magnitude that non-native fish populations are expected to 

dramatically increase, so no additive impact is expected to mountain suckers from the 

possible negative interaction with non-native fish species. 

BOTANY 

Analysis Methods 

Effects on botanical resources were determined after considering the results of pre-field 

review, field reconnaissance, and survey. 

Botanical surveys were focused in areas of high probability habitat, but portions of low

probability habitat in the project area were also surveyed. Survey areas were determined 

using a combination of resources including topographic maps, aerial photographs, field 

reconnaissance, and local knowledge. The list of target plant species has changed over 

the past fifteen years (the time span over which the surveys were performed), however 

many of the species have remained on the list. Surveys focused on locating target plant 

species but also provide general community descriptions and species lists from which 

basic conclusions can be drawn about the habitat. The 2005 to 2008 survey reports often 

include a determination of an area’s potential to support target plant species. Survey

intensities ranged from field check to complete, however most sites were surveyed with 

general or intuitive controlled survey intensity. 

An effects analysis was completed for those plant species that could potentially be 

impacted by the proposed project. This analysis addresses federally designated 

endangered and threatened species, Region 2 sensitive plant species, and plant species of 

local concern (SOLC) which occur or which have potential habitat in the project area. 

Existing Condition 

Bald Horse Allotment 

The Bald Horse Allotment supports a diversity of plant community types as a result of 

the range of elevation in the project area and major variations in geology and 

geomorphology. Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) dominates the majority of the 

allotment with large expanses of grass/forb meadows primarily in the Bald Hills area. 

Most drainage bottoms are characterized by hardwood stands consisting of a continuum

between aspen (Populus tremuloides) dominated to paper birch (Betula papyrifera) 

dominated. These habitats support a diverse understory of grasses, forbs, and nonvascular species. 

Riparian community types occur along perennial streams such as Brushy Creek, Dark 

Canyon, Gold Standard Gulch, Horse Creek, McCurdy Gulch, Prairie Creek, Rapid 

Creek, Tamarack Gulch, Victoria Creek, and Victoria Gulch. Prairie Creek, above the 

dam, is an example of a healthy riparian system for this area. This area is dominated by 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 201

shrubs and forbs, such as willows (Salix sp.), paper birch, and redosier dogwood (Cornus 

sericea), that are indicative of moist to saturated soils. Problem riparian areas, such as

Middle Victoria Creek, lack hydrophilic vegetation and are dominated by Kentucky 

bluegrass (Poa pratensis). Kentucky bluegrass tolerates or increases under grazing 

pressure, but remains unchanged in the absence of grazing (Schulz & Leininger 1990, 

Pond 1961). This makes it unlikely that the plant community will revert back to native 

species once Kentucky bluegrass is established even if grazing pressure is removed. This 

change in ecology affects not only plant communities, but wildlife as well (Stauffer & 

Best 1980). There are also numerous intermittent streams with varying amounts of 

associated riparian vegetation. 

Yellow lady’s slipper (Cypripedium parviflorum) has been located in the eastern portion 

of the Lower Victoria Pasture. This area is within the limestone and is characterized by a 

distinctly different soil complex than the rest of the allotment. 

Deerfield Allotment 

The Deerfield Allotment supports a diversity of plant community types as a result of the 

range of elevation in the project area and major variations in geology and geomorphology. 

Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) dominates the majority of the project area with open 

areas dominated by forb/grass/sedge meadows. These open areas are starting to be 

encroached upon by conifer species along the edges and are converting to snowberry 

dominated shrublands in areas of concentrated grazing. Most drainage bottoms and north 

facing slopes are characterized by white spruce (Picea glauca) stands, mixed hardwood 

(aspen (Populus tremuloides) and paper birch (Betula papyrifera), or willow/sedge (Salix 

spp. /Carex spp.) communities. Riparian community types occur along perennial streams 

such as Castle Creek, Heely Creek, and Nichols Creek. There are also numerous 

intermittent streams with varying amounts of associated riparian vegetation. 

Deerfield Allotment straddles the contact between the Limestone Plateau and the 

Crystalline Core. This change in bedrock creates a unique hydrological environment 

which is expressed in the presence of several wetlands and fens. 

The most notable area is the McIntosh Fen. This area is a sedge dominated meadow with 

populations of sageleaf and autumn willows (Salix candida and Salix serissima), both 

Region 2 sensitive species. The wetland is also home to pleated gentian (Gentiana affinis), 

a Black Hills National Forest plant Species of Local Concern as well as an array of other 

native species. The unique hydrology, botany, and cultural resources of the area prompted 

the Forest to declare this area a Botanical Area in 1997. Historically, the fen area was 

drained and manipulated for agricultural purposes. After the acquisition by the Forest 

Service in 1985, several projects, including the installation of steel plates across the main 

drainage ditches, have been implemented in an attempt to regain the natural hydrologic 

regime. Currently the area has a lower water table than it had historically. This has caused 

a shift in the plant communities represented in the area. The McIntosh Fen has an 

infestation of Canada thistle (Cirsium canadensis) and smooth brome (Bromus inermis) 

both of which are indicative of drier soil. Canada thistle is a facultative upland species 

(usually occurs in non-wetlands (67%-99% of the time), but occasionally found on 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 202

wetlands (1%-33% of the time)) according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1988). In 

the McIntosh fen area, Canada thistle has been treated with bio-control agents as well as 

herbicide application with limited success. The fen is located within the McIntosh Pasture 

which has been ungrazed since 1986, but is still retained as part of the allotment. 

Another notable wetland complex occurs in the Heely Pasture and is known as Heely Fen. 

This fen occurs in an area surrounded by white spruce (Picea glauca) and is dominated by 

beaked sedge (Carex utriculata). In 2007, District staff planted sageleaf and autumn 

willow propagules collected from McIntosh Fen in this area. The willows were excluded 

from livestock access with a fence in 2008. The fence protects the young willows from

livestock browsing and protects a portion of the fen from trampling by livestock. 

The stream below the fen is not so well protected. Heely Creek flows through the

wetland and livestock frequent the stream channel downstream of the fen. This area was 

formerly a privately held hay meadow until the Forest acquired it in the 1980s. The 

vegetation along Heely Creek is co-dominated by beaked sedge and Kentucky bluegrass 

(Poa pratensis). According to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1988), beaked sedge 

is an obligate wetland species (occurs almost always (99% of the time) under natural 

conditions in wetlands) and Kentucky bluegrass is a facultative upland species. This 

indicates that the soils are saturated and may have sustained riparian vegetation at one 

time, but overuse by livestock and other agricultural practices (such as draining) have 

altered the plant community composition. Kentucky bluegrass tolerates or increases 

under grazing pressure, but remains unchanged in the absence of grazing (Schulz & 

Leininger 1990, Pond 1961) this makes it unlikely that the plant community will revert 

back to native species once Kentucky bluegrass is established even if grazing pressure is 

removed. In addition, there are very few willows present along the creek and the width 

of the riparian corridor is five feet or less in many places. 

Palmer Gulch Allotment 

The Palmer Gulch Allotment supports a diversity of plant community types as a result of 

the range of elevation in the project area and variations in geology and geomorphology. 

Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) dominates the majority of the project area with 

occasional grasslands, mixed hardwood stands (aspen (Populus tremuloides) and paper 

birch (Betula papyrifera), and willows (Salix sp.) often, but not necessarily, associated 

with drainage bottoms. Meadows within the project area are most commonly mixed 

grass/forb meadows or grass/sedge meadows with a significant shrub (usually western 

snowberry (Symphoricarpos occidentalis)). White spruce (Picea glauca) stands occur 

along Bear Gulch and the upper reaches of Palmer Creek. 

Riparian community types occur along perennial streams such as Battle Creek, Bear Gulch, 

Hay Draw, Joe Dollar Gulch, Palmer Creek, Rabbit Gulch, and Sunday Gulch. There are

also numerous intermittent streams with varying amounts of associated riparian vegetation. 

Porcupine Allotment 

The Porcupine Allotment supports a diversity of plant community types including montane 

grasslands, an ecosystem endemic to the Black Hills. At one point, most of the Porcupine 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 203

Allotment was covered in ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), however the Jasper Fire in 

2000 burned 90% of the allotment and converted much of the allotment to grassland. 

In addition, the Porcupine Allotment is managed using a Holistic Range Management

planned grazing in which, a team is comprised of representatives from the Sierra Club, 

South Dakota State University Range extension program, South Dakota Game, Fish, and 

Parks wildlife department, ranching community, and US Forest Service’s range, wildlife, 

botany, and hydrology programs. Team members meet at least twice a year to review 

allotment progress and plan annual use numbers, specific treatment objectives, and 

consider any new range improvements or reconstruction project proposals. 

Redfern Allotment 

The Redfern Allotment supports a diversity of plant community types as a result of the 

range of elevation in the project area and major variations in geology and 

geomorphology. Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) dominates the majority of the project 

area. Most drainage bottoms are characterized by grass/forb or grass/sedge meadows or 

aspen (Populus tremuloides) stand. 

Riparian community types occur along perennial streams such as California Gulch, 

Friday Gulch, Horton Gulch, Lind Gulch, Marshall Gulch, Skull Gulch, Slate Creek, 

Spaw Gulch, Spruce Gulch, and West Nugget Gulch. There are also numerous 

intermittent streams with varying amounts of associated riparian vegetation. 

Rimmer Allotment 

The Rimmer Allotment supports a diversity of plant community types as a result of the 

range of elevation in the project area and major variations in geology and geomorphology. 

As with most areas of the Black Hills, ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) dominates the 

majority of the project area. Drainage bottoms are generally more open with a shrub/grass 

meadow and hardwood component. 

Riparian community types occur along perennial streams such as Castle Creek and 

Bittersweet Creek. There are also numerous intermittent streams with varying amounts 

of associated riparian vegetation. 

Slate Prairie Allotment 

The Slate Prairie Allotment supports a diversity of plant community types as a result of the 

range of elevation in the project area and major variations in geology and geomorphology. 

Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) dominates the majority of the project area. Most 

drainage bottoms and north facing slopes are characterized by white spruce (Picea glauca) 

stands with little vascular understory, aspen (Populus tremuloides), or grass/forb or 

grass/sedge meadows. Ponderosa pine is encroaching into many community types as a 

result of suppression of the natural fire regime. Riparian community types occur along 

perennial streams such as Crooked Creek, Dougherty Gulch, Hoodoo Gulch, Slate Creek, 

and Whitetail Gulch. There are also numerous intermittent streams with varying amounts 

of associated riparian vegetation. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 204

Tigerville Allotment 

The Tigerville Allotment supports a diversity of plant community types as a result of the 

range of elevation in the project area and major variations in geology and geomorphology. 

Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) dominates the majority of the project area, however 

most drainage bottoms are characterized by aspen (Populus tremuloides) or open grass/forb 

or grass/sedge meadows. 

Riparian community types occur along perennial streams such as Burnt Fork, Lena Gulch, 

Newton Fork, Marshall Gulch, and Slate Creek. There are also numerous intermittent 

streams with varying amounts of associated riparian vegetation. 

Federally Listed Plant Species 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) website list for Threatened and Endangered 

species was accessed on June 30, 2009 for the state of South Dakota. As of this date, there 

were no threatened or endangered plant species known to occur within the State of South 

Dakota (USDI Fish & Wildlife Service 2009e & 2009f), nor were there any proposed or 

candidate plant species known to occur in South Dakota (USDI Fish & Wildlife Service 

2009g & 2009h). 

Subsequently, threatened, endangered, or proposed species do not need to be analyzed 

and are not mentioned in subsequent sections. 

The narrowleaf grapefern (Botrychium lineare) was a candidate plant species but was officially 

removed from the candidate list by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish & Wildlife 

2007a). Candidate species are automatically placed on the Region 2 Forester’s sensitive 

species list. The narrowleaf grapefern (Botrychium lineare) remains on the Region 2 sensitive 

plant list and is discussed under the Biological Evaluation for Region 2 sensitive species. 

Implementation of any of the three alternatives as described will not affect any threatened or 

endangered plant species or designated critical habitat. Endangered Species Act Section 7 

Consultation is not required for this project. No further analysis is needed for species not 

known or suspected to occur in the project area. 

Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species 

The Forest Service Manual defines sensitive species as those plant and animal species 

identified by a Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern, as evidence by: 

Significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density or 

Significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a 

species’ existing distribution (Forest Service Manual 2670.5, 19). 

The sensitive species list for the Rocky Mountain Region was published as a Regional 

Supplement (2600-2009-1) effective June 9, 2009. The list of sensitive species was verified 

by checking the Region 2 Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species Program website 

(USDA Forest Service 2009b). There are twelve plant species on the Forest Service Region 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 205

2 sensitive species list that are known to occur on the Black Hills National Forest. These 

species are the only ones considered in this analysis. 

All Region 2 sensitive plant species confirmed to occur in the Black Hills National Forest were 

considered in the evaluation. Because of its size, habitat exists in the Mystic Range Project 

allotments for several Region 2 sensitive plant species. Species which do not occur and/or do 

not have potential habitat present within the Mystic Range Project were not analyzed. 

Yellow lady slipper (Cypripedium parviflorum), sage willow (Salix candida), and autumn 

willow (Salix serissima) are the only Region 2 sensitive plant species confirmed to occur 

within the project area. Yellow lady's slipper is known from the Bald Horse Allotment 

and sage and autumn willows are known from the Deerfield Allotment. Table 3-7 

summarizes Region 2 sensitive plant species having potential habitat within Mystic 

Range Project allotments. 

Table 3-7 Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species Which Occur or Have Potential Habitat Within The 

Project Area. 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME KNOWN TO 

OCCUR IN 

PROJECT 

AREA? 

POTENTIAL 

HABITAT? 

HABITAT CATEGORY FOR 

ANALYSIS

Iowa moonwort Botrychium 

campestre 

NO + + 

Narrowleaf 

grapefern 

Botrychium lineare NO + + 

Fox-tail sedge Carex alopecoidea NO YES white spruce/hardwood 

drainage 

Yellow lady’s 

slipper 

Cypripedium 

parviflorum

YO YES white spruce/hardwood 

drainage 

Trailing clubmoss Lycopodium 

complanatum

NO YES white spruce/hardwood 

drainage 

Large round-leaved 

orchid 

Platanthera 

orbiculata 

NO YES white spruce/hardwood 

drainage 

Sage willow Salix candida YES YES wet meadow 

Autumn willow Salix serissima YES YES wet meadow 

Selkirk’s violet Viola selkirkii NO YES white spruce/hardwood 

drainage 

+Based on limited knowledge of habitat requirements for this species, presence/absence of potential habitat in the project 

area and the habitat category for analysis were not determined. 

Species of Local Concern (SOLC) 

A Species of Local Concern is described in the Forest Service Manual as plant, fish or 

wildlife species (including subspecies or varieties) that do not meet the criteria for sensitive 

status. These could include species with declining trends in only a portion of Region 2, or 

those that are important components of diversity in a local area. The local area is defined as 

NFS lands within the Black Hills National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2005a). The list of 

SOLC appears in the Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

Phase II Amendment Final EIS. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 206

Populations of pleated gentian (Gentiana affinis) were confirmed within the Deerfield 

Allotment. Habitat may be present in the project area for eight additional plant Species of 

Local Concern. The primary habitat for the nine plant Species of Local Concern which 

occur or have potential habitat within the project area can be categorized as white spruce 

and hardwood dominated drainage bottoms, wet meadows, and high elevation granite 

outcrops (Table 3-8). Any potentially potential habitat that may exist overlaps with 

potential habitat for Region 2 sensitive plant species. Therefore, design criteria included in 

the proposed action that are protective of Region 2 plant sensitive species are also 

protective of plant Species of Local Concern. 

Analysis was conducted on the effects of the proposed action on Black Hills National 

Forest Species of Local Concern that may occur or for which potentially potential habitat 

occurs in the Mystic Range Project allotments. This analysis considers management 

activities of all action alternatives and associated mitigation measures as set forth in the 

Mystic Range Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 

No further analysis is needed for species that are not known or suspected to occur in the

project area, and for which no potential habitat is present. 

Table 3-8 Plant Species Of Local Concern With Potential Habitat in Mystic Range Project Area 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME KNOWN TO 

OCCUR IN 

PROJECT 

AREA? 

POTENTIAL 

HABITAT? 

HABITAT CATEGORY

FOR ANALYSIS 

Leathery grape-fern Botrychium 

multifidum 

NO YES white spruce/hardwood 

drainage 

Southwestern 

showy sedge 

Carex bella NO YES white spruce/hardwood 

drainage 

Pleated gentian Gentiana affinis YES YES wet meadow 

Broadlipped 

twayblade 

Listera 

convallarioides

NO YES white spruce/hardwood 

drainage 

Stiff clubmoss Lycopodium 

annotinum

NO YES white spruce/hardwood 

drainage 

Alpine 

mountainsorrel

Oxyria digyna NO YES high, granite outcrops 

Arrowleaf sweet 

coltsfoot 

Petasites sagittatus NO YES wet meadow 

Northern hollyfern Polystichum 

lonchitis 

NO YES white spruce/hardwood 

drainage 

Shining willow Salix lucida ssp.

caudata 

NO YES wet meadow 

Other Areas of Concern 

No Research Natural Areas (RNA) overlap with the allotments in the Mystic Range 

Project; however the McIntosh Fen Botanical Area overlaps the Deerfield Allotment. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 207

Additionally, there are several montane grasslands in the Mystic Range Project allotments 

recommended for conservation in the Survey of Black Hills Montane Grasslands (Marriott 

2000). While this unique community type does not have regulation or policy specifically 

governing management, these areas are considered special and therefore impacts to known 

locations were analyzed as part of the NEPA process. Slate Prairie Montane Grassland 

overlaps with the Rimmer and Slate Prairie Allotments. Its condition is described as 

having variable conditions over a large area with cultivation commonly occurring in draws, 

grasslands ranging from heavily grazed to excellent condition, and displaying a mosaic of 

grassland types. The Porcupine Allotment contains three independent montane grasslands 

including the Upper Gillette Canyon grassland, Middle Gillette Canyon grassland, and the 

West Hell Canyon grassland. The Upper Gillette Canyon grassland is described as 

graminoid dominated consisting of primarily native species. The Middle Gillette Canyon is 

described as having a mix of native and exotic species and signs of heavy grazing. Finally, 

the West Hell Canyon grassland is described as having intense, short duration grazing. All 

of these grasslands are considered and used as primary grazing areas. They have been 

exposed to grazing by livestock for nearly a century. 

Environmental Effects 

The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects analysis is bounded in time as the next five to 

fifteen years. This temporal scale is based on: a) the time over which one can expect to 

predict reasonably foreseeable actions; and b) roughly the time until the next Forest Plan 

Revision. The cumulative effects analysis is bounded in space by a buffer of one half 

mile around the project area. This spatial scale is based on the assumption that a buffer 

of this size will encompass projects upstream and up slope that may also impact the plant 

species in the Mystic Range Project area. In this analysis it is assumed that all proposed 

action items will be completed within the next three to five years and all existing range 

improvements will be maintained. 

In the following sections, “botanical resources” refers to Region 2 sensitive species, Black 

Hills SOLC, and their potential habitat. Analysis of effects and impacts encompasses both 

Region 2 sensitive and SOLC species that occur in the habitat type mentioned. 

Alternative A 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative A (no grazing), livestock would be allowed to graze under current 

management for up to two years before removing them from the eight allotments. 

Discontinuing livestock grazing would decrease trampling and direct herbivory of botanical 

resources. With a few exceptions, these species are boreal disjunct species and occur in 

forested habitats that did not evolve with regular, large-animal herbivory (Froiland 1990). 

Foxtail sedge, prairie moonwort, narrow-leaf grapefern, southwestern showy sedge, pleated 

gentian, and shining willow are not boreal disjunct species and effects from decreased 

herbivory and trampling to plants and habitat of these species is unknown. Moonworts 

occur in areas of historical disturbance and may require a disturbance to perpetuate potential 

habitat, however this disturbance can occur from sources other than livestock use (such as 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 208

road construction and activities associated with timber harvest) that occur relatively 

frequently within the project area. 

Discontinuing grazing would decrease the magnitude of other sources of habitat disturbance 

such as altered site hydrology, accelerated erosion, increased soil compaction, degraded 

water quality, and spread of noxious weeds. 

The quality of habitat for riparian or wetland dependent botanical resources would also 

improve with the removal of livestock. The restoration of habitats impacted by livestock 

grazing could thereby increase the extent of potential plant habitat across the project area. 

Yellow lady’s slipper, autumn willow, and sage willow are the only Region 2 species known 

to occur within the project area. Because the willow species both occur within grazing 

exclosures, Alternative A would have little effect on these species. Indirect effects include 

the possible expansion of these two species to the currently grazed Baseline Pasture as well 

as along Heely Creek. Also, with the removal of grazing pressure from potential habitat, 

these two species might also expand into other drainage bottoms and fen-like wetlands.

Yellow lady’s slipper occurs in six populations in the eastern portion of the Lower 

Victoria Pasture of the Bald Horse Allotment. Direct effects of Alternative A on these 

populations would be decreased possibility of herbivory, trampling, and disturbance by 

livestock on individual plants, however other activities, such as off-highway vehicle use 

and shooting, that occur frequently in this area, could impact these populations. 

Effects on the McIntosh Botanical Area caused by livestock use are small because the 

portion of the botanical area contained within the allotment is entirely within the McIntosh 

Pasture. The McIntosh Pasture is not grazed, but it is part of the allotment. If grazing were 

to be discontinued, it would have little impact on the values for which this botanical area 

was designated (Standard 3.1-201). The most noticeable effect would most likely be the 

expansion of willows and other native species outside of the fenced area as well as the 

possible expansion of non-native species into the Botanical Area. The McIntosh Fen area

all ready contains a sizable population of invasive species; however without livestock 

grazing the populations outside of the McIntosh Pasture, this population will become more 

robust and produce more propagules which will then expand into the Botanical Area. 

Black Hills Montane Grasslands do not have regulation or policy specifically governing 

management; however these areas are considered special and therefore impacts to known 

locations were analyzed as part of the NEPA process. Alternative A would most likely 

improve the condition of these unique ecosystems by removing the pressure of intense 

herbivory. That being said, these ecosystems evolved with some ungulate grazing and 

may suffer some negative impacts if grazing was removed entirely. 

Cumulative Effects 

Discontinuing grazing would result in locally increased litter/thatch which may facilitate 

the spread of wildfire. However current prescribed burning and timber management is 

expected to continue and increased risks to sensitive plants from catastrophic wildfire are 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 209

not expected under the Alternative A. It is likely that cessation of grazing would be 

beneficial to potential habitat and known occurrences of botanical resources Mystic Range 

Project allotments. If this is the case, cumulative impacts would also be beneficial. Since 

there is no known research to document the benefits of no grazing, the conservative 

conclusion that there would be little or no direct or indirect effects from cessation of 

livestock grazing would mean that cumulative effects would also be negligible. 

Alternative B 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Known Populations 

Direct effects of Alternative B on botanical resources known to occur within the Mystic Range 

Project include herbivory and trampling of individuals. These effects are more likely to be 

experienced by the yellow lady’s slipper and pleated gentian populations than the autumn or 

sage willow populations because the willow populations are protected in livestock exclosures. 

In general, the impacts of grazing of yellow lady’s slipper and pleated gentian depend on what 

is being grazed. If surrounding vegetation is grazed, then competition for resources is reduced. 

However, individual plants may be killed or damaged by direct grazing or associated trampling 

and soil compaction. Through herbivory, trampling, and elimination of waste, large herbivores 

can disturb occurrences to such an extent that the plants, their pollinators, their associated 

mycorrhizae may not be able to survive (USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

Due to limited access of livestock to known occurrences, protections from Forest Plan

standards, and the relative security of yellow lady’s slipper and pleated gentian on Black 

Hills National Forest lands (over 4,000 individuals known from 20 sixth level 

watersheds/over 20,000 individuals known from 18 sixth level watersheds, respectively), 

risks from the effects of livestock grazing to this species in the Mystic Range Project area are 

low. However, if circumstances change to increase livestock access to known occurrences 

and potential habitat (e.g. logging, changes in grazing patterns, etc.), risks could also 

increase, potentially resulting in loss of occurrences. Potential habitat includes moist to 

saturated often mossy forested microsites that could be easily impacted (hummocking, 

trampling of vegetation) by even a small amount of livestock trampling. 

Possible indirect effects of livestock grazing to known yellow lady’s slipper and pleated 

gentian populations include creating microsites for seed germination and establishment 

(for yellow lady’s slipper, pleated gentian, and competing weeds), removing competing 

vegetation, altering nearby hydrology or nearby canopy cover to an extent that these 

species could be harmed, and changing soil mycorrhizal communities essential to this 

species. Given the small area and low number of individual plants within a typical 

occurrence, excess livestock grazing could decimate a local population quickly. In 

general, management activities or natural disturbances that affect habitats will likely have 

similar effects on individuals (USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

Impacts to individuals of either autumn or sage willow would only occur if livestock managed 

to get past the exclosure fence or if these individuals were able to establish outside of the 

protected area. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 210

Possible indirect effects of livestock use to known sage willow and autumn willow 

populations include changes in hydrology and water quality. Grazing in and around 

upstream wetland sites can cause increased erosion, which can modify stream bank 

geometry and cause an increase in sediment and overland flow. Increases in overland flow 

will have the net effect of maximizing runoff and minimizing infiltration. While the 

increased runoff results in overall greater water yield, the storm water is delivered relatively 

quickly through surface processes rather than through sustained subsurface flows, which are 

often critical to wetland hydrology (Moore et al. 2006). Changing normal wetland 

hydrology (e.g. decreasing site moisture) could negatively impact plants by reducing water 

available for necessary biological functions. Degradation in water quality (e.g. increased 

nitrates) from livestock waste infiltrating surface and ground water may also affect Region 2 

sensitive plant species by altering normal available nutrients. Livestock waste also locally 

changes the natural soil balance (chemical make-up, nutrients, microbes, etc.) which can 

impact plants in the area. 

Additional environmental analysis would have to be conducted before implementing any

new range improvements. The impact of new projects on botanical resources would be 

addressed in a separate document. 

Livestock are a vector for non-native and invasive species. Non-native and invasive

species, including noxious weeds, have the ability to out-compete or shade out desired 

plants. Spray from herbicides, used to help control weeds, can have a similar affect on 

botanical resources. Adherence to standards and guidelines present in the Forest Plan for 

noxious weeds will help reduce direct and indirect effects of weed encroachment. 

The degree that the above discussed effects are realized depends on the degree and 

intensity of actual grazing, trampling, trailing, water structure access, and accessibility to 

botanical resources. 

Effects on Potential Habitat and Undetected Individuals 

Due to the large size of the project area, there is a chance that individuals of Region 2 

sensitive species and/or SOLC were undetected during survey. Because the location of 

these individuals is unknown, a conservative approach dictates that we should assume 

presence in areas with potential habitat and analyze effects of the management action on 

these areas. Region 2 sensitive plant species and SOLC with potential habitat found in the 

project area include, prairie moonwort, narrowleaf grapefern, foxtail sedge, yellow lady’s 

slipper, trailing clubmoss, large round-leaf orchid, sage willow, autumn willow, greatspurred violet, leathery grapefern, southwestern showy sedge, pleated gentian, broadlipped 

twayblade, stiff clubmoss, alpine mountainsorrel, arrowleaf sweet coltsfoot, northern 

hollyfern, and shining willow. These species can be grouped by habitat type and potential 

effects on undetected individuals analyzed by habitat group (Tables 3-7 and 3-8). 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Potential Habitat and Undetected Individuals 

Direct effects on potential habitat and undetected individuals are similar between all habitat 

types and include herbivory of individuals and trampling of plants and root zone by livestock 

(resulting in a range of impacts from additional stress to death). Limited cropping, browsing 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 211

or trampling of individuals of these species by livestock would likely not have a negative 

impact on occurrences in the Mystic Range Project, however regular and repeated cropping, 

browsing or trampling could have negative impacts on persistence of occurrences. 

Possible indirect effects of livestock grazing to botanical resources include altered site 

hydrology, accelerated erosion in an occurrence, soil compaction due to 

trampling/hummocking, altered site composition or canopy cover (particularly of grasses 

and shrubs), increased competition from non-native species, altered soil 

microbial/mycorrhizal activity and nutrient availability, degraded water quality in plant sites 

and spread of noxious weed seeds to occurrence locations. 

Species with a habitat preference of wet meadows and white spruce/hardwood drainage

bottoms (foxtail sedge, yellow lady’s slipper, trailing clubmoss, large round-leaf orchid, 

autumn willow, sage willow, leathery grapefern, southwestern showy sedge, pleated 

gentian, broadlipped twayblade, stiff clubmoss, arrowleaf sweet coltsfoot, northern 

hollyfern, and shining willow) are more likely to be impacted by changes in hydrology and 

water quality, however impacts to all species analyzed are possible. Grazing in and around 

wetland plant sites can cause increased erosion, which can modify stream bank geometry 

and cause an increase in sedimentation and overland flow. Increases in overland flow will 

have the net effect of maximizing runoff and minimizing infiltration. While the increased 

runoff results in overall greater water yield, the storm water is delivered relatively quickly 

through surface processes rather than through sustained subsurface flows, which are often 

critical to wetland hydrology (Moore et al. 2006). Changing normal wetland hydrology 

(e.g. decreasing site moisture) could negatively impact plants by reducing water available 

for necessary biological functions. Degradation in water quality (e.g. increased nitrates) 

from livestock waste infiltrating surface and ground water may also affect Region 2 

sensitive plant species by altering normal available nutrients. Livestock waste also locally 

changes the natural soil balance (chemical make-up, nutrients, microbes, etc.) which can 

impact plants in the area. Trampling by livestock can lead to soil compaction, especially in 

areas with moist to saturated soils. Soil compaction can negatively impact plant occurrences 

by changing the regular water infiltration through the soil and decreasing oxygen available 

to plant roots and other essential soil organisms. Non-native and invasive species, including 

noxious weeds, have the ability to out-compete or shade out desired plants and spray from 

herbicides, used to help control weeds, can also have negative effects on Region 2 sensitive 

plants. Adherence to standards and guidelines present in the Forest Plan for noxious weeds 

will help reduce indirect and cumulative effects of weed encroachment. 

Effects on the McIntosh Botanical Area caused by livestock use are very small because 

the portion of the botanical area contained within the allotment is entirely within the 

McIntosh Pasture. The McIntosh Pasture is not grazed, but it is part of the allotment. If 

the McIntosh Pasture were to be grazed (if it is determined that grazing could be used as 

a means of treating the invasive and noxious plant population (primarily Canada thistle) 

which dominates a portion of this pasture), further environmental evaluation and 

documentation would be necessary to ensure the botanical values for which the botanical 

area was established would be protected (Standard 3.1-201). 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 212

While Black Hills Montane Grasslands do not have regulation or policy specifically 

governing management, these areas are considered special and therefore impacts to known 

locations were analyzed as part of the NEPA process. Alternatives B would most likely 

maintain the current condition and trend of these grasslands. Montane grasslands located 

within the Porcupine Allotment would continue to be evaluated and grazing practices altered 

to preserve their characteristics as part of the annual Holistic Management planned grazing. 

Additional environmental analysis would have to be conducted before implementing any

new range improvements. The impact of new projects on botanical resources would be 

addressed in a separate document. 

The degree that the above discussed effects are realized depends on the degree and 

intensity of actual grazing, trampling, trailing, water structure access, and accessibility to 

botanical resources. 

Cumulative Effects 

The direct and indirect effects of livestock grazing on botanical resources in the Mystic 

Range Project allotments could add to effects from other management activities (e.g. 

timber management, recreation, etc.), through further soil disturbance, changes in 

microsite moisture and hydrology regimes, introduction of invasive species, and other 

changes in vegetation quality (including increased competition from non-native species). 

Timely monitoring and implementation of appropriate adaptive management methods 

when unacceptable impacts are discovered is essential in order to keep these negative 

effects to a minimum. The cumulative effects of ongoing livestock grazing would 

continue Alternative B and would rely on Implementation monitoring of known Region 2 

sensitive and SOLC plant sites to notice impacts to sites and protection to be 

accomplished through permit administration processes or additional range improvements. 

This alternative would most likely increase the time between when the impact to 

botanical resources begins and when prevention or protection of the resources could be 

implemented. 

Alternative C 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Known Populations 

Direct effects of Alternative C on botanical resources known to occur within the Mystic 

Range Project include herbivory and trampling of individuals. These effects are more 

likely to be experienced by the yellow lady’s slipper and pleated gentian populations than 

the autumn or sage willow populations because the willow populations are protected in 

livestock exclosures. 

In general, the impacts of grazing of yellow lady’s slipper and pleated gentian depend on 

what is being grazed. If surrounding vegetation is grazed, then competition for resources is 

reduced. However, individual plants may be killed or damaged by direct grazing or 

associated trampling and soil compaction, which could be detrimental to these occurrences. 

Through herbivory, trampling, and elimination of waste, large herbivores can disturb 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 213

yellow lady’s slipper occurrences to such an extent that the plants, their pollinators, or their 

associated mycorrhizae may not be able to survive (USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

Due to limited access of livestock to known occurrences, protections from Forest Plan

standards, and the relative security of yellow lady’s slipper and pleated gentian on Black 

Hills National Forest lands (over 4,000 individuals known from 20 sixth level 

watersheds/over 20,000 individuals known from 18 sixth level watersheds, respectively), 

risks from the effects of livestock grazing to this species in the Mystic Range Project area 

are low. If circumstances change, and increase livestock access to known occurrences and 

potential habitat increases (e.g. logging, changes in grazing patterns, etc.), the potential 

risks could also increase, potentially resulting in loss of occurrences. Potential habitat 

includes moist to saturated often mossy forested microsites that could be easily impacted 

(hummocking, trampling of vegetation) by even a small amount of livestock trampling. 

Possible indirect effects of livestock grazing to known yellow lady’s slipper and pleated 

gentian populations include creating microsites for seed germination and establishment 

(for yellow lady’s slipper, pleated gentian, and competing weeds), removing competing 

vegetation, altering nearby hydrology or nearby canopy cover to an extent that individuals 

of these species could be harmed, and changing soil mycorrhizal communities essential to 

this species. Given the small area and low number of individual plants within a typical

occurrence, excess livestock grazing could decimate a local population quickly. In 

general, management activities or natural disturbances that affect habitats will likely have 

similar effects on individuals (USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

Impacts to individuals of either autumn or sage willow would only occur if livestock 

managed to get past the exclosure fence or if these individuals were able to establish 

outside of the protected area. These impacts are unlikely and would be further prevented 

by normal monitoring of livestock by the permittee and range staff as well as annual 

monitoring of these populations as part of the annual Forest Monitoring Program. 

Possible indirect effects of livestock use to known sage willow and autumn willow 

populations include changes in hydrology and water quality. Grazing in and around 

upstream wetland sites can cause increased erosion, which can modify stream bank 

geometry and cause an increase in sediment and overland flow. Increases in overland flow 

will have the net effect of maximizing runoff and minimizing infiltration. While the 

increased runoff results in overall greater water yield, the storm water is delivered relatively 

quickly through surface processes rather than through sustained subsurface flows, which are 

often critical to wetland hydrology (Moore et al. 2006). Changing normal wetland 

hydrology (e.g. decreasing site moisture) could reduce water available for necessary 

biological functions. Degradation in water quality (e.g. increased nitrates) from livestock 

waste infiltrating surface and ground water may also affect botanical resources by altering 

normal available nutrients. Livestock waste also locally changes the natural soil balance 

(chemical make-up, nutrients, microbes, etc.) which can impact plants in the area. 

There will be no direct effects on known populations of yellow lady’s slipper, sage willow, 

autumn willow, and pleated gentian from the installation of the proposed range 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 214

improvements (Table 2-1) since the known populations are not co-located with the proposed 

installation sites. Also, annual monitoring of known populations of Region 2 sensitive and 

SOLC plant species are conducted as part of the Forest Plan Implementation monitoring 

program, so changes in quality of habitat would be noticed and trigger Adaptive 

Management. If the location of improvements change, or new populations of Region 2 

sensitive species and/or SOLC are discovered, further analysis will need to be conducted. 

Indirect effects on known populations of yellow lady’s slipper, sage willow, autumn willow, 

and pleated gentian from the installation of the proposed range improvements include changes 

in livestock behavior caused by development of new water sources and installation of fences. 

This could cause new trails to be formed and could lead to trampling and/or browsing of 

Region 2 sensitive species and SOLC by livestock. These impacts would be incidental and 

minimal because the new range improvements are not located near known occurrences of 

Region 2 sensitive species or SOLC. Also, annual monitoring of known populations of 

Region 2 sensitive plant species and SOLC is conducted as part of the Forest Plan monitoring 

program, so changes in quality of habitat would be noticed and trigger Adaptive Management. 

If range improvement locations change, or new populations of Region 2 sensitive plant 

species and SOLC are located, further analysis will need to be conducted. 

Livestock are a vector for non-native and invasive species. Non-native and invasive species, 

including noxious weeds, have the ability to out-compete or shade out desired native plant 

species. Spray from herbicides, used to help eradicate or control weeds, can have a similar 

affect on botanical resources. Adherence to standards and guidelines present in the Forest 

Plan for noxious weeds will help reduce direct and indirect effects of weed encroachment. 

The degree that the above discussed effects are realized depends on the degree and intensity of 

actual grazing, trampling, trailing, water structure access, and accessibility to Region 2 plant 

occurrences. These impacts will be minimized by use of the Adaptive Management process. 

Effects on Potential Habitat and Undetected Individuals 

Due to the large size of the project area, there is a chance that individuals of Region 2 species 

or SOLC were undetected during survey. Because the location of these individuals is 

unknown, a conservative approach dictates that we should assume presence in areas with 

potential habitat and analyze effects of the management action on these areas. Region 2 

sensitive plant species and SOLC with potential habitat found in the project area include, 

prairie moonwort, narrowleaf grapefern, foxtail sedge, yellow lady’s slipper, trailing 

clubmoss, large round-leaf orchid, sage willow, autumn willow, great-spurred violet, leathery 

grapefern, southwestern showy sedge, pleated gentian, broadlipped twayblade, stiff clubmoss, 

arrowleaf sweet coltsfoot, northern hollyfern, and shining willow. These species can be 

grouped by habitat type (Table 3-7) and potential effects on undetected individuals analyzed 

by habitat group. 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Potential Habitat and Undetected Individuals 

Direct effects on potential habitat and undetected individuals are similar between all habitat 

types and include herbivory of individuals and trampling of plants and root zone by 

livestock (resulting in a range of impacts from additional stress to death). Limited cropping, 

browsing or trampling of individuals of these species by livestock would likely not have an 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 215

impact on occurrences in the Mystic Range Project, however regular and repeated cropping, 

browsing or trampling could impact the persistence of occurrences within the project area. 

Possible indirect effects of livestock grazing to botanical resources include altered site 

hydrology, accelerated erosion in an occurrence, soil compaction due to 

trampling/hummocking, altered site composition or canopy cover (particularly of grasses and 

shrubs), increased competition from non-native species, altered soil microbial/mycorrhizal 

activity and nutrient availability, degraded water quality in plant sites and spread of noxious 

weed seeds to occurrence locations. 

Species with a habitat preference of wet meadows and white spruce/hardwood drainage

bottoms (foxtail sedge, yellow lady’s slipper, trailing clubmoss, large round-leaf orchid, 

autumn willow, and sage willow, leathery grapefern, southwestern showy sedge, pleated 

gentian, broadlipped twayblade, stiff clubmoss, arrowleaf sweet coltsfoot, northern 

hollyfern, and shining willow) are more likely to be impacted by changes in hydrology and 

water quality, however impacts to all species analyzed are possible. Grazing in and around 

wetland plant sites can cause increased erosion, which can modify stream bank geometry 

and cause an increase in sedimentation and overland flow. Increases in overland flow will 

have the net effect of maximizing runoff and minimizing infiltration. While the increased 

runoff results in overall greater water yield, the storm water is delivered relatively quickly 

through surface processes rather than through sustained subsurface flows, which are often 

critical to wetland hydrology (Moore et al. 2006). Changing normal wetland hydrology 

(e.g. decreasing site moisture) could reduce water available for necessary biological 

functions. Degradation in water quality (e.g. increased nitrates) from livestock waste 

infiltrating surface and ground water may also affect Region 2 sensitive plant species by 

altering normal available nutrients. Livestock waste also locally changes the natural soil 

balance (chemical make-up, nutrients, microbes, etc.) which can impact plants in the area. 

Trampling by livestock can lead to soil compaction, especially in areas with moist to 

saturated soils. Soil compaction can impact plant occurrences by changing the regular 

water infiltration through the soil and decreasing oxygen available to plant roots and 

other essential soil organisms. Non-native and invasive species, including noxious weeds, 

have the ability to out-compete or shade out desired plants and spray from herbicides, 

used to help eradicate or control weeds, can have a similar affect on botanical resources. 

Adherence to standards and guidelines present in the Forest Plan for noxious weeds will

help reduce indirect and cumulative effects of weed encroachment. 

Direct and indirect effects of proposed range improvements on undetected individuals 

and potential habitat depend on the type of improvement and its proposed location. The 

proposed action includes establishing water tanks, stock ponds, fence, spring boxes, 

pipelines, trail gates, corrals, cattle guards, and steel plate dams as well as prescribed 

burning (only in the Porcupine Allotment). Because the locations of undetected 

individuals are unknown, the effects will have to be generalized for specific habitat types. 

Water developments such as water tanks, stock ponds, and spring boxes will most likely 

affect potential habitat and undetected individuals in white spruce/hardwood drainage 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 216

bottoms. Impacts include soil removal during installation and/or maintenance, trampling 

of individuals by personnel and heavy equipment during installation, obliteration of 

individuals located at tank sites, burial of individuals with silt removed from water 

developments and inundation of individuals by dammed water. Indirect impacts include 

altering the hydrology of the riparian or spring area causing a shift in the local ecosystem 

and therefore the suitability of the habitat to accommodate botanical resources. 

Effects of fence and trail gate installation can impact all categories of potential habitat 

and include trampling of individuals by personnel and equipment during installation and 

removal of individuals when digging post holes. Installation of these range 

improvements also change the patterns of use and behavior of livestock which may result 

in the appearance of cattle trails in areas that were previously undisturbed. 

Effects of pipeline installation will most likely impact white spruce/hardwood drainage 

bottoms and wet meadows and would include removing individuals when trenching and 

trampling individuals by personnel and equipment during installation. 

Impacts to undetected individuals and potential habitat associated with cattle guard 

installation could affect any of the listed habitat categories; however these impacts will 

be minimal because most of the disturbance will occur within an existing road prism. 

These impacts include removal of individuals when digging the cattle guard and 

trampling by personnel, vehicles, and equipment. 

Effects of corral construction will most likely affect species in wet meadows or those which 

do not have classified potential habitat. These effects include trampling of individuals by 

personnel and equipment during installation and removal of individuals when digging post 

holes. Once constructed, the area contained within the corral will receive concentrated use 

for short amounts of time. This concentrated use could result in trampling of undetected 

botanical resources to the extent that the population would be extirpated. 

The impacts of these range improvement projects will be counteracted by more even 

distribution of livestock over the grazing area therefore preventing specific areas, 

especially sensitive riparian areas, from experiencing prolonged occupation by livestock. 

Installation of steel plates near Palmer Creek in the Palmer Pasture of the Palmer Gulch 

Allotment will cause water within a human created channel to slow in velocity. Direct 

effects of plate installation could include removal or inundation of undetected individuals. 

These detrimental effects would be counteracted by the beneficial effect of slowing the loss 

of water from the ecosystem and eventual sedimentation of the undesired channel.

Direct impacts of prescribed burning in the Porcupine Allotment would most likely affect 

potential habitat for moonworts. Impacts include removal of undetected individuals 

during control line construction, burning of individuals, introduction of toxins into the 

soil and water during drip-torch fuel application. In addition, prescribed burning in this 

habitat will decrease fuel loads from the area, decreasing the chance of catastrophic 

wildfire, and creating a disturbance for future moonwort populations to occupy. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 217

Effects on the McIntosh Botanical Area caused by livestock use are very small because 

the portion of the botanical area contained within the allotment is entirely within the 

McIntosh Pasture. The McIntosh Pasture is not grazed, but it is part of the allotment. 

The only time the McIntosh Pasture would be grazed is if it is determined that grazing 

could be used as a means of treating the invasive and noxious plant population (primarily 

Canada thistle) which dominates a portion of this pasture. Livestock would not be 

allowed to access the fen area; they would be contained in the uplands. Because of this 

restricted use, threats to the botanical values for which the botanical area was established 

will be protected (Standard 3.1-201). 

While Black Hills Montane Grasslands do not have regulation or policy specifically 

governing management, these areas are considered special and therefore impacts to 

known locations were analyzed as part of the NEPA process. Alternatives C would most 

likely maintain the current condition and trend of these grasslands. Montane grasslands

located within the Porcupine Allotment would continue to be evaluated and grazing 

practices altered to preserve their characteristics as part of the annual Holistic 

Management planned grazing. This ecosystem evolved with periodic fire, so prescribed 

broadcast burning would most likely have an impact similar to that of a natural wildfire. 

The degree that the above discussed effects are realized depends on the degree and 

intensity of actual grazing, trampling, trailing, water structure access, and accessibility to 

botanical resources. 

Cumulative Effects 

The direct and indirect effects of livestock grazing using Adaptive Management Practices to 

Region 2 sensitive plant species in the Mystic Range Project allotments could add to effects 

from other management activities (e.g. timber management, recreation, etc.), through further 

soil disturbance, changes in microsite moisture and hydrology regimes, introduction of 

invasive species, and other changes in vegetation quality (including increased competition 

from non-native species). Timely monitoring and implementation of appropriate adaptive 

management methods when unacceptable impacts are discovered is essential in order to 

keep these negative effects to a minimum. The cumulative effects of ongoing livestock 

grazing would continue under Alternative C but, with implementation of adaptive 

management (e.g. fencing springs and riparian areas) may decrease the intensity in areas. 

However, if monitoring takes place late in the grazing season well after the trigger points for 

adaptive management have been reached, additional cumulative impacts would occur. 

FIRE and FUELS 

Grazing provides the opportunity for utilization of the grasses and forbs thus reducing the 

associated threat of wildfire occurrence. Combining the prescribed fire treatments, with 

grazing increases the protection of the forest system and its components from significant loss 

from wildfire. 

Existing fire hazard in low/moderate and high/very high conditions are identified in Table 3-9 

for each allotment, except Porcupine. The table also identifies acres previously approved for 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 218

prescribed burning and the resultant percent change in fire hazard post prescribed burning for 

each allotment. 

Table 3-9 Fire Hazard Conditions

Existing Fire Hazard Conditions Approved 

Burn Acres* 

Post Prescribed Burning 

Fire Hazard Conditions 

Allotment Percent 

Low/Moderate 

Percent 

High/Very High Acres Percent Low/Moderate 

Percent 

High/Very High 

Bald Horse 26 74 2,929 36 64 

Deerfield 19 81 761 29 71 

Palmer Gulch 8 92 6,176 60 40 

Redfern 25 75 7,290 88 12 

Rimmer 22 78 974 70 30 

Slate Prairie 17 83 3,158 73 27 

Tigerville 10 90 2,320 50 50 

*ROD’s from: Prairie, Mitchell, Deerfield, Slate Castle, or Upper Spring Creek Projects 

The best way to reduce the risk of high severity wildfires is to reduce the accumulation of 

surface fuels and reduce the ladder fuels that increase the likelihood that a wildfire will 

transition into the tree crowns. 

Utilizing prescribed fire is an effective and economic way to reduce surface fuel loadings 

and eliminate fine fuels that propagate the spread of a new fire start. Prescribed fire 

emphasis is placed on the reduction of timber litter and woody debris buildup under pine 

canopies by implementing prescribed burns. 

Alternative A No Action 

The effects of the no action alternative would result in an elevated fire hazard once livestock 

are removed from the allotments. Fine fuels consisting of timber litter, grasses and forbs are 

the primary contributors to fire initiation. These fuels respond very quickly to weather 

conditions and are generally the first to dry out and become available fuel for a wildfire to 

initiate and consume. 

The desired condition of the allotment area in relation to risk is addressed by describing 

what proposed changes will either positively or negatively affect the sources of relative 

risk. The risk of lightning caused ignitions will increase due to the increased amount of 

fine dead fuels available where wildfires are most likely to start. 

Not grazing the fuels described above would result in increased fire hazard at the margins. 

There are transition points throughout the forest where fuel conditions change at the micro and 

macro scales, and the resultant fire behavior changes accordingly. This becomes of critical 

importance when wildfires are very small or at the initiation stages. For example if a new 

wildfire initiates and burns into a grazed area, it may very well go out due to a lack of fuel. 

Contrarily, if the same wildfire burns through the same grass area that has not been grazed, 

then the wildfire has the opportunity to propagate and intensify due to the increased 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 219

available fuel. The wildfire can burn into a transition point where ladder fuels exist giving 

the wildfire an opportunity to move from the surface into the crowns of the trees. 

Alternatives B and C 

Direct and Indirect Effects - All Allotments 

Both Alternatives B and C reauthorize grazing and management functions associated with 

grazing would not change the wildfire hazard or risk in a positive or negative manner at the 

landscape scale when compared to current grazing strategies. 

Both alternatives would have continued benefits as a result of the adaptive options that are 

generally intended to distribute grazing more evenly across the pastures. This should affect 

a greater area in similar fashion as described above in Alternative A where a wildfire may 

not be able to initiate or may run out of fuel before becoming fully established. 

Grazing would have positive effects over larger areas, but may also decrease concentrated 

utilization in areas where a new wildfire would have opportunity to become established and 

burn. This micro scale effect is currently impossible to determine the net gain or loss of a 

changed fuels profile as it approaches the transition points that affect fire behavior. 

Both Alternatives B and C would not alter conditions in a measurably different manner

from existing management strategies and grazing utilization as it relates to fuel hazard. 

Porcupine Allotment 

Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, prescribed broadcast burning is proposed for approximately 5,300 

acres. At least ninety percent of the dead trees have been broken off or fallen over due to 

wind and rot since the Jasper Fire in 2000. This has elevated heavy dead woody debris fuel

loadings to in excess of 30 tons per acre across much of the area in pockets of continuous 

material covered with an increasing grass component. 

Prescribed burning would reduce wildfire hazard within the allotment from moderate (96 

percent) to low (48 percent) by reducing hazardous fuel loadings associated with dead down 

woody debris. Prescribed burning would positively affect the grazing across the allotment by 

removing heavy dead fuel that currently serves as barriers to livestock and wildlife. 

The proposed prescribed burning would alter conditions in a fashion measurably different 

from existing management strategies and grazing utilization as it relates to fuel hazard by 

removing dead fuels. 

Cumulative Effects 

Prescribed fire would have short term impacts on permittee and livestock grazing since 

allotment use is deferred or rested following execution of a burn (FP Guideline 4107). 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 220

Prescribed fire approved through past decisions (Slate Castle, Upper Spring Creek, Deerfield, 

Mitchell and Prairie Projects) are foreseeable actions that would reduce the existing fire 

hazard. These prescribed burns should have a positive effect at the landscape scale of 

breaking up the fuels continuity across the landscape both inside and outside the allotment 

boundary, resulting in reduced fire hazard. Wildfires that do occur should burn with less 

catastrophic effects than the Jasper fire in 2000, Battle Creek fire in 2002, Rico fire in 2005 

or East Ridge fire in 2006. 

Smoke management would have marginal impacts that would be minimized through 

timing, and coordination with other prescribed burning to limit impacts. Specific 

mitigations would be planned and implemented during the required planning and formal 

documentation in the burn plan. 

Summary of Effects 

Large wildfires may still occur and impact the allotments. Land management activities and 

wildfire suppression of the past have created an existing condition with high levels of fuel 

accumulation that will cause wildfires to burn with higher intensities and higher resistance 

to control - especially during drought conditions. Prescribed burning reduces fire behavior 

when a wildfire runs into areas that have previously burned. 

The action alternatives are expected to have positive long term effects by reducing fine fuel 

loading and under Alternative C with the planned prescribed burning in the Porcupine Allotment. 

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 

WATERSHED, GEOLOGY, and SOILS 

This section explains present conditions and effects to soil and water resources. The 

information presented here is a summary with more detail information available in the 

Watershed specialist report located in the project record. 

This analysis was conducted on an allotment boundary basis. The allotment boundary is 

being used instead of watersheds, because the allotment boundaries can cross several

watersheds and generally any one watershed includes only a small portion of the allotment. 

Watersheds are different sizes and are sized by Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUC). HUC 6 

watersheds are generally 10,000 acres to 50,000 acres in size. HUC 7 watersheds are 

generally 5,000 to 10,000 acres in size, the next size smaller. Analysis based on the 

allotment boundary provides for a better understanding of effects. 

A Watershed Condition Assessment was completed for each HUC 6 watershed in the 

process of developing the 1997 BHNF Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). 

The Watershed Condition Assessments were based on the watershed sensitivity, known 

impacts from all activities, and available monitoring data. Although the watershed 

boundaries used for Watershed Condition Assessments are slightly different than the ones 

used today, the information generated for the LRMP is adequate and will not be 

recalculated for this allotment review. Each watershed was assigned one of three 

Watershed Condition Classes. Watershed Condition Class I indicates that current and 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 221

past management activities have not significantly affected the function of stream and 

riparian areas. Watershed Condition Class II indicates that moderate concerns exist and 

some streams and soils may be in disequilibrium. A change in the rate or nature of 

management activity may be necessary or stricter implementation of Watershed 

Conservation Practices (WCPs) may be necessary to return these watersheds to a Class I 

condition. Watershed Condition Class III indicates that high concerns exist and 

management activities must be done with great care. Additional conservation practices 

and watershed improvement projects may be needed (USDA Forest Service, 1996b). 

Affected Environment 

A watershed is defined as “The catchment area or drainage basin from which the waters of a 

stream or stream system are drawn” (Gove, 1996). “The term watershed describes an area of 

land that drains downslope to the lowest point. The water moves through a network of 

drainage pathways, both underground and on the surface. Generally, these pathways 

converge into streams and rivers, which become progressively larger as the water moves on 

downstream, eventually reaching an estuary and the ocean” (Watershed Definition, 2003). A 

watershed is made up of different components, including watershed condition, soils, springs, 

streams, floodplains, wetlands, water quality, and beneficial uses. These components will be 

discussed for each allotment. 

Field Surveys 

Field surveys have been completed on all eight allotments starting in 2002 and completed in 

2008. Surveys across the allotments included stream classifications and locating areas of 

concern. In 2007, field soil surveys were conducted at 78 sites across the allotments. In 

2008, 35 MIMs (Multiple Indicator Monitoring) and PFC (Proper Functioning Condition) 

protocols were completed on seven of the allotments. 

Bald Horse Allotment 

The Bald Horse Allotment ranges in elevation from 3500 to 6100 feet with annual precipitation 

between 16-18 inches. Most of the precipitation comes from rain during the months of April, 

May, and June. Perennial streams include Rapid Creek, Prairie Creek, Victoria Creek, Horse 

Creek, and a small section of Spring Creek, along with various intermittent streams and 

ephemeral drainages. This allotment is located within parts of six Hydrologic Unit Code 

(HUC) 6 watersheds and within 14 HUC 7 watersheds (Gonyer, 2009). This allotment 

represents a percentage of each watershed as shown in Table 3-10. The Bald Horse Allotment 

is located in watersheds with Condition Classes II and III, Moderate and High Concern. 

Table 3-10 Watershed Acres, Percentages Bald Horse Allotment. 

HUC 6 Watershed Watershed Name 

Watershed 

Acres 

% of Watershed In 

Allotment 

Watershed 

Condition Class 

101201090602 Newton Fork 20,310 <1% III 

101201090603 Sheridan Lake 29,304 21% II 

101201090604 Lower Spring Creek 27,194 14% II 

101201100108 Pactola Reservoir 21,360 3% II 

101202100201 Middle Rapid Creek 30,795 53% III 

101202100202 Lower Rapid Creek 28,788 3% II 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 222

Deerfield Allotment 

The Deerfield Allotment ranges in elevation from 5900 to 7100 feet with annual 

precipitation between 16-24 inches. Snow accumulation and rain fall contribute to this 

allotment’s water availability. Perennial streams include Castle Creek, Ditch Creek, South 

Fork Castle Creek, Heely Creek, Gold Run Creek and Nichols Creek along with various

intermittent streams and ephemeral drainages. Numerous seeps/springs are located on side 

slopes and along drainages. This allotment is located within parts of two Hydrologic Unit 

Code (HUC) 6 watersheds and within six HUC 7 watersheds (Gonyer, 2009). This 

allotment represents a percentage of each watershed as shown in Table 3-11. The Deerfield 

Allotment is located in watersheds with Condition Class II, Moderate Concern. 

Table 3-11 Watershed Acres, Percentages, Deerfield Allotment. 

HUC 6 Watershed Watershed Name 

Watershed 

Acres 

% of Watershed In 

Allotment 

Watershed 

Condition Class 

101201100104 South Fork Castle Creek 26,680 20% II 

101201100105 Castle Creek 32,204 9% II 

Palmer Gulch Allotment 

The Palmer Gulch Allotment ranges in elevation from 4600 to 7000 feet with an annual 

precipitation between 16-22 inches. Precipitation comes from snow in the higher elevations 

and rain during the months of April, May, and June. Perennial streams include Sunday 

Gulch, Spring Creek, Battle Creek, Bear Creek, Palmer Creek, Nelson Creek and Willow 

Creek along with various intermittent streams and ephemeral drainages. This allotment is 

located within parts of three Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 6 watersheds and within eight 

HUC 7 watersheds (Gonyer, 2009). This allotment represents a percentage of each 

watershed as shown in Table 3-12. The Palmer Gulch Allotment is located in watersheds 

with Condition Classes II and III, Moderate and High Concern. 

Table 3-12 Watershed Acres, Percentages Palmer Gulch Allotment. 

HUC 6 Watershed Watershed Name 

Watershed 

Acres 

% of Watershed In 

Allotment 

Watershed 

Condition Class 

101201090501 Upper Battle Creek 37,321 6% III 

101201090601 Upper Spring Creek 43,067 10% II 

101201090603 Sheridan Lake 29,304 22% II 

Porcupine Allotment 

The Porcupine Allotment ranges in elevation from 5600 to 6500 feet and is located 

mostly on the upper limestone plateau. The annual precipitation ranges between 16-24 

inches, mostly in the form of snow. Due to the limestone substrate there are no perennial 

streams. Riparian and wetland areas (springs/seeps) are not common compared to the 

other allotments. This allotment is located within parts of two Hydrologic Unit Code 

(HUC) 6 watersheds and within seven HUC 7 watersheds (Gonyer, 2009). This 

allotment represents a percentage of each watershed as shown in Table 3-13. The 

Porcupine Allotment is located in watersheds with Condition Class II, Moderate Concern. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 223

Table 3-13 Watershed Acres, Percentages Porcupine Allotment. 

HUC 6 Watershed Watershed Name 

Watershed 

Acres 

% of Watershed In 

Allotment 

Watershed 

Condition Class 

101201070405 Gillette Canyon 31,533 13% II 

101201070501 Upper Hell Canyon 51,070 10% II 

Redfern Allotment 

The Redfern Allotment ranges in elevation from 5000 to 6200 feet with an annual 

precipitation ranging between 16-20 inches. The majority of the precipitation comes from 

rain during the months of April, May, and June. Perennial streams include Slate Creek and 

the headwaters of Nugget Creek along with various intermittent streams and ephemeral 

drainages. Springs and seeps are localized and mostly found in drainages. This allotment is 

located within parts of four Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 6 watersheds and within seven 

HUC 7 watersheds (Gonyer, 2009). This allotment represents a percentage of each 

watershed as shown in Table 3-14. The Redfern Allotment is located in watersheds with 

Condition Classes II and III, Moderate and High Concern. 

Table 3-14 Watershed Acres, Percentages Redfern Allotment. 

HUC 6 Watershed Watershed Name 

Watershed 

Acres 

% of Watershed In 

Allotment 

Watershed 

Condition Class 

101201090602 Newton Fork 20,310 4% III 

101201100106 North Fork Castle Creek 34,520 4% II 

101201100107 Slate Creek 23,471 31% III 

101201100108 Pactola Reservoir 21,360 10% II 

Rimmer Allotment 

The Rimmer Allotment ranges in elevation from 5600 to 6200 feet with annual 

precipitation between 16-18 inches. The majority of the precipitation comes from rain 

during the months of April, May and June. Perennial streams include Castle Creek and 

the headwaters of Bittersweet Creek, along with several intermittent streams and 

ephemeral drainages. Springs/seeps are usually found in drainage bottoms. This allotment 

is located within parts of one Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 6 watersheds and within two 

HUC 7 watersheds (Gonyer, 2009). This allotment represents a percentage of each 

watershed as shown in Table 3-15. The Rimmer Allotment is located in a watershed with 

Condition Class II, Moderate Concern. 

Table 3-15 Watershed Acres, Percentages Rimmer Allotment. 

HUC 6 Watershed Watershed Name 

Watershed 

Acres 

% of Watershed In 

Allotment 

Watershed 

Condition Class 

101201100106 North Fork Castle Creek 34,520 6% II 

Slate Prairie 

The Slate Prairie Allotment ranges in elevation from 5000 to 6200 feet. Precipitation amounts 

are varied usually ranging between 16-20 inches a year. The majority of the precipitation 

comes from rain during the months of April, May and June. Perennial streams include Slate 

Creek, Crooked Creek, and Dougherty Creek along with various intermittent streams and 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 224

ephemeral drainages. Springs/seeps are located mostly in drainage bottoms. This allotment is 

located within parts of two Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 6 watersheds and within four HUC 7 

watersheds (Gonyer, 2009). This allotment represents a percentage of each watershed as 

shown in Table 3-16. The Slate Prairie Allotment is located in watersheds with Condition 

Classes II and III, Moderate and High Concern. 

Table 3-16 Watershed Acres, Percentages Slate Prairie Allotment. 

HUC 6 Watershed Watershed Name 

Watershed 

Acres 

% of Watershed In 

Allotment 

Watershed 

Condition Class 

101201100106 North Fork Castle Creek 34,520 11% II 

101201100107 Slate Creek 23,471 8% III 

Tigerville Allotment 

The Tigerville Allotment ranges in elevation from 5100 to 6100 feet with an annual 

precipitation ranging from 16-20 inches. The majority of the precipitation comes from rain 

during the months of April, May and June. Perennial streams include East Slate Creek, Newton 

Fork, and Burnt Fork along with various intermittent streams and ephemeral drainages. 

Springs/seeps are mostly found in drainage bottoms. This allotment is located within parts of 

two Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 6 watersheds and within five HUC 7 watersheds (Gonyer, 

2009). This allotment represents a percentage of each watershed as shown in Table 3-17. The 

Tigerville Allotment is located in watersheds with Condition Class III, High Concern. 

Table 3-17 Watershed Acres, Percentages Tigerville Allotment. 

HUC 6 Watershed Watershed Name 

Watershed 

Acres 

% of Watershed In 

Allotment 

Watershed 

Condition Class 

101201090602 Newton Fork 20,310 23% III 

101201100107 Slate Creek 23,471 4% III 

Soils 

All of the allotments have some soil map units that are subject to compaction when wet. 

These soil map units primarily support Ponderosa Pine. Table xx below lists the acreage 

within each allotment that has been compacted or has detrimentally impacted soils due to 

heavy livestock use along fences, cattle trails, at salt licks, or at water developments. The 

percentage of each allotment that is affected is below the 15% detrimentally impacted 

soils standard as described by the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service, 2007b). 

A Soil Health Monitoring/Assessment Protocol was conducted at each soil survey site. 

Observation on all allotments indicated that the soils are in good shape and functioning 

properly. There were no indications of erosion, compaction, or loss of organic matter/ground 

cover at the sites. However, one site on the Slate Prairie Allotment showed compaction and a 

platy soil structure. The area was noticeably hard when you walked on the site. The other 

seven allotments did not contain areas that were detrimentally impacted by livestock. 

Table 3-18 below lists the number of soil map units and the percentage of the allotment that has 

a high erosion hazard rating within each allotment. For all of the allotments, the soil map units 

with high erosion hazard tend to be the steeper areas which livestock typically do not graze. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 225

Table 3-18 Soil Map Units 

Bald 

Horse Deerfield Palmer Gulch Porcupine Redfern Rimmer Slate Prairie Tigerville 

Soil Map Units 23 20 17 11 8 7 7 8 

Portion of 

Allotment that 

has a High 

Erosion Hazard 

Rating 

37% 13% 32% 3% 35% 23% 19% 14% 

Compacted or 

Detrimentally 

Impacted Soils 

(percentage of 

allotment 

impacted)

35 acres 

(0.13%) 

9 acres 

(0.12%) 

20 acres 

(0.14%) 

30 acres 

(0.30%) 

25 acres 

(0.21%) 

3 acres 

0.15%) 

25 acres 

(0.42%) 

15 acres 

(0.26%) 

Soil Sites 

Surveyed 9 10 10 11 9 10 10 9 

Springs and Streams 

“The term watershed describes an area of land that drains downslope to the lowest point. The 

water moves through a network of drainage pathways, both underground and on the surface. 

Generally, these pathways converge into streams and rivers, which become progressively 

larger as the water moves on downstream, eventually reaching an estuary and the ocean” 

(Watershed Definition, 2005). The number of HUC 6 watersheds is displayed in the table 

below for each allotment. HUC 6 watersheds are 10,000 to 50,000 acres in size. 

The miles of streams are also shown in the table below. Perennial streams have flowing water 

year-round provided by ground water. Intermittent streams have flowing water for extended 

periods of time when ground water provides water for stream flow. Ephemeral streams have 

flowing water only during and for a short duration after precipitation events. Stream bed is 

located above the water table year-round. 

Table 3-19 Stream Miles 

Bald 

Horse Deerfield Palmer 

Gulch Porcupine Redfern Rimmer Slate 

Prairie Tigerville 

Number of 

Watersheds within 

Allotment 

5 2 3 2 4 1 2 2 

Miles of Stream 

within Allotment 92 miles 19 miles 40 miles 31 miles 48 miles 8 miles 20 miles 20 miles 

Miles of Perennial 21 miles 13 miles 12 miles 0 miles 11 miles 4 miles 6 miles 4 miles 

Miles of 

Intermittent 21 miles 1 miles 6 miles 0 miles 18 miles 1 miles 3 miles 3 miles 

Miles of 

Ephemeral 50 miles 5 miles 22 miles 31 miles 19 miles 3 miles 11 miles 13 miles 

Floodplains and Wetlands 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 226

National Wetland Inventory (NWI) delineations are done by photo-interpretation and 

may not be accurate representations of actual wetland conditions. Field inventories have 

not yet been conducted to confirm if these mapped wetlands are jurisdictional wetlands. 

From past observations, most mapped wetlands are generally not jurisdictional wetlands. 

Table 3-20 Floodplains and Wetlands 

Bald 

Horse Deerfield Palmer Gulch Porcupine Redfern Rimmer Slate Prairie Tigerville 

Acres of Mapped 

100 -yr 

Floodplains 

364 acres 208 acres 101 acres 161 acres 213 acres 11 acres 4 acres 21 acres 

Acres of Polygon 

Mapped Wetlands 1.9 acres 78.4 acres 22.3 acres 0.5 acres 10.8 acres 0 acres 0.9 acres 4.3 acres 

Miles of Linear 

Mapped Wetlands 32.9 miles 10.4 miles 10.7 miles 4.7 miles 10.2 miles 2.3 miles 5.2 miles 5.6 miles 

Beneficial Uses and Water Quality 

All streams within South Dakota are assigned the beneficial uses of irrigation, fish and 

wildlife propagation, recreation, and stock watering (SD Administrative Code 

74:51:03:01). Additional beneficial uses are assigned to additional streams and are 

displayed by allotment. Stream health ratings have been assigned to the streams in the 

allotments. Stream health are the conditions of a stream using metrics such as channel 

geometry, large woody debris, substrate, bank stability, flow regime, water chemistry, 

and aquatic biota. There are three stream health classes recognized in the Rocky 

Mountain Region: robust, at-risk and diminished. These classes are used for assessing 

long-term stream health and impacts from management activities. 

• Robust stream health exhibits high geomorphic, hydrologic and/or biotic integrity. 

High integrity is indicated by conditions that are 74 – 100% of a reference condition. 

Physical, chemical and/or biologic conditions suggest that State assigned water 

quality (beneficial, designated or classified) uses are supported. 

• At-risk stream health exhibits moderate geomorphic, hydrologic and/or biotic 

integrity. Moderate integrity is indicated by conditions that are 59 – 73 % of a 

reference condition. Physical, chemical and/or biologic conditions suggest that State 

assigned water quality (beneficial, designated or classified) uses are at risk and may 

be threatened. 

• Diminished stream health exhibits low geomorphic, hydrologic and/or biotic 

integrity. Low integrity is indicated by conditions that are less than 58% of a 

reference condition. Physical, chemical and/or biologic conditions suggest that State 

assigned water quality (beneficial, designated or classified) uses may not be 

supported. 

Below are the beneficial uses, water quality issues and stream health per allotment. 

Bald Horse Allotment 

South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources (SD DENR) had assigned 

additional beneficial uses for Horse Creek, Prairie Creek, Rapid Creek, South Victoria Creek, 

Spring Creek and Victoria Creek. Horse Creek and South Victoria Creek have additional 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 227

beneficial uses of coldwater marginal fish life propagation waters and limited-contact 

recreation waters. Prairie Creek and Victoria Creek have the additional beneficial uses of 

coldwater permanent fish life propagation waters and limited-contact recreation waters. The 

additional beneficial uses for Rapid Creek are domestic water supply, coldwater permanent 

fish life propagation waters, immersion recreation waters, and limited-contact recreation 

waters. Spring Creek’s additional beneficial uses are coldwater marginal fish life 

propagation waters, immersion recreation waters and limited-contact recreation waters. 

Most streams and headwater areas of streams within this allotment are meeting their 

beneficial uses as they are not on the South Dakota Department of Natural Resources 303(d) 

list of impaired streams (South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 

2008). There are three streams that are listed as having impaired reaches on the 303(d) list. 

Rapid Creek, Spring Creek and Victoria Creek are not meeting their beneficial use of 

coldwater permanent fish life propagation because of high temperatures from natural sources. 

Natural sources refer to condition not aggravated by human activities and many times it is 

due to low summer flows. Rapid Creek that is within the allotment boundary is not grazed. 

Spring Creek receives light grazing and Victoria Creek is in the center of the allotment. 

Two MIMs and three PFC protocols were completed on several streams. The MIM on 

Horse Creek indicated that there were bank stability and bank alteration concerns. The 

Victoria Creek MIM showed there were bank alteration concerns. PFCs completed on 

Burnt Ranch Tributary, Prairie Creek and Victoria Creek had functional ratings of 

proper-functioning-condition, proper-functioning-condition and functional-at-risk with an 

upward-trend, respectively. Stream health classification for all the streams within the 

allotment were designated as at-risk. 

Areas of concern on the allotment include: 

• On Horse Creek, where a MIM was completed, bank alteration and stream bank 

stability. Trampling on Horse Creek is a concern. A MIM was completed on 

Victoria Creek also where bank alteration is a concern. 

• PFC rating of functional-at-risk on Victoria Creek is a concern. 

• Trampling of the stream and wet areas have been observed and are a concern on; Bald 

Hills Spring 2, Brush Creek, Burnt Ranch Draw, Prairie Creek, South Victoria Creek 

,and Tamarack Gulch. Trampling and hummocking was observed and is a concern on 

a tributary to Victoria Creek. 

Deerfield Allotment 

SD DENR had assigned additional beneficial uses for Castle Creek, Ditch Creek, Gold Run 

Creek, Heeley Creek, Nichols Creek and Silver Creek. All of these streams, except Nichols 

Creek, have additional designated beneficial uses of coldwater permanent fish life 

propagation waters and limited-contact recreation waters. Nichols Creek has additional 

beneficial uses of coldwater marginal fish life propagation waters and limited-contact 

recreation waters. 

All streams and headwater areas of streams within this allotment are meeting their beneficial 

uses. No streams are listed as impaired reaches with the South Dakota Department of 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 228

Natural Resources 303(d) list (South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources, 2008). 

One MIM and two PFC protocols were completed on several streams. The MIM on Heeley 

Creek indicated that there were bank stability and bank alteration concerns. PFCs completed 

on South Fork Castle Creek Section 11 and South Fork Castle Creek Section 36 had 

functional ratings of functional-at-risk with an upward-trend and proper-functioningcondition, respectively. Stream health classification for all the streams within the allotment 

were designated as at-risk, except Castle Creek was designated robust and Silver Creek is 

diminished. 

Areas of concern on the allotment include: 

• On Heeley Creek, where a MIM was completed, bank alteration and stream bank 

stability is a concern. Trampling of the stream is also a concern. 

• PFC rating of functional-at-risk on South Fork Castle Creek is a concern. 

Palmer Gulch Allotment 

SD DENR had assigned additional beneficial uses for Battle Creek, Bear Gulch Creek, Palmer 

Gulch Creek, Spring Creek, Sunday Gulch Creek and Tenderfoot Creek. All of these streams, 

except Bear Gulch Creek and Spring Creek, have additional designated beneficial uses of 

coldwater permanent fish life propagation waters and limited-contact recreation waters. Bear 

Gulch Creek has additional beneficial uses of coldwater marginal fish life propagation waters 

and limited-contact recreation waters and Spring Creek has additional beneficial uses of 

coldwater permanent fish life propagation waters, immersion recreation waters and limitedcontact recreation waters. 

Most streams and headwater areas of streams within this allotment are meeting their beneficial 

uses. Spring Creek is listed as an impaired reach in the South Dakota Department of Natural 

Resources 303(d) list (South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 

2008). Spring Creek is not meeting the beneficial use of Coldwater Permanent Fish Life 

waters because of high temperatures from natural sources. Natural sources refer to condition 

not aggravated by human activities and many times is due to low summer flows. Spring Creek 

is not meeting the beneficial use of Immersion Recreation water because of fecal coliform from 

livestock, human and wildlife as identified in the Total Ma. The allotment encompasses 

approximately 2 miles of the 35 mile long Spring Creek and receives minimal grazing. 

One MIM and three PFC protocols were completed on several streams. The MIM on Bear

Gulch Creek indicated that there were bank alteration concerns. PFCs completed on Palmer 

Creek and Rabbit Gulch had functional ratings of functional-at-risk with no apparent trend; and 

Samalias Creek had a functional rating of proper-functioning-condition. Stream health 

classification for all the streams within the allotment were designated as at-risk, except Spring 

Creek which was rated as diminished because of past channel alteration from the railroad and 

highway. 

Areas of concern on the allotment include: 

• On Bear Gulch Creek, where a MIM was completed, bank alteration is a concern. 

Trampling of the stream is also a concern. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 229

• PFC rating of functional-at-risk on Palmer Creek and Rabbit Gulch is a concern. 

Trampling is occurring on Rabbit Gulch. 

Porcupine Allotment 

All streams within the Porcupine Allotment are ephemeral. Since there is a lack of water in 

this allotment, there are no additional assigned beneficial uses for any of the streams and no 

streams are listed as impaired. 

No MIM or PFC protocols were completed on the Porcupine Allotment. Stream health 

classification for all the streams within the allotment were not assigned since the streams are 

ephemeral. Diminished stream health ratings were assigned to the three springs, North 

Antelope Spring, The Seeps and Wells Spring because of trampling from livestock and 

wildlife. 

Areas of concern on the allotment include: 

• Three springs have concerns, North Antelope Spring, The Seeps and Wells Springs, 

all of which are trampled or have too small of an exclosure. 

Redfern Allotment 

SD DENR had assigned additional beneficial uses for Friday Gulch, Lind Gulch, 

Marshall Gulch, Skull Gulch, Slate Creek, Spruce Gulch and West Nugget Gulch. All of 

these streams, except Slate Creek, have additional designated beneficial uses of coldwater 

marginal fish life propagation waters and limited-contact recreation waters. Slate Creek 

has additional beneficial uses of coldwater permanent fish life propagation waters and 

limited-contact recreation waters. 

All streams and headwater areas of streams within this allotment are meeting their 

beneficial uses. No streams are listed as impaired reaches with the South Dakota 

Department of Natural Resources 303(d) list (South Dakota Department of Environment 

and Natural Resources, 2008). 

Areas of concern on the allotment include: 

• One MIM and one PFC protocols were completed on two streams. The MIM on Slate 

Creek indicated that there were bank stability and bank alteration concerns. The PFC 

was completed on Spruce Gulch had functional ratings of functional-at-risk with a 

downward trend. Stream health classification for all the streams within the allotment 

were designated as at-risk. 

• On Slate Creek where a MIM was completed, bank alteration and stream bank 

stability is a concern. Trampling of the stream is also a concern. 

• PFC rating of functional-at-risk on Spruce Gulch is a concern. Spruce Gulch has a 

spring without a fence with hummocking and stream trampling occurring. 

• Skull Gulch has a spring with no fence with trampling and there additional is 

trampling along the stream. 

• West Nugget Gulch, Marshall Gulch, and a tributary to Slate Creek have trampling.

• Lind Gulch has a water tank with trampling and hummocking. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 230

Rimmer Allotment 

SD DENR had assigned additional beneficial uses for Bittersweet Creek and Castle 

Creek. Bittersweet Creek has additional designated beneficial uses of coldwater marginal 

fish life propagation waters and limited-contact recreation waters. Castle Creek has 

additional beneficial uses of coldwater permanent fish life propagation waters and 

limited-contact recreation waters. 

All streams and headwater areas of streams within this allotment are meeting their 

beneficial uses. No streams are listed as impaired reaches with the South Dakota 

Department of Natural Resources 303(d) list (South Dakota Department of Environment 

and Natural Resources, 2008). 

One MIM and three PFC protocols were completed on two streams. The MIM on a 

tributary to Castle Creek indicated that there were bank alteration concerns. The PFC 

completed on Bittersweet Creek had functional ratings of functional-at-risk with a 

downward trend; Castle Creek had a functional rating of proper-functioning-condition; 

and a tributary to Castle Creek has a functional rating of functional-at-risk with no 

apparent trend. Stream health classification for all the streams within the allotment were 

designated as at-risk. 

Areas of concern on the allotment include: 

• On a tributary to Castle Creek where a MIM was completed, bank alteration is a 

concern. 

• PFC rating of functional-at-risk on Bittersweet Creek and tributary to Castle Creek 

are a concern. Both are being trampled and hummocking is occurring. 

• Lost Park Spring fence is down and there is hummocking. 

Slate Prairie Allotment 

SD DENR had assigned additional beneficial uses for Crooked Creek, Lind Gulch Creek 

and Slate Creek. Crooked Creek and Lind Gulch Creek has additional designated 

beneficial uses of coldwater marginal fish life propagation waters and limited-contact 

recreation waters. Slate Creek has additional beneficial uses of coldwater permanent fish 

life propagation waters and limited-contact recreation waters. 

All streams and headwater areas of streams within this allotment are meeting their 

beneficial uses. No streams are listed as impaired reaches with the South Dakota 

Department of Natural Resources 303(d) list (South Dakota Department of Environment 

and Natural Resources, 2008). 

Two MIM and seven PFC protocols were completed on several streams. The MIM on a 

Crooked Creek indicated that there were bank alteration concerns. On Slate Creek the 

MIM indicated that there were bank stability problems and bank alteration concerns. The 

PFC completed on Slate Creek and a tributary to Slate Creek had functional ratings of 

functional-at-risk with a downward trend; Crooked Creek, Dougherty Gulch and tributary 

to Dougherty Gulch had a functional rating of functional-at-risk with no apparent trend; 

and a Slate Creek and Whitetail Gulch has a functional rating of proper-functioning-
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 231

condition. Stream health classification for all the streams within the allotment were 

designated as at-risk. 

Areas of concern on the allotment include: 

• On a Crooked Creek, where a MIM was completed, bank alteration is a concern and 

on Slate Creek bank alteration and unstable banks are a concern. Crooked Creek has 

trampling occurring along the length of channel with hummocking occurring. 

• PFC rating of functional-at-risk on Crooked Creek, Dougherty Gulch, Slate Creek, 

tributary to Dougherty Gulch, and tributary to Slate Creek are a concern. 

• Dougherty Gulch has trampling of the channel. Springs in drainage partially fenced 

with trampling occurring in wet areas. At one development the water tank is to close 

to stream. Another spring has fence down with trampling in wet areas. 

• Mystic Camp spring has a downed fence and trampling and hummocking is 

occurring. 

• On tributaries to Slate Creek, there are downed fences at several springs with 

trampling and hummocking occurring. 

• Whitetail Gulch has three springs with down fences and the wet areas are impacted by 

trampling. 

Tigerville Allotment 

SD DENR had assigned additional beneficial uses for Slate Creek. Slate Creek has 

additional beneficial uses of coldwater permanent fish life propagation waters and 

limited-contact recreation waters. 

All streams and headwater areas of streams within this allotment are assumed to be 

meeting their beneficial uses. No streams are listed as impaired reaches with the South 

Dakota Department of Natural Resources 303(d) list (South Dakota Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources, 2008). 

One MIM and eight PFC protocols were completed on several streams. The MIM on an 

unnamed tributary to Newton Fork indicated that there were bank alteration concerns. 

The PFC completed on Gooseberry Draw, Newton Fork, Slate Creek and a tributary to 

Newton Fork had functional ratings of proper-functioning-condition; Burnt Fork, 

Marshall Gulch and tributary to Marshall Gulch had a functional rating of functional-atrisk with no apparent trend; and a tributary to Newton Fork has a functional rating of 

functional-at-risk with a downward trend. Stream health classification for all the streams 

within the allotment were designated as at-risk. 

Areas of concern on the allotment include: 

• On a tributary to Newton Fork where a MIM was completed, bank alteration is a 

concern. 

• PFC rating of functional-at-risk on Burnt Fork, Marshall Gulch, Newton Fork and 

tributary to Marshall Gulch are a concern. 

• On a tributary to Newton Fork trampling of the stream course was noted along with 

hummocking occurring along the entire channel. There is also a spring with the fence 

down. Significant hummocking is occurring near the spring. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 232

Environmental Consequences 

A list of design features that are common to all action alternatives and adaptive management 

strategies can be found in Chapter 2 of the EIS. 

Potential effects on the proposed project, with respect to soil and water resources, may be 

summarized as those affecting soil productivity (compaction, erosion, heating, and 

nutrient removal), streams (streamflow and channel morphology), water quality 

(temperature/oxygen, sediment, nutrients, and pathogens), and special areas (riparian 

areas, wetlands, and floodplains). As discussed below, these are general effects that may 

occur within the allotments. Compliance with the Forest Plan and WCP Handbook 

standards is expected to keep these effects to an acceptable level. 

The analysis area for cumulative effects was bounded in space as the allotment 

boundaries. The boundary was chosen because the allotments cross multiple watersheds 

and generally the allotment comprises a small percentage of a watershed. Subsequently, 

the direct and indirect effects of the grazing would be “washed-out” at the watershed 

scale. The cumulative effects analysis was bounded in time to 10 years of prior through 

the duration of the Allotment Management Plan, approximately 15 years into the future. 

Watershed Condition Classes as presented in the Forest Plan would not change whether 

the watersheds are grazed or not or for that matter whether the watersheds are managed 

or not. The condition classes on the Black Hills National Forest are more of a risk class 

as a large portion of the factors used in determining the rating of the watersheds cannot 

and would not change depending on management. These factors are erosive soils and 

steep slopes. The two are closely related. If you have steep slopes you generally have 

erosive soils when the organics are removed. Again if you have erosive soils you tend to 

have steep slopes. Just because you have watersheds with steep slopes and erosive soils 

does not necessarily mean your Condition Class of the watersheds is degraded, which is

portrayed on the Black Hills National Forest. There will be no further discussion or 

analysis of Condition Class in this report. 

There would be no direct or indirect effects on the aquatic ecosystems due to changes in 

the flow regime or streamflow with any alternative. Changes in flow regime would result 

from major changes in cover type or ground cover, dense road networks, or water 

projects. All alternatives are predicted to result in no major changes to these

characteristics. 

Stream connectivity would not be affected with any alternative because no new instream 

barriers would be constructed nor are any existing instream structures proposed for 

removal. Also all existing road and stream crossings that are a connected disturbed areas 

(provide sediment into the stream) would stay the same as current condition. 

Floodplains would not be impacted from grazing. Grazing or the lack of grazing has no 

direct or indirect effects on the floodplains because no change occurs to the physical 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 233

features of the floodplain. This project would meet the requirement of E.O. 11988 for 

Floodplain Management. There will be no further discussion or analysis of floodplains in 

this report. 

Impacts to the soils and watershed from wildlife are expected to stay the same with all 

alternatives and will remain constant whether the areas are grazed with livestock or not. 

There will be no further discussion or analysis pertaining to impacts to the soils and 

watershed from wildlife in this report. 

Alternative A (No Action) 

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to all Allotments 

Under the No Grazing Alternative, no livestock grazing would be permitted on any of the 

allotments. Following current Forest Service Handbook direction, existing permits would 

be phased out in two years. Improvements such as stock tanks, spring developments, and 

other water features used by wildlife would not be removed. Other improvements such as

fencing, gates, and cattleguards not needed for management of allotments sharing 

common boundaries would eventually be removed as time and funding allows. Some of 

the existing sites that are not at desired condition would have a delayed response until 

livestock grazing stops. 

Soils 

An end to grazing would likely increase the ground cover initially and lead to less soil 

disturbance. Erosion would be reduced (due to increased ground cover), soil bulk density 

(compaction) characteristics would improve, and infiltration rates would increase (to the 

extent that these have been affected by domestic grazing). A reduction in detrimental soil 

disturbance would occur most rapidly under the No Action or No Grazing alternative. 

Watershed 

An end to livestock grazing would likely increase the ground cover initially and lead to 

less soil disturbance. Livestock feces would no longer be deposited directly in streams or 

within upslope areas, so there would be less adverse effects on surface water quality. As 

vegetative cover increases, enhanced filtering mechanisms would trap more sediment and 

nutrients, resulting in less sediment and nutrients delivered to streams. Increased plant 

cover would result in greater uptake of nutrients, which would enhance water quality. 

However, permanent removal of grazing may not guarantee maximum herbaceous cover 

as the accumulation of litter over a period of years may eventually retard forage 

production (Buckhouse 1993 in EPA 2003). 

There would be no direct effects on the aquatic ecosystems from sediment and bed and 

bank stability because there would be no livestock grazing with this alternative. No new 

direct damage to streambanks and channel morphology due to hoofshear would be 

expected. However, the effects of increased sediment delivery may be seen long after 

disturbed sites have revegetated (USDA Forest Service, 2006) and stream channels may 

take decades to recover from severe morphologic changes. There would a positive indirect 

effect because areas of localized steambank trampling and channel widening would begin 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 234

to revegetate and stabilize, subsequently sediment input would decrease and bed and bank 

stability would increase. 

There would be no direct or indirect effect on aquatic ecosystems due to temperature and 

dissolved oxygen changed with Alternative A because there would not be any livestock 

grazing with this alternative. 

Riparian Areas 

For all of the riparian ecosystems in the allotments, this alternative would provide the quickest 

and most permanent attainment of the desired condition, specific to the riparian vegetation and 

aquatic ecosystems where desired conditions are not currently being achieved. An end to 

grazing would improve riparian vegetation condition and would have a positive overall effect

on the riparian areas. These improved conditions would gradually occur over decades. There 

would be no direct or indirect effects on riparian areas other than what has already been 

described above with this alternative because there would be no livestock grazing. 

Wetlands 

An end to grazing would have a positive overall effect on wetlands. There would be no 

direct or indirect effects on wetlands other than what has already been described with this 

alternative because there would be no livestock grazing. 

Allotment-specific Direct and Indirect Effects 

All of these effects would be seen on all eight (8) allotments, except Porcupine Allotment 

would see a lesser amount due to the lack of streams, riparian areas and wetlands. There 

would be no direct effects on soils, watersheds, springs, streams, riparian areas, and wetlands 

because there would be no livestock grazing. There would be a positive indirect effect on 

soils, watersheds, springs, streams, riparian areas, and wetlands. Positive indirect effects 

would be by allowing all areas to revegetate and stabilize. Springs, streams, riparian areas and 

wetlands would improve over time. Riparian vegetation would also have a chance to reestablish. Evidence of trampling and hummocking from livestock grazing would decrease to 

unobservable levels. Vegetation that was utilized by livestock would now increase ground 

cover and potential of sediment to reach streams via overland flow or instable streambanks 

would be reduced. All of these changes will occur over decades. 

Bald Horse Allotment 

Most streams would continue to meet water quality standards for their assigned beneficial 

uses. Beneficial use of coldwater permanent fish life propagation affected from 

temperature would not improve with the absence of grazing on Rapid Creek, Spring 

Creek and Victoria Creek. Rapid Creek is not currently grazed and would not be grazed 

with this alternative, so it would see no change. Spring Creek generally received light 

grazing on a 1.1 miles stretch of the stream and with no grazing on this section, 

improvement to the water quality would not help meet the assigned beneficial use 

because grazing is not the factor causing the impairment. Low streamflows and water 

spilling off the top of Sheridan Lake during warm summer days are the contributing 

factors. However on Victoria Creek, an improvement in the riparian vegetation would 

help move the stream toward meeting this beneficial use by providing more shade to the 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 235

stream. Grazing is not the main contributing factor. Low streamflows and altered 

channels and riparian vegetation from a large flood event are the primary reason why 

Victoria Creek is not meeting the assigned beneficial use. 

Over the long-term, stream health rating for the streams would move from at-risk towards 

robust. Bank alteration, stream bank stability and trampling of Horse Creek would 

improve. Victoria Creek would see the functional-at-risk rating move toward properfunctioning-condition and would also see improvement in bank alteration. 

Deerfield Allotment 

All streams would continue to meet water quality standards for their assigned beneficial uses. 

Stream health rating for Castle Creek would remain robust and Silver Creek would 

continue to be diminished as grazing is not the reason for the rating. Over the long-term, 

all the other streams would move from at-risk towards robust. South Fork Castle Creek 

would see the functional-at-risk rating move toward proper-functioning-condition. Bank 

alteration, stream bank stability and trampling of Heeley Creek would improve. 

Palmer Gulch Allotment 

Most streams would continue to meet water quality standards for their assigned beneficial 

uses. Beneficial use of coldwater permanent fish life propagation affected from 

temperature on Spring Creek would not improve with the absence of grazing. This is 

because a large part of Spring Creek is on private land. There are only 2.3 miles of the 

34.6 miles Spring Creek that are on this allotment. Spring Creek has had limited grazing 

because the locations are small isolated sections with minimal livestock access. 

The implementation strategy for the TMDL on Spring Creek for fecal coliform, 

“Livestock access to streams should be reduced, and livestock should be provided 

sources of water away from streams” would be implemented to the fullest by removing 

livestock from this allotment. There would no longer be fecal coliform contributions 

from this allotment and the beneficial use of immersion recreation affected by grazing 

would improve slightly with the absence of grazing. 

Over the long-term, stream health rating for the streams would move from at-risk towards 

robust. Spring Creek stream health is expected to remain at diminished since the reason for 

the rating, railroad and highway, will remain unchanged. Bank alteration and trampling of 

Bear Gulch Creek would improve. Palmer Creek and Rabbit Gulch would see the 

functional-at-risk ratings move toward proper-functioning-condition and Rabbit Gulch 

would also see improvement in trampling. 

Porcupine Allotment 

There are no perennial or intermittent streams in the Porcupine Allotment so there is not a 

concern with the streams meeting their assigned beneficial uses. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 236

Stream health rating for the springs of diminished may remain at this rating and not 

improve as the springs are the only water source for the area and wildlife is expected to 

continue to impact the sites by trampling the area to get water. 

Redfern Allotment 

All streams would continue to meet water quality standards for their assigned beneficial uses. 

Over the long-term, stream health rating for the streams would move from at-risk towards 

robust. Spruce Gulch would see the functional-at-risk rating with a downward trend 

stabilize and move toward proper-functioning-condition. Bank alteration and stream 

bank stability trampling of Slate Creek would improve. 

Rimmer Allotment 

All streams would continue to meet water quality standards for their assigned beneficial uses. 

Over the long-term, stream health rating for the streams would move from at-risk towards 

robust. Tributaries to Castle Creek would see the functional-at-risk rating move toward 

proper-functioning-condition and improvement in bank alteration. Bittersweet Creek 

would see the functional-at-risk rating with a downward trend stabilize and move toward 

proper-functioning-condition. 

Slate Prairie Allotment 

All streams would continue to meet water quality standards for their assigned beneficial uses. 

Over the long-term, stream health rating for the streams would move from at-risk towards 

robust. Bank alteration and trampling would improve on Crooked Creek with functionalAt-Risk moving toward proper-functioning-condition. Slate Creek would see an 

improvement in the stream bank stability, bank alteration and would see the functional-atrisk rating with a downward trend stabilize and move toward proper-functioning-condition. 

Dougherty Gulch would see an improvement in trampling and the functional-at-risk rating 

would move toward proper-functioning-condition. 

Tigerville Allotment 

All streams would continue to meet water quality standards for their assigned beneficial uses. 

Over the long-term, stream health rating for the streams would move from at-risk towards 

robust. Bank alteration and hummocking would improve on a tributary to Newton Fork. 

Function-At-Risk ratings on Burnt Fork, Marshall Gulch and Newton Fork would move 

toward proper-functioning-condition. 

Forest Plan 

This alternative would comply with Forest Plan Standards & Guidelines to provide for longterm aquatic/riparian ecosystem health and ecological function. Stream bank alteration is 

expected to improve over time. This would benefit long-term bank stability and water 

quality. This alternative would eliminate grazing impacts to aquatic and riparian vegetation, 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 237

allowing for continued aquatic/riparian improvement. Stream reaches and riparian areas 

impacted by livestock would be enhanced. Improvements will occur over decades. 

Alternatives B & C 

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to all Allotments. 

Both alternatives would reauthorize grazing on all eight allotments. The action alternatives 

are designed to improve resource conditions. Structural range improvements would continue 

to be maintained annually and reconstructed as needed. Livestock would be moved to the 

next pasture before utilization standards for upland areas and stubble height for riparian areas 

are reached. Long-term effectiveness monitoring to assess upland and riparian condition 

trends will occur and adjustments made to the utilization standard and stubble height as 

necessary. Both alternatives include non-constructed adaptive management options to 

improve resource conditions. The difference between Alternative B and C is Alternative C 

incorporates some structural improvements designed to protect some features and/or to get 

better distribution of the livestock and incorporate additional constructed adaptive 

management options as needed to improve conditions. 

Numerous hydrologic studies have upheld the conclusion that little information exists to 

support the benefits to soil and water from grazing (Clary and Webster, 1989). The general 

effects of components of the action alternatives, with respect to soil and water resources, 

are discussed below. Benefits and adverse effects are discussed in a general context as 

actual outcomes would vary depending upon how the components are employed to address 

specific issues. Effects of actions that are more concretely defined are discussed under the 

individual allotments to the extent that they could be predicted. Livestock grazing would be 

reauthorized on the allotments and forest plan standards will be met, especially relating to 

upland utilization and riparian stubble height. 

Effects to the soil and watershed will be seen on all eight (8) allotments, except Porcupine 

Allotment would see a lesser amount due to the lack of streams, riparian areas and wetlands. 

There would be direct effects (impacts) on soils, watersheds, springs, streams, riparian areas, 

and wetlands because there would be livestock grazing. The impacts would be minor and 

conditions will improve over time because of the monitoring that will occur. Short-term 

monitoring will focus on when the livestock will need to move based on riparian stubble 

height and upland vegetation utilization. Long-term monitoring of the riparian area will 

occur to see if the riparian conditions and stream condition area are moving in the right 

direction. If conditions are not moving in the right direction, adjustments will be made to 

grazing and short-term indicators. Springs, streams, riparian areas and wetlands are expected 

to improve over time and have fewer impacts from grazing. Riparian vegetation would 

improve. Evidence of trampling and hummocking from livestock grazing would lesson. 

Ground cover is expected to improve. The potential for sediment to reach streams via 

overland flow or from unstable streambanks would be reduced. 

Soils 

There is currently minimal soil erosion problems related to livestock grazing in the project 

area. The action alternatives are intended to maintain or improve resource conditions in 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 238

riparian and upland vegetation communities by adhering to utilization standards for the

uplands and stubble height for the riparian areas. Where monitoring shows that the desired 

conditions at benchmark sites are not being met within an acceptable timeframe, adaptive 

management options will be implemented to move toward desired conditions. These actions 

will minimize soil erosion across the allotments. 

There could be a small potential for direct or indirect effect on soil productivity from soil 

compaction with the action alternatives. This is because livestock would still be grazing 

with these alternatives. Soils susceptible to soil compaction have been identified in the 

Soil and Watershed Specialist Report. These soils are primarily areas that are timbered 

and not primary grazing land. Most any soil could be compacted under the right 

conditions. This happens where animals tend to congregate when the moisture conditions 

are right. These areas include livestock trails, salt licks, water tanks, and shaded areas. 

Generally these are small isolated areas already impacted and would not exceed the 15% 

detrimentally impacted soils as allowed under Forest Plan Standard 1103 and as 

demonstrated in the Soils and Watershed Specialist Report. 

Watershed 

The action alternatives have the potential to positively affect the watersheds. 

Traditionally, livestock grazing has had negative effects on aquatic ecosystem including 

water quality degradation, loss of stream bank vegetation and stability, and subsequent 

detrimental changes in channel morphology and increased sediment input (USDA Forest 

Service 2005a). Measures with these alternatives to maintain proper use or residual levels 

of vegetative cover and bank stability will promote bank stability adjacent to aquatic 

habitats and maintain filtering function of riparian areas adjacent to water (Guidelines 

2505 and 2506). 

A large portion of sediment from livestock comes from crossings the streams and 

trampling the banks while looking for water and lush vegetation. Generally the amount of 

sediment generated is not a large volume. However if animals spend a lot of time in the 

same area of the stream, stream banks could become unstable. This could cause failure of 

the stream banks with large amounts of sediment being generated. 

Overall these alternatives should have less impacts to the aquatic ecosystem from 

sediment and bed and bank stability, because of the ability to correct stream related 

trends through adaptive management. However, some impacts will still occur. These 

alternatives would not lead to detrimental bank instability. Beneficial uses of the streams 

and water quality standards would be met. 

Riparian Areas 

The action alternatives have the potential to positively affect riparian areas. Aquatic and 

riparian habitat at localized sites within each allotment that currently are not at the desired 

condition would be improved. This is anticipated to have a positive indirect benefit to 

streams through improved water quality and habitat conditions upon implementation of the 

action alternatives and adaptive management. However, the riparian areas could continue to 

be impacted. Changes implemented through monitoring and adaptive management are 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 239

expected to maintain proper utilization levels and stubble height. Adaptive management 

actions are intended to move the riparian at several localized areas toward desired 

conditions. Riparian areas will slowly improve over time. The effects of the action 

alternatives on riparian areas would be more than Alternative A. 

Wetlands 

The action alternatives have the potential to positively affect the wetlands. As identified 

in the Affected Environment Section, there is potential wetland vegetation within most 

allotments. These wetlands are in conjunction with riparian areas along streams or 

springs having wetland or water-loving vegetation. Changes implemented through 

monitoring are expected to maintain proper utilization levels and stubble height. Adaptive 

management actions are intended to maintain and improve wetland conditions by 

reducing or eliminating livestock use. The effects of action alternatives on the wetlands 

would be more than Alternative A. 

Allotment-specific Direct and Indirect Effects 

Bald Horse Allotment 

This allotment covers 27,828 acres, with 299 cows with calves permitted to graze from 

June 1 to October 26 each year. It is managed as a nine pasture deferred rotation grazing 

system. The term grazing permit (ten years) is issued to one permittee. 

Alternatives B and C will be addressing the riparian issue by implementing new riparian 

stubble height requirements, varying the order of pasture use, reducing the number of 

days of grazing in the Middle Horse Pasture and reconstructing three spring exclosures. 

These actions will improve streambank alteration in the short-term and streambank 

stability, hydric vegetation, width of riparian vegetation and willows will improve over 

the long-term. Reconstruction of the spring exclosures will continue protection of these 

areas from livestock impacts. 

Most streams would continue to meet water quality standards for their assigned beneficial 

uses. Beneficial use of coldwater permanent fish life propagation affected from temperature 

would not improve on Rapid Creek, Spring Creek and Victoria Creek. Rapid Creek is not 

currently grazed and would not be grazed with these alternatives, so it would see no change. 

Spring Creek generally receives light grazing on a 1.1 miles stretch of the stream and even if 

grazing were removed from this section, improvement to the water quality would not help 

meet the assigned beneficial use because grazing is not the factor causing the impairment. 

Low streamflows and water spilling off the top of Sheridan Lake during warm summer days 

are the contributing factors. Victoria Creek would not see improvement in the riparian 

vegetation with the continued grazing. Without the improvement of riparian vegetation the 

stream would not move toward meeting this beneficial use due to a lack of shade to the 

stream. Grazing is not the main contributing factor. Low streamflows and altered channels 

and altered riparian vegetation from a large flood event are the primary reason why Victoria 

Creek is not meeting the assigned beneficial use. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 240

Over the long-term, stream health rating for the streams would move from at-risk towards 

robust. Bank alteration, stream bank stability and trampling of Horse Creek would 

improve. Victoria Creek would see the functional-at-risk rating move toward properfunctioning-condition and would also see reduced bank alteration. These changes would 

be slower to occur than Alternative A because the areas would still receive some impacts. 

Alternative C 

This alternative includes structural improvements that include fencing and water 

developments. The fencing will include a small corral, fencing off a pond and fencing 

off Sheridan Lake Road and Spring Creek. The water developments include piping water

from the fenced off pond to a tank, developing an alternative water source to get better 

livestock distribution and developing a water source to replace the water lost from Spring 

Creek. 

Fencing off of the pond will eliminate livestock impacts and will improve riparian 

conditions around the pond. Fencing off Sheridan Lake Road is to reduce the potential of 

livestock/vehicle collisions and will eliminate livestock access to Spring Creek. 

Livestock will no longer damage the stream and riparian area which will improve over 

time. The water developments will occur in three pastures. These will help move

livestock away from streams and riparian areas providing less impact these areas. 

The soils would see some additional impacts in small areas around proposed water 

developments, along new fence lines and inside the new corral. The proposed water 

developments would always have detrimentally impacted soils due to the livestock 

concentrations. New fences could cause new cattle trails which would have detrimentally 

impacted soils. The new corral could have detrimentally impact soils due to the 

concentration of animals in a confined area. The amount of detrimentally impacted soils 

on this allotment would be less than 1% even after adding these newly impacted areas to 

previous impacted areas. 

Deerfield Allotment 

This allotment covers 7,874 acres, with 102 cows with calves permitted to graze from 

June 6 to October 25 each year. It is managed as a six pasture deferred rotation grazing 

system. The term grazing permit (ten years) is issued to one permittee. 

New riparian stubble height requirements to address the riparian issue will be 

implemented with Alternatives B and C. It is anticipated that the time livestock are along 

Heeley Creek in the Heeley Pasture will be reduced from the current 60 days. Stubble 

height will be the factor when livestock move, not the scheduled days in a pasture as it

has been in the past. This will limit the time livestock are impacting the stream and 

riparian area. Streambank alteration will improve in the short-term and streambank 

stability, hydric vegetation, width of riparian vegetation and willows will improve over 

the long-term. This stubble height does not just apply to Heeley Creek but also applies to 

all riparian areas across the allotment. The stubble height requirements in other pastures 

will also dictate when livestock are to be moved which will improve stream and riparian 

condition across the allotment. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 241

All streams are expected to continue to meet water quality standards for their assigned 

beneficial uses. 

Stream health rating for Castle Creek would remain robust and Silver Creek would continue 

to be diminished as grazing is not the reason for the rating. Over the long-term, all the other 

streams would move from at-risk towards robust. South Fork Castle Creek would see the

functional-at-risk rating move toward proper-functioning-condition. Bank alteration, stream 

bank stability and trampling of Heeley Creek would be reduced. These changes would be 

slower to occur than Alternative A because the areas would still receive some impacts. 

Alternative C 

This alternative includes structural improvements that include fencing. Fencing will be 

along the south side of the Deerfield Road to reduce livestock/vehicle accidents. With 

the installation of this fence, livestock will no longer graze the Lake Shore Pasture. This 

would eliminate livestock access to Gold Run Creek, Deerfield Reservoir and Castle 

Creek. This will improve stream and riparian condition because livestock will no longer 

be impacting these bodies of water. 

The soils could see some additional impacts in small areas along the new fence line. The 

proposed fence could cause new cattle trails which would have detrimentally impacted 

soils. The amount of detrimentally impacted soils on this allotment would be less than 

1% even after adding these new areas to previous impacted areas. 

Palmer Gulch Allotment 

This allotment covers 14,190 acres. There are two permittees, each with a ten year term 

grazing permit. The north half of the allotment (4,843 acres) is grazed by 74 cows with 

calves permitted to graze from June 1 to October 31 each year. It is managed as a five pasture 

deferred rotation grazing system. The south half of the allotment is grazed by 67 cows with 

calves from June 1 to October 21. It is managed as a six pasture deferred rotation grazing 

system. Approximately 20 acres (Summit Pasture) is grazed from October 22 to May 31 with 

three cows and calves. 

Alternative B and C would split this allotment into two allotments and reconstruct one water 

development. New riparian stubble height requirements to address the riparian issue will be 

implemented with Alternatives B and C. Overall riparian conditions are expected to improve, 

with improvement in the streambank alteration and improvement in the hydric plants. 

Alternative B would have a 44 day reduction in actual use on the north half because two pastures 

would not be grazed. The north half will be operated as a three pasture deferred rotation.

Most streams would continue to meet water quality standards for their assigned beneficial 

uses. Beneficial use of coldwater permanent fish life propagation affected from temperature 

on Spring Creek would not improve or made worse with grazing. This is because only a 

small part of Spring Creek is on National Forest. There are only 2.3 miles of the 34.6 miles 

Spring Creek that are on this allotment. Spring Creek, even though it is included as part of 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 242

this allotment, has two areas accessible to livestock, would continue to be grazed lightly 

because the locations are small isolated sections of the allotment. 

Alternative B will not change the TMDL on Spring Creek for fecal coliform unless the 

riparian stubble height triggers earlier movement of the livestock. The two locations along 

Spring Creek and three along Palmer Creek will continue to be accessed and grazed by 

livestock. Spring Creek is accessed from the Samelias Pasture on the north half of the 

allotment and livestock traditionally are in this pasture for two months. The three locations 

along Palmer Creek are accessed from two different pastures, one on the north half and one 

on the south half of the allotment. The north half of the allotment is in the Keystone Pasture 

and the livestock are there traditionally for two months. The south half of the allotment is on 

the Palmer Pasture and livestock has access to Palmer Creek for three weeks. The 

implementation strategy, “Livestock access to streams should be reduced, and livestock 

should be provided sources of water away from streams” would be partially implemented. 

With the reconstruction of the water development, a water source away from Spring Creek 

will be provided. However, there would be continued fecal coliform contributions from this 

allotment and the beneficial use of immersion recreation affected by would generally not be 

improved unless the riparian stubble height triggers earlier movement of the livestock. 

Over the long-term, stream health rating for the streams would move from at-risk towards 

robust. Spring Creek stream health is expected to remain at diminished since most of it is 

on private land. Bank alteration and trampling of Bear Gulch Creek would be reduced. 

Palmer Creek and Rabbit Gulch would see the functional-at-risk ratings move toward 

proper-functioning-condition and Rabbit Gulch would also see improvement in 

trampling. These changes would be slower to occur than Alternative A because the areas 

would still receive some impacts. 

Alternative C 

This alternative includes structural improvements including fencing, a water development, 

re-contouring a ditch and a stream restoration project on Palmer Creek. The fencing will 

include fencing four springs, fencing livestock off the Old Hill City Road, and fencing to 

restrict access to Spring Creek. The water development will replace the water source on 

Palmer Creek when the Old Hill City Road is fenced. The re-contouring of the ditch will 

restore a disturbed area and the stream restoration project will install steel plates to prevent 

downcutting and raise the water table. 

Alternative C would have a 22 day reduction in actual use on the north half if privately 

owned cattleguards are placed across the 1880 Train tracks. One pasture (Sawmill) 

would not be grazed under Alternative C. The north half would be operated as a four 

pasture deferred rotation. 

Fencing the springs will eliminate livestock impacts and will improve riparian conditions 

around the springs. Fencing off the Old Hill City Road is to reduce the potential 

livestock/vehicle collisions and will eliminate livestock access to Palmer Creek and other 

fencing will prevent access of livestock to Spring Creek. The re-contouring of the ditch 

is in the headwaters of Battle Creek and is to restore the hydrologic conditions of the area 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 243

by keeping the water subsurface. The stream restoration project on Palmer Creek will 

install steel plates to prevent further downcutting and raise the stream elevation with the 

purpose to raise the water table. 

The soils would see some additional impacts along new fence lines and around the water 

development. New fences could cause new cattle trails which would have detrimentally 

impacted soils. The concentration of livestock around the water development will cause 

detrimentally impacted soils around the water tank. The amount of detrimentally 

impacted soils on this allotment would be less than 1% even after adding these new areas 

to previous impacted areas. 

This alternative will move toward the intention of the TMDL on Spring Creek for fecal 

coliform. One location along Palmer Creek will not be grazed by livestock with the

implementation of this alternative because livestock access will end when the livestock 

are fenced off of the Old Hill City Highway. Two locations along Spring Creek will not 

be grazed with the construction of two short sections of drift fences. The two locations

along the upper reaches of Palmer Creek will continue to be grazed. Palmer Creek, 

which is in the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve, is grazed for 21 days of the year. The 

implementation strategy, for the Spring TMDL for Fecal Coliform bacteria, recommends, 

“Livestock access to streams should be reduced, and livestock should be provided 

sources of water away from streams.” This would be implemented under Alternative C, 

reducing livestock access locations to the stream by 60%. There would still be some 

fecal coliform contributions from this allotment, but will be reduced over the current 

levels and the beneficial use of immersion recreation would be improved. This would be 

just a small piece of the larger picture in the watershed. However if the adaptive 

management option of eliminating grazing in Norbeck were to be implemented, all 

livestock access to Spring Creek and Palmer Creek will be achieved, reducing livestock 

access to the stream by 100%. 

Fencing off four springs and parts of the associated riparian areas would have a positive 

effect. Installing the fences around the springs would decrease the stream bank trampling 

and hummocking around the springs. Also, it would decrease the utilization on the 

riparian species near the springs and cause in increase in ground cover. 

Fencing of the Old Hill City Road to Keystone would eliminate a water gap on Palmer 

Creek, reducing soil compaction, soil erosion, reducing sediment and bacteria deliver to 

Palmer Creek, and increase riparian vegetation at the gap. 

The restoration of the ditch in the headwaters of Battle Creek will restore the subsurface 

water flow and the results will increase the riparian vegetation in the area. 

The restoration of Palmer Creek would raise the water table in the area thus maintaining 

or increasing the riparian vegetation. 

Porcupine Allotment 

The Porcupine Allotment has been under Holistic Management (HM) since 1988. An 

interdisciplinary management team meets to evaluate and plan allotment grazing use and 

development. The team is comprised of the permittee, and representatives from the Black 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 244

Hills National Forest, Sierra Club, South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks Department, and 

South Dakota State University’s Range program. The management team helps to manage 

the relationships between land, grazing animals, and water in ways that mimic nature. 

This allotment covers 9,858 acres, with 334 cows with calves permitted to graze from 

June 9 to September 30 each year. This permit allows variable numbers and a variable 

season of use to be annually applied for by the permittee. It is managed as a 12 pasture

deferred rotation grazing system. The term grazing permit (ten years) is issued to one 

permittee. 

There are no perennial or intermittent streams in the Porcupine Allotment so there is not a 

concern with the streams meeting their assigned beneficial uses when it is grazed. 

Alternative B and C will reconstruct a spring exclosure. This will continue protection of 

this area from livestock impacts. Impacts to riparian areas at two springs from livestock 

will continue. Stream health rating for the springs of diminished would remain at this 

rating with the continuation of grazing and no structural improvement. 

Alternative C 

Structural improvements include fencing and water developments. Fencing is to exclude 

livestock from two springs and a pasture boundary fence. The water development is new

water storage and tanks with associated pipeline. Also included in this alternative is 

approximately 5300 acres of prescribe fire. 

Fencing off two springs and the associated riparian areas would have a positive effect in 

reducing the impacts from livestock. Installing the fences around the springs would stop 

the stream bank trampling and hummocking around the springs caused by livestock. 

Also, the utilization, from livestock, on the riparian species near the springs would stop 

and cause an increase in ground cover. However, the wildlife will continue to be able to 

access the springs and they will continue to impact the springs in search for water. The 

stream health rating for the springs of diminished may remain at this rating because of the 

wildlife. 

The soils would see some additional impacts in small areas around proposed water 

developments and along new fence lines. The proposed water developments would 

always have detrimentally impacted soils due to the livestock concentrations. New 

fences could cause new cattle trails which would have detrimentally impacted soils. The 

prescribe fire could have impacts to the soils from soil heating. Prescribe fire is 

conducted when the soil and organic layer moisture is elevated. This usually prevents

impacts to the soils. However, this area is in the Jasper Fire and with the downed trees 

from this fire, the potential is there that if the logs are burned completely, the soils could 

be affected from soil heating. If this occurs, small impacted areas would be scattered 

across the landscape. These small scattered locations will not pose an erosion problem. 

The amount of detrimentally impacted soils on this allotment would be less than 1%, 

even after adding these newly impacted areas to the previously impacted areas. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 245

Redfern Allotment 

This allotment covers 11,573 acres, currently with 195 cows with calves permitted to 

graze from June 11 to October 25 each year. It is managed as a four pasture deferred 

rotation grazing system. The term grazing permit (ten years) is issued to one permittee. 

The total permitted use under Alternatives B and C would be 177 cow/calf pairs, 

reflecting a reduction of 18 pair as a result of a pending permit waiver. New riparian 

stubble height requirements to address the riparian issue will be implemented with 

Alternatives B and C. Overall riparian conditions are expected to improve, with 

improvement in the streambank alteration and improvement in the hydric plants. 

All streams would continue to meet water quality standards for their assigned beneficial 

uses. 

Over the long-term, stream health rating for the streams would move from at-risk towards 

robust. Spruce Gulch would see the functional-at-risk rating with a downward trend 

stabilize and move toward proper-functioning-condition. Bank alteration and stream 

bank stability trampling of Slate Creek would be reduced. These changes would be

slower to occur than Alternative A because the areas would still receive some impacts. 

Alternative C 

Structural improvements include fencing off one mile of Slate Creek that will be included 

with the Redfern Holding Pasture. This will reduce livestock access to the stream from 

36 days to four days. 

Installing the fence along Slate Creek would decrease the stream bank trampling and 

impacts to the stream and riparian area. Also, it would decrease the utilization on the 

riparian species along the stream and cause an increase in ground cover. 

The soils would see some additional impacts in small areas along new fence lines. New 

fences could cause new cattle trails which would have detrimentally impacted soils. The 

amount of detrimentally impacted soils on this allotment would be less than 1%, even 

after adding these newly impacted areas to the previously impacted areas.

Rimmer Allotment 

This allotment covers 2,011 acres, with 33 cows with calves permitted to graze from June 

11 to October 10 each year. It is managed as a two pasture deferred rotation grazing 

system. The term grazing permit (ten years) is issued to one permittee. 

Alternatives B and C will modify the allotment by incorporating the West School Pasture 

from the Slate Prairie Allotment into this allotment to form a third pasture and reconstruct 

a spring exclosure. New riparian stubble height requirements to address the riparian issue 

will be implemented with Alternatives B and C. Overall riparian conditions are expected 

to improve, with improvement in the streambank alteration and improvement in the 

hydric plants. Reconstruction of the spring exclosure will continue protection of this area 

from livestock impacts. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 246

All streams would continue to meet water quality standards for their assigned beneficial uses. 

Over the long-term, stream health rating for the streams would move from at-risk towards 

robust. Tributaries to Castle Creek would see the functional-at-risk rating move toward 

proper-functioning-condition and improvement in bank alteration. Bittersweet Creek 

would see the functional-at-risk rating with a downward trend stabilize and move toward 

proper-functioning-condition. These changes would be slower to occur than Alternative 

A because the areas would still receive some impacts. 

Alternative C 

The alternative increases the acreage of the West School Pasture slightly and the 

installation of a cattleguard. 

The soils would see some additional impacts in small areas around the new cattle guard. 

The new cattleguard could cause the cattle to concentrate which could detrimentally 

affect soils. The amount of detrimentally impacted soils on this allotment would be less 

than 1%, even after adding these newly impacted areas to the previously impacted areas. 

Slate Prairie Allotment 

This allotment covers 5,896 acres, with 200 cows with calves permitted to graze from 

June 1 to October 20 each year. It is managed as a five pasture deferred rotation grazing 

system. The term grazing permit (ten years) is issued to one permittee. 

Alternatives B and C will modify the allotment by removing the West School Pasture 

from the Slate Prairie Allotment into the Rimmer Allotment and reconstructing two 

spring exclosures. This change would reduce this allotment by 77 acres and two days of 

use and reconstruction of the two spring exclosures will continue protection of these 

areas from livestock impacts. 

New riparian stubble height requirements to address the riparian issue will be implemented 

with Alternatives B and C. It is anticipated that the time livestock are in the Mystic Pasture, 

Whitetail Pasture and Hay Draw Pasture will be reduced. Stubble height will be the factor 

when livestock move, not the scheduled days in a pasture as it has been in the past. This will

limit the time livestock are impacting the stream and riparian area. Overall riparian 

conditions are expected to improve, with improvement in the streambank alteration in the 

short-term and streambank stability, hydric vegetation, width of riparian vegetation and 

willows will improve over the long-term. 

All streams would continue to meet water quality standards for their assigned beneficial uses. 

Over the long-term, stream health rating for the streams would move from at-risk towards 

robust. Bank alteration and trampling would improve on Crooked Creek and functionalAt-Risk would move toward proper-functioning-condition. Slate Creek would see an 

improvement in the stream bank stability, bank alteration and would see the functionalat-risk rating with a downward trend stabilize and move toward proper-functioning-
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 247

condition. Dougherty Gulch would see a reduction in trampling and the functional-at-risk 

rating would move toward proper-functioning-condition. These changes would be slower 

to occur than Alternative A because the areas would still receive some impacts. 

Alternative C 

This alternative includes structural improvements that include fencing. 

Fencing will be around the Dougherty Gulch Fen in the Whitetail Pasture. This will 

eliminate livestock access to the fen and protect this wetland from livestock impacts by 

complete exclusion. 

The soils could see some additional impacts in small areas along the new fence line. The 

proposed fence could cause new cattle trails which would have detrimentally impacted 

soils. The amount of detrimentally impacted soils on this allotment would be less than 

1% even after adding these new areas to previous impacted areas. 

Tigerville Allotment 

This allotment covers 5,825 acres, with 112 cows with calves permitted to graze from 

June 1 to October 25 each year. It is managed as a seven pasture deferred rotation grazing 

system. The term grazing permit (ten years) is issued to one permittee. 

Alternatives B and C would modify the pastures by combining two and then it would be 

managed with six pastures, and reconstructing a spring exclosure. New riparian stubble 

height requirements to address the riparian issue will be implemented with Alternatives B 

and C. Overall riparian conditions are expected to improve, with improvement in the 

streambank alteration and improvement in the hydric plants. Reconstruction of the spring 

exclosure will continue protection of this area from livestock impacts. 

All streams would continue to meet water quality standards for their assigned beneficial 

uses. 

Over the long-term, stream health rating for the streams would move from at-risk towards 

robust. Bank alteration and hummocking would be reduced on a tributary to Newton 

Fork. Function-At-Risk ratings on Burnt Fork, Marshall Gulch and Newton Fork would 

move toward proper-functioning-condition. 

Alternative C 

No new structural improvements are proposed with this alternative; therefore the effects 

are essentially the same as Alternative B. 

Adaptive Management 

Alternatives B and C incorporates non-constructed adaptive management options and 

Alternative C incorporates constructed adaptive management options into the list of

possible actions. Adaptive management that follows Design Criteria, Best Management 

Practices, and Watershed Conservation Practices and responds to the appropriate trigger 

points could have beneficial effects to soil and water resources when compared to 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 248

existing non-adaptive management grazing systems. Grazing system studies have shown 

wide variation in the ability of a particular grazing system to improve range condition. 

Differences in results of grazing systems studied have been inconsistent and unexplained. 

The problem may stem from ascribing results to a given grazing system, when in fact 

they are due to the whole range management program and the ability to appropriately 

control time and place of grazing and degree of forage utilization. 

Table 3-20 lists the adaptive management options that are being included in this project. 

The effects of each adaptive management option as it apply to the Soil and Water resource. 

Table 3-21 Adaptive Options Effects to Soil and Water Resources 

Grazing Management 

Actions 

Effect to Soil and Water 

Increase or decrease 

stocking rate to vary 

grazing impacts. 

Decreasing stocking rates could improve the soils, streams and riparian 

areas. Less numbers could mean less impact to the soils through less 

trampling and compaction. Less numbers could mean less sediment, 

nutrients and pathogens entering the stream by less stream bank alteration 

and less numbers in the stream introducing nutrients and pathogens. Less 

numbers could mean less impact to the riparian area and improved 

conditions through decreased grazing pressure. 

Increased numbers could have the opposite effect of what is outlined 

above. 

Vary timing and 

duration of use based 

on riparian 

conditions. 

Vary timing and duration of use of livestock based on riparian conditions 

is designed to improve riparian conditions. Improved riparian conditions 

would decrease soil compaction, increase infiltration, increase vegetative 

growth, and slow runoff. Increased vegetation growth and infiltration 

should lead to fewer nutrients available for transport to streams and better 

ability of the landscape to trap sediment. Sediment, nutrient, and pathogen 

delivery to streams from upslope areas may be reduced. 

Use salt or 

supplement to draw 

livestock toward or 

away from specific 

areas. 

Salts or supplements to draw livestock away from areas generally mean 

better livestock distribution. Better livestock distribution could mean 

fewer impacts to the soil, streams and riparian area, by having livestock 

spend less time in these areas. This could decrease soil compaction, 

increase infiltration, increase vegetative growth, and slow runoff. 

Increased vegetation growth and infiltration should lead to fewer nutrients 

available for transport to streams and better ability of the landscape to trap 

sediment. Sediment, nutrient, and pathogen delivery to streams from 

upslope areas may be reduced. 

Incorporate a range 

rider to move 

livestock (herding). 

Range riding involves actively pursuing and pushing livestock to get 

better utilization across the allotment and pasture. A lot of the time it is to 

move livestock away from riparian areas. This technique increases 

movements and may cause impacts to riparian areas and streambanks as 

livestock are driven away from these areas. Use of a range rider may help 

to achieve proper distribution of livestock and could reduce the amount of 

time that livestock spend in streams and riparian areas overall. However, 

much of the success of this approach depends entirely on the 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 249

Grazing Management 

Actions 

Effect to Soil and Water 

dependability, energy, and amount of time spent by the ranger rider. 

Change season of 

use. 

Changing season of use, instead of grazing the same time of the year all 

of the time, would help promote healthier riparian area, allowing 

vegetation to develop better and grow healthier and stronger. 

Change animal 

numbers. 

Changing animal number by decreasing the number would have a positive 

outcome. Fewer animals could improve the soils, streams and riparian 

areas. Fewer animals could mean less impact to the soils through less 

trampling and compaction. Fewer animals could mean less sediment, 

nutrients and pathogens entering the stream by less stream bank alteration 

and less days in the stream introducing nutrients and pathogens. Fewer 

animals could mean less impact to the riparian area and improved 

conditions through decreased grazing pressure. 

Increased animals could have the opposite effect of what is outlined 

above. 

Change animal class. Changing animal class is not going to have a large effect on the resource. 

Some animals could hang out more in riparian areas than others, thereby 

causing more impacts if not properly managed. 

Change days of use 

per pasture. 

Decreasing days of use in a pasture would have a positive outcome. 

Fewer days on pastures could improve the soils, streams and riparian 

areas. Fewer days could mean less impact to the soils through less 

trampling and compaction. Fewer days could mean less sediment, 

nutrients and pathogens entering the stream by less stream bank alteration 

and less days in the stream introducing nutrients and pathogens. Fewer 

days could mean less impact to the riparian area and improved conditions 

through decreased grazing pressure. 

Increased days in a pasture could have the opposite effect of what is 

outlined above. 

Change number of 

pastures per 

allotment. 

Increasing the number of pastures on an allotment would have a positive 

outcome. It would mean less days in the other pastures. Fewer days on 

pastures could improve the soils, streams and riparian areas. Fewer days 

could mean less impact to the soils through less trampling and 

compaction. Fewer days could mean less sediment, nutrients and 

pathogens entering the stream by less stream bank alteration and less days 

in the stream introducing nutrients and pathogens. Fewer days could 

mean less impact to the riparian area and improved conditions through 

decreased grazing pressure. 

Decreasing the number of pastures on an allotment could have a negative 

outcome. It would mean increased days in the remaining pastures. This 

could have the opposite effect of what is outlined above. 

Split, combine, or 

change boundaries of 

Splitting boundaries could have negative implications. This would mean 

less area for livestock to graze. To avoid the negative implications, a 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 250

Grazing Management 

Actions 

Effect to Soil and Water 

allotments and/or 

pastures. 

change in number of animals or days of use would need to occur so fewer 

impacts happen. The impacts could occur to the soils, streams and 

riparian areas. Trampling and compaction could occur to the soils. 

Sediment, nutrients and pathogens entering the stream could increase by 

more stream bank alteration and more concentrated access to the stream. 

More impact to the riparian area through increased grazing pressure. 

Combining boundaries could have positive implications by spreading out 

the livestock over more area. The opposite of above would occur and be 

beneficial to the soils, streams and riparian areas. 

Adjust permitted 

AUMs. 

No grazing system would counteract the impacts of overstocking on a 

long-term basis (Clary and Webster, 1989). Reducing Animal Unit 

Months (AUMs), if necessary, could be used to achieve compliance with 

Forest Plan and WCP Handbook standards. Studies have shown that 

grazing intensity has more of an effect on both vegetation (Clary and 

Webster, 1989) and infiltration (Abel-Magid et al., 1987) than does the 

particular grazing system. However, it should be noted that reducing 

AUMs in the context of a variable season of use does not necessarily 

equate to a reduction in grazing intensity at any given site (for example, a 

riparian area or an area prone to compaction) during a specific timefame 

(such as during times of high moisture content). The benefits of a 

reduction in AUMs with respect to soil and water resources would depend 

on how AUMs are distributed in time and place. 

Adjust livestock turnout date. Adjusting livestock turn-out date would not have an effect on the soils, 

streams or riparian area as long as days of use are adjusted accordingly. 

Adjust livestock end 

of season date. 

Adjusting livestock end of season date would not have an effect on the 

soils, streams or riparian area as long as days of use are adjusted 

accordingly. 

Designate Forage 

Reserve allotments. 

Forage reserve allotments could have a positive effect on the soils, 

streams and riparian areas. If negative effects were occurring, moving the 

livestock to the forage reserve would give the resource a chance to 

recover and improve. 

Rest pasture and/or 

allotment from 

livestock grazing for 

one or more seasons. 

If a period of rest were implemented, degraded riparian systems not able 

to begin recovery under current management may be able to begin the 

recovery process. The rest period required for recovery would depend on 

the type and degree of system degradation. While vegetation communities 

may be able to recover from excessive grazing in one to five years, 

degraded stream forms generally take longer to recover, particularly if the 

channel has become incised or confined (Platts and Raleigh 1984 in Clary 

and Webster, 1989). 

Recovery of impaired, low to moderate gradient systems generally 

follows a predictable response pattern with vegetation along the stream 

margin first increasing in vigor and density, then trapping sediment and 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 251

Grazing Management 

Actions 

Effect to Soil and Water 

building up streambanks. Deposition causes spreading out on the 

floodplain. Channel erosion is reduced, greater exchange of water 

between the channel, floodplain, and riparian soils takes place. With 

severely entrenched streams (incised streams), recovery, which is 

accomplished by rising the gully floor by annual deposition, may take 

decades. 

A period of rest would also allow soils to recover for compaction through 

cycles of wetting, drying, shrinking, and swelling; roots forcing their way 

through soil particles; and activities of large soil organisms and small 

mammals (USDA NRCS, 2001). 

Do not allow 

livestock grazing. 

Numerous hydrologic studies have upheld the conclusion that little 

information exists to support the benefits to soil and water of any grazing 

system employed (Clary and Webster, 1989). Not allowing livestock 

grazing would be the quickest way for the ecosystem to recover. This 

would decrease soil compaction, increase infiltration, increase vegetative 

growth, and slow runoff. Increased vegetation growth and infiltration 

should lead to fewer nutrients available for transport to streams and better 

ability of the landscape to trap sediment. Sediment, nutrient, and pathogen 

delivery to streams from upslope areas would be reduced. 

Control and distribute 

livestock using water. 

Getting livestock to distribute and utilize a broader area would overall 

benefit the soil and water resource. There would be detrimental soil 

impacts to the watering area, but the impacts are small and would not be a 

concern related to the 15% detrimental impact standard. 

Reconstruct livestock 

water development 

(i.e. springs, 

pipelines, tanks, 

windmill, sediment 

traps, wells, stock 

dams, submersible 

pumps, solar). 

Reconstruction of water developments may result in a better distribution 

of livestock and draw livestock away from streams. Erosion and 

sedimentation may occur due to construction activities; however, these 

would likely be minimal and short-lived. Actual reduction in the amount 

of time spent in the stream should translate to reduced deposition of feces 

directly in the channel and less hoofshear in streambanks. This may result 

in improved water quality based on reduction of sediment, nutrients, and 

pathogens. 

Reconstruction of water developments could also be used to draw 

livestock from riparian areas that are being over-utilized. This should 

decrease compaction in the riparian area, increase infiltration, increase

vegetative growth, and slow runoff. Increased vegetation growth should 

lead to fewer nutrients available for transport to streams and better ability

of the landscape to trap sediment. Sediment, nutrient, and pathogen 

delivery to streams from upslope areas may be reduced. However, an 

increase in compaction or detrimentally impacted soil would likely occur 

at the new tank location. 

Haul water to 

temporary tanks to 

Providing water to influence livestock distribution would improve the 

overall conditions because of better distribution. Improving distribution 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 252

Grazing Management 

Actions 

Effect to Soil and Water 

influence livestock 

distribution. 

could decrease soil compaction, increase infiltration, increase vegetative 

growth, and slow runoff. Increased vegetation growth and infiltration 

should lead to fewer nutrients available for transport to streams and better 

ability of the landscape to trap sediment. Sediment, nutrient, and pathogen 

delivery to streams from upslope areas may be reduced. However, an 

increase in compaction or detrimentally impacted soil would likely occur 

at the new tank location. 

Utilize brush barriers 

to control livestock 

distribution. 

Constructing brush barrier to control livestock distribution to keep 

livestock from areas of concern could be beneficial. Soil compaction 

could decrease, infiltration could be increased, vegetative growth could 

increase and the runoff could be slowed. All of this could lead to fewer 

nutrients available for transport to streams and better ability of the 

landscape to trap sediment. Sediment, nutrient, and pathogen delivery to 

streams from upslope areas may be reduced is these barriers are used to 

limit livestock from streams and riparian areas. 

Remove existing 

water development. 

Removing an existing water development could influence livestock 

distribution by concentrating them somewhere else to get water. If the 

water site is on a stream, impacts would occur. This could increase soil 

compaction, decrease infiltration, decrease vegetative growth, and speed 

up runoff. Decreased vegetation growth and infiltration could lead to 

more nutrients available for transport to streams and less of the ability of 

the landscape to trap sediment. Sediment, nutrient, and pathogen delivery 

to streams from upslope areas may be increased. 

Remove existing 

fence line. 

Removing an existing fence line would have minimal impacts to the soil 

and water resource, unless it crosses a stream or is in close proximity. If 

livestock continue to use the area, a fence that no longer crosses the 

stream, would not concentrate livestock at the stream. These areas with a 

fence could be lacking vegetation, contribute sediment, nutrients and 

pathogens to the stream. Removing the fence would allow the area to 

heal and would stop contributing sediment, nutrients and pathogens to the 

stream. 

Implement a highintensity/short 

duration grazing 

system. 

Impact to the soil and water resource would occur, but it would be 

minimal because the livestock would not be there long. The soils could 

be compacted if the soil moisture conditions are conducive to that. 

Stream banks could be trampled. The benefit is that the livestock are 

there for a short time and then they are gone the rest of the year allowing

the resource to recover. 

Implement deferred 

or rest-rotation 

grazing system. 

Any rest the landscape could receive would be a benefit. The soils are not 

impacted continuously and could receive a good layer of organic matter. 

This would lead to less runoff, protecting the water resource. 

Restore or enhance 

native grass, forb, 

and shrub species. 

Generally would not have an effect on the soil and watershed. 

Brush and clean Improvement of livestock access and distribution would improve the 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 253

Grazing Management 

Actions 

Effect to Soil and Water 

cattle trails and 

fences to improve 

livestock access and 

distribution. 

overall conditions with better distribution. Improving distribution could 

decrease soil compaction, increase infiltration, increase vegetative 

growth, and slow runoff. Increased vegetation growth and infiltration 

should lead to fewer nutrients available for transport to streams and better 

ability of the landscape to trap sediment. Sediment, nutrient, and pathogen 

delivery to streams from upslope areas may be reduced. 

Change animal 

behavior. 

Changing animal behavior could benefit the soils, streams and riparian 

area. Livestock that are set in their ways and hang out in the bottoms all 

the time could have a detrimental impact. Changing the behavior to 

utilize other areas could decrease soil compaction, increase infiltration, 

increase vegetative growth, and slow runoff. Increased vegetation growth 

and infiltration should lead to fewer nutrients available for transport to 

streams and better ability of the landscape to trap sediment. Sediment, 

nutrient, and pathogen delivery to streams from upslope areas may be 

reduced. 

Utilize temporary 

grazing permits to 

meet specific 

resource needs (fuels 

reduction, thistle 

control, reduce 

density of smooth 

brome, etc). 

When utilizing temporary grazing permits to obtain certain objectives, the 

soils, streams and riparian areas should not receive any detrimental 

impacts because this would be designed and implemented to do such. 

Reduce undesirable 

plant species by 

mechanical, 

chemical, and 

biological means (i.e. 

fringed sage, 

snowberry, smooth 

brome, cheatgrass, 

thistle, etc). 

Reducing undesirable plant would have a positive overall effect on the 

ecosystem, allowing native plants to increase. This would not have a 

direct effect on the soils, watershed or riparian area as you do not need to 

have native plants to be in a healthy state. The exception would be plants 

that do not have roots that have holding capacity, provide for effective 

ground cover or take over for plants that would provide for shade for the 

stream. 

*Adaptive options that apply to Alternative C 

Construct fence to 

create riparian 

pasture*. 

Creating a riparian pasture would improve the soil, stream and riparian 

vegetation. Days that the livestock would be grazing the riparian areas 

would be limited. This would decrease soil compaction, increase 

infiltration, increase vegetative growth, and slow runoff. Increased 

vegetation growth and infiltration should lead to fewer nutrients available 

for transport to streams and better ability of the landscape to trap 

sediment. Sediment, nutrient, and pathogen delivery to streams from 

upslope areas may be reduced. The fence may cause other problems, in 

that cattle trail along the fence, detrimentally impacting the soil. If the 

fence crosses the stream and riparian area, this would be a direct source of

sediment, nutrients and pathogens. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 254

Grazing Management 

Actions 

Effect to Soil and Water 

Construct fence to 

exclude or distribute 

livestock (i.e. 

electric, barbwire, 

wooden, permanent, 

let-down, or 

temporary)*. 

Excluding livestock from areas could be a good thing if these areas are 

heavily impacted. Soil compaction would decrease, infiltration would 

increase, there would be an increase vegetative growth, and runoff would 

be reduced. Increased vegetation growth and infiltration should lead to 

fewer nutrients available for transport to streams and better ability of the

landscape to trap sediment. Sediment, nutrient, and pathogen delivery to 

streams from upslope areas may be reduced if a stream is in the excluded 

area. 

Livestock have the tendency to walk along fences and livestock trails 

created may become bare paths that concentrate and accelerate runoff. 

These trails would become detrimentally impacted soils. If livestock 

trails become connected disturbed areas, they may deliver more sediment, 

nutrients, and pathogens to stream waters. 

Livestock have the tendency to walk along fences and livestock trails 

created may become bare paths that concentrate and accelerate runoff. 

These trails would become detrimentally impacted soils. If livestock 

trails become connected disturbed areas, they may deliver more sediment, 

nutrients, and pathogens to stream waters. Temporary fence may not 

develop permanent trails and cause as severe of problems. 

Fencing could be used as a means to control livestock distribution to 

allow riparian area recovery and allow natural recovery mechanisms to 

occur. Increased vegetation growth should lead to fewer nutrients 

available for transport to streams and better ability of the landscape to 

trap sediment. Sediment, nutrient, and pathogen delivery to streams from 

upslope areas may be reduced. 

Construct livestock 

water development 

(i.e. springs, 

pipelines, tanks, 

windmill, sediment 

traps, wells, stock 

dams, submersible 

pumps, solar)*. 

Installation of water developments may result in a better distribution of 

livestock and draw livestock away from streams. Erosion and 

sedimentation may occur due to construction activities; however, these 

would likely be minimal and short-lived. Actual reduction in the amount 

of time spent in the stream should translate to reduced deposition of feces 

directly in the channel and less hoofshear in streambanks. This may result 

in improved water quality based on reduction of sediment, nutrients, and 

pathogens. 

Installation of water developments could also be used to draw livestock 

from riparian areas that are being over-utilized. This should decrease 

compaction in the riparian area, increase infiltration, increase vegetative 

growth, and slow runoff. Increased vegetation growth should lead to 

fewer nutrients available for transport to streams and better ability of the

landscape to trap sediment. Sediment, nutrient, and pathogen delivery to 

streams from upslope areas may be reduced. However, an increase in 

compaction or detrimentally impacted soil would likely occur at the new 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 255

Grazing Management 

Actions 

Effect to Soil and Water 

tank location. 

Use prescribed fire to 

improve resource 

conditions*. 

Prescribe fire has minimal impact to the soil and water resource. The 

fires usually do not burn hot enough to affect the soils by soil heating as 

there is generally an organic layer left. With the organic layer still intake, 

there should not be runoff impacting the streams. 

Utilize Holistic 

Management*. 

When utilizing holistic management, the soils, streams and riparian areas 

should not receive any detrimental impacts because this would be 

designed and implemented to do such. 

Forest Plan 

These alternatives would comply with Forest Plan Standards & Guidelines to provide for 

long-term aquatic/riparian ecosystem health and ecological function. Utilization standards 

and stubble height standards will be set for each allotment and evaluated periodically to see 

if conditions are improving as expected or if the standards need to be adjusted. The 

standards will dictate when livestock are to move to the next pasture or go home and not the 

scheduled time as has been the past practice. Stream bank alteration should be reduced over 

time. This would benefit long-term bank stability and water quality. This alternative would 

limit grazing impacts to aquatic and riparian vegetation, allowing for continued 

aquatic/riparian improvement. Stream reaches and riparian areas impacted by livestock 

would be improved. 

Cumulative Effects 

The following cumulative actions were considered common to all allotments: timber 

harvesting, past grazing, wildfires and associated suppression activities, roads, construction 

of range improvements, mining, and wildlife use of forage. Treatments of noxious weeds, 

OHV routes, timber harvest activities, road building, and prescribed fire are occurring 

presently in most allotments. In some allotments there is use by mountain bikers and 

equestrians. These activities have resulted in the current soil and stream conditions. 

Road-stream crossings, like culverts and low water crossings, exist within the project area. 

These crossings can provide areas of stream instability through the instream structures and 

areas where sediment could readily enter the stream. Areas where sediment may enter the 

stream channels are called connected disturbed areas (CDAs). Road-stream crossings could 

also fragment the stream network. 

Recent increases in off-highway vehicle (OHV) use has resulted in localized bank stability 

impacts on user-created trails where OHV’s cross perennial streams or created CDAs. These 

types of impacts occur within every allotment except Porcupine Allotment, where there are 

no perennial streams. There are notable OHV impacts on Heeley Creek within the Deerfield 

Allotment. Decisions on travel management are outside of the scope of this project. 

Soils 

Detrimental soil disturbance caused by grazing for each allotment was displayed under 

the Existing Condition section. All allotments were estimated to have detrimental soil 

disturbance below 1% due to grazing. These estimates took in to account trailing along 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 256

the fence lines and drainages as well as impacts from water developments and salt licks. 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable effects for soil compaction could occur from 

past grazing, timber activities, and OHV routes. All effects would continue into the future 

except grazing would not continue under Alternative A. As explained already, the 

expected detrimental soil compaction due to livestock grazing is less than one percent of 

the allotments is already occurring and is not expected to exceed one percent. Even if the 

impacts from grazing were to double, detrimental impacts would still be less than one 

percent. Adding the impacts from grazing, timber activities, and OHV routes, the 

cumulative effects to soil productivity from soil compaction is expected to be within 

Forest Plan Standard 1103 and not exceed 15%. 

There is no planned removal of humus, topsoil, leaves or limbs within any of the allotments. 

There would be no cumulative impacts to the soil productivity with nutrient removal. 

There would be no cumulative effects to the soils because the effects are already 

occurring, will continue to occur in the same places and are not expected to increase with 

the implementation of any alternative. 

Watershed 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities that impacts the watershed include, fires 

(natural or prescribed), roads and trails, mines, livestock grazing and big game (elk/deer). 

Past impacts to the aquatic ecosystem from sediment traditionally come from roads. Bed and 

bank stability impacts traditionally come from grazing and placer mining, but could also be 

associated to roads. 

Currently three bodies of water within the project area are listed as impaired for cold water 

permanent fish life propagation because of temperature from an unknown source unrelated 

to grazing. These three streams are Rapid Creek, Spring Creek, and Victoria Creek. These 

streams are within the Bald Horse allotment. The area around Rapid Creek is not grazed 

because there is no livestock access to the stream due to the terrain and a decision not to 

graze in the Pactola Basin. Spring Creek receives light grazing and Victoria Creek is in the 

middle of this allotment and is grazed. Spring Creek on the Palmer Gulch allotment is 

listed as impaired for cold water permanent fish life propagation because of temperature 

and also impaired for immersion recreation due to bacteria. The area around Spring Creek 

on Palmer Gulch allotment is lightly grazed as these parcels are isolated and not easily 

accessible to livestock due to terrain or private land patterns. 

The project area is a multiple use area and other activities (other than grazing) contribute to 

water quality impacts. Other ongoing activities within the project area include roads, 

prescribed fire, vegetation management, noxious weed management, mining, recreation and 

OHV use, and timber harvest. Grazing has been occurring in the project area for many years 

(>100). Over that time, livestock numbers have been reduced and improved grazing 

management has occurred. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 257

There would be no cumulative impacts to the aquatic ecosystems from changes in flow regimes 

because the lack of direct and indirect effects would not result in an additive incremental 

impact. 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable impacts to the aquatic ecosystem from 

temperature/oxygen traditionally come from widening of the stream or removal of streamside 

vegetation. There would be no cumulative impact to the aquatic ecosystem from the 

temperature/oxygen parameter, because any change from implementing the alternatives would 

be negligible but would be an improvement. Also, any cumulative impact would be difficult to 

detect because of the effects are already occurring and would be overshadowed by rainfall 

variability (drought) and dams. 

Riparian Areas 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities that impact the riparian areas of the 

allotments include livestock grazing, roads and trails within or adjacent to riparian areas, 

mining, and big game. Riparian areas are associated with water and livestock need water and 

preferentially select these succulent plans. If livestock are not managed properly they have a 

detrimental impact to riparian areas, especially if they are allowed to loiter and the areas are 

grazed for extended periods of time. Effects related to the road network and travel management 

may be expected to continue but may be reduced by the decision on Travel Management and 

OHV use on the Black Hills National Forest (ROD March 22, 2010). Effects from mining have 

been in the past and the present activities on the forest generally do not impact riparian areas. 

Effects from wildlife browsing/grazing are likely to continue at current levels. All of these 

things have contributed to impacts to the riparian areas cumulatively and additional impacts are 

not expected because they have already and will continue to occur. 

Floodplains 

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities that impact the floodplains are 

primarily associated with roads. Since there are no effects to the floodplains within the 

any of the allotments from grazing, there are no cumulative impacts to the floodplains. 

Wetlands 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities that impact the wetlands are primarily 

associated with livestock grazing, big game, roads, and non-system routes. Wetlands are 

associated with water and livestock need water and preferentially select these succulent plants. 

If livestock are not managed properly they could have a detrimental impact to riparian areas 

and wetland vegetation, especially if they are allowed to loiter and the areas are grazed for 

extended periods. Effects from big game browsing/grazing are likely to continue at current 

levels, though the effects are undoubtedly less dramatic than domestic livestock. Roads and 

non-system routes are currently being addressed through the forest wide travel management 

planning effort. All of these things have contributed to impacts to the wetlands cumulatively 

and additional impacts are not expected because they have already and will continue to occur. 

Summary 

Alternative A is the best alternative for the soil and water resource. There will be no 

livestock grazing to impact the resource. Impacted to soils from livestock will stop and 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 258

the soils will start to recover. The riparian area and streams will no longer receive any 

impacts and begin recovery without continued use by livestock. 

Alternative B will protect the soil and water resource. Forest Plan Standards will be 

implemented and met. Soils will continue to be impacted where livestock are concentrated 

but the amount of detrimentally impacted soils will be less than 1%, well below than the 

standard of 15% outline in Forest Plan Standard 1103. The riparian area and stream will 

see improvements over time with improved streambank alteration, streambank stability, 

hydric vegetation, width of riparian vegetation and willows. However with the continued 

use of these areas, recovery to desired conditions will be slower than Alternative A. Longterm monitoring will be conducted. If the trends of the long-term monitoring are not 

headed in the right direction, upland utilization and riparian requirements will be adjusted, 

i.e. the four inch stubble height is increased to six inches. With this check, this will assure 

that the riparian areas and streams are improving and moving in the proper direction toward 

the desired conditions. 

Alternative C is very similar to Alternative B. The difference is that there will be certain 

areas that will be protected from livestock grazing. Because these areas will not receive any 

or receive reduced livestock grazing, these areas will recover to desired conditions quicker. 

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 

HERITAGE 

Introduction 

National Forest Service System lands surveyed within the grazing allotments/project area 

were identified according to the Rangeland Management Activities Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) between the Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region and the South 

Dakota State Historic Preservation Office, (SHPO). Stipulations outlined within the MOU 

require the consideration of cultural resources that fall within areas where the high 

susceptibility for livestock impact overlaps areas of high potential for cultural sites. Level I 

(literature searches) and Level III cultural resource inventories were conducted for each 

allotment between 2001 and 2004 by Forest Service Heritage personnel. Forest Service 

Policy (FSM 2361.3) requires that projects with the potential to affect heritage resources be 

surveyed for heritage resources in order to comply with 36 CFR 800; the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; 

Executive Order 11593 of 1971; the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978; and 

Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1979. These reports are filed in the Black Hills 

National Forest Supervisor's Office, Custer, South Dakota; and with the State Historic 

Preservation Office (SHPO), Pierre, South Dakota and are not available for general public 

review [16 U.S.C. 470hh(a)]. Site location and descriptive information is excluded from the 

Freedom of Information Act based on the Archeological Resources Protection Act (5 U.S.C. 

551; Public Law 96-95, Section 9). All significant historic and prehistoric properties will be 

protected by following the heritage resource compliance process mandated by Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the recommendations outlined in the 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 259

heritage resource reports. The regulations governing Section 106 review are contained in 36 

CFR Part 800, which describes the compliance process. 

Existing Condition 

The Mystic Range Project area contains numerous archeological and historical sites that 

represent various aspects of occupation in the central Black Hills. The Black Hills have a 

rich and diverse cultural heritage. Numerous tribes have roots in the Black Hills. Native 

American sites include open campsites, stone tool quarry sites, rock shelter locations, and 

spiritual and traditional use sites. Archeological evidence suggests the earliest known use 

of the area occurred about 10,000 years ago. American Indian sites are valued both for their 

ability to teach us about how these past peoples lived, and to help American Indian people 

today maintain cultural and religious traditions. Historic sites (which date to about the last 

125 years) constitute the most visible connection to past peoples on the Forest, and are 

valued both for their ability to enrich local family and community history and for their 

contribution to our understanding of environmental change since European-American 

settlement. For example, past activities such as water diversion, exclusion of fire, timber 

harvest, and grazing have caused changes to Forest biotic communities that continue today. 

Knowing when and how these changes have occurred helps to create more effective 

management actions today. Historic land use in this area has occurred since the 1800s in 

the form of homesteading, trapping, livestock grazing, and mining, as indicated by the 

GLO and Land Status plats. This activity primarily took the form of ranching from 

homesteads found along the better streams. Logging, mining, hunting, horseback riding, 

off highway vehicles, and other recreational uses continue to be popular in this area. 

Heritage resource inventories for the Bald Horse, Deerfield, Palmer Gulch, Porcupine, 

Redfern, Rimmer, Slate Prairie and Tigerville allotments on the Mystic Ranger District 

were completed between 1999 and 2004. Both Level I files searches and Level III field 

inventories were used to identify heritage properties that could affected by grazing 

activities. Areas identified for survey in each of the allotments were those areas where a 

high susceptibility for livestock impact overlaps areas of high potential for cultural sites. 

Previously recorded National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligible sites were 

monitored for effect in all allotments. Livestock grazing was found to have a significant 

impact on two NRHP eligible heritage properties in the Bald Horse allotment. The 

purpose of the inventories was to identify, and inspect all of the NRHP eligible and 

unevaluated heritage resource properties for effects from livestock. Ineligible sites are 

dropped from management concerns, and determinations of effect on these properties are 

not addressed in this analysis. 

A total of 125 eligible/unevaluated sites are located within the boundaries of the eight 

allotments: 67 in Bald Horse, 11 in Deerfield, 10 in Palmer Gulch, 5 in Porcupine, 21 in 

Redfern, 1 in Rimmer, 5 in Slate Prairie and 5 in Tigerville. These sites include historic 

cabins, flumes, railroads, mining camps, CCC camps, historic and prehistoric habitation sites. 

These areas have the potential to contain Traditional Use Sites. Tribes have been contacted 

about general concerns for resources in this area. The information provided to the tribes 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 260

included an analysis description, and locational information on known archeological sites, 

however, no response has been received identifying concerns for spiritual or traditional use 

properties. Specific areas of concern for the heritage resource program include the 

protection of eligible (sites considered significant in the history of the area, state, or 

country) and unevaluated (sites that have not been evaluated for their significance) 

archeological/historical sites, appropriate consultation with local American Indian groups, 

and the protection of spiritual sites, Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs), recent and 

historic graves, and Euro-American cemeteries. 

Heritage resource effects were qualitatively assessed through a presence/absence 

determination of significant cultural resources and mitigation measures to be employed 

during grazing activities and prescribed fire (broadcast burning. The affected 

environment includes both known heritage resource sites and sites that will be located in 

the future as more of the Forest is surveyed. Most of these surveys and site 

documentations have been done in order to evaluate the effect of other projects (e.g., 

timber or range projects) on heritage resources. 

Management actions that can adversely affect heritage sites include anything that might 

significantly change the important features of a heritage site, and include any kind of ground 

disturbing activity or historic building maintenance. Under all alternatives there is a potential 

for management actions to lead to adverse effects on heritage sites. These potential effects 

would be identified as part of addressing the requirements of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses under all 

alternatives. When effects are analyzed as part of project planning, there is also the 

opportunity to redesign the project to avoid those sites or adverse effects, or if necessary, 

mitigate them. Non-project specific effects, such as wildland fire or the illegal use of off-road 

vehicles, have the greatest potential to adversely affect heritage resources in the long-term. 

These effects are not as easy to anticipate, avoid and/or mitigate. 

There is also the potential for management decisions to positively affect heritage sites 

through such things as interpretation (i.e. signs) and general watershed health. An active 

Heritage Program benefits heritage sites directly through implementation of Heritage 

Strategies, which emphasize Stewardship (identifying and protecting significant sites), 

Public Service (providing opportunities for people to enjoy their heritage), and Context for 

Natural Resource Management (applying heritage information to all areas of management). 

These activities include locating, documenting, and evaluating the importance of sites (most 

commonly through determination of their eligibility for the National Register of Historic 

Places). Management actions also include stabilizing log structures, relocating trails or roads 

that run across sites, using sites appropriately, etc. These uses include enhancing visitors’ 

understandings of the past (through research or interpretational programs), stabilizing sites 

as protected features for the future, or ensuring that American Indians can continue 

traditional uses of sites. 

Environmental Consequences 

The evaluation criteria to analyze the effects of grazing on heritage resources are based on 

disturbance to the resource and the qualities which make it eligible to the NRHP. The effect 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 261

of grazing on heritage sites was considered and the disturbance was determined to occur 

where cattle concentrate and cause a change in the surface and sub-surface conditions. 

Areas where cattle concentrate occur along fence lines, corrals and water developments. 

Alternative A (No Action/No Grazing) 

Alternative A is the no action/no grazing alternative. Under this alternative, grazing would 

not be reauthorized and the current permit holders would be notified that their term grazing 

permits would be cancelled. All term grazing permits would be cancelled after two years, 

pursuant to Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2209.13 part 16.24, and Code of Federal 

Regulation (CFR) 36 CFR 222.4(4)(1). The FSH and CFR regulations indicate that a twoyear notification is required prior to cancelling a permit, except in emergency situations. 

The no action alternative would close eight allotments, eliminating livestock grazing 

from 85,055 acres of National Forest System lands. Permits would not be issued for any 

of the eight affected allotments unless a subsequent NEPA analysis and decision to 

restock the allotments was made. 

Maintenance of range developments on the allotments would no longer be the 

responsibility of the permittees. Developments built to facilitate livestock management, 

including allotment and pasture fences, livestock enclosures, and stock water ponds and 

water troughs would be abandoned. Permittees who participated in the development of 

range improvements would be reimbursed for their amortized share, consistent with 

direction in FSH 2209.13, Chapter 70. Developments built to reduce wildlife effects to 

resources, such as water developments and big game enclosures would remain in place 

and would continue to be maintained. Maintenance of unassigned allotment boundary 

fences would be assigned to the adjacent permittee. 

The following structural improvements would be abandoned: 

• Approximately 145 miles of interior pasture fence. 

• 219 water developments. 

• 9 miles of pipeline associated with water developments. 

Spring boxes and underground pipes associated with water developments would be 

abandoned; pipes would be disconnected. If left in place, pipes would be capped on one 

or both ends to prevent water from flowing through the pipes. 

Direct and Indirect 

This alternative will not cause any direct effects to heritage resources by livestock grazing 

activities in all allotments. An indirect effect could possibly result from the fact that the no 

action alternative would not provide for any mitigation measures for resource protection, the 

stabilization of currently affected sites and/or effects from not grazing the vegetation cover 

may lead to more intense burning in the event of a wildfire. Intense wildfire can affect both 

historic and prehistoric properties. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 262

Alternatives B 

Alternative B would reauthorize grazing on all eight allotments. Changes would be made 

to some of the allotments. Structural range improvements would continue to be 

maintained annually, and reconstructed as needed. No additional range improvements 

would be authorized or constructed. 

The actual season for livestock use may be less than permitted based on annual variations 

in weather and range readiness, and the rate at which utilization standards are met. The 

grazing season may be less than permitted. 

Alternative C (Proposed Action) 

Livestock grazing would be reauthorized and term grazing permits would be issued for 

eight allotments. Alternative C is designed to maintain or improve resource conditions 

using a full suite of options, including construction of new structural improvements such 

as fences, cattleguards and water developments. 

The State Historic Preservation Office has concurred with the recommendation that sites 

eligible for the NRHP require monitoring and possible additional management strategies (e.g. 

fencing) to avoid possible adverse effects. Alternative C allows for site management options 

recommended within the cultural resources reports to be implemented, as well as possible 

implementation of general adaptive management options. Any additional heritage resources 

that may be discovered during range related projects or adaptive management action 

implementation would be protected based on the recommendations of the District 

Archeologist and the State Historic Preservation Office, and all sites would be evaluated. 

Adaptive management actions listed in Table 2-1 have been reviewed for impacts to 

archeological resources. Most measures would have minimal to no impact the resource with 

the exception of ground disturbing activities located within NRHP eligible site boundaries. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

There are no direct/indirect effects to heritage resources under Alternative B. General 

effects to heritage resource sites under Alternative C include site specific changes to and/or 

the installation of new range improvements. The following number of sites within each 

allotment has the potential to be adversely affected: 2 sites in Bald Horse, 2 sites in Palmer 

Gulch, 2 sites in Porcupine, 1 site in Slate Prairie and 2 sites in Redfern. With the 

implementation of mitigation measures and effective monitoring of those measures (see 

Appendix B); the effects are expected to be minimal and would protect heritage resources 

over the long term. 

In addition, prescribed is proposed under Alternative C for the Porcupine Allotment in the 

amount of 5,300 acres. Forest Plan Standard 4102 provides for the protection of heritage 

resources within fire areas. Following the Jasper Fire in 2001, large amounts of slash has 

built up over time. As a result, the slash hinders grazing by covering areas which would 

normally be grazed. The proposed prescribed fire will reduce slash and aid in the 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 263

distribution of livestock and therefore even the utilization. Effects from wildfire are known 

to be greater to heritage resources than are the low intensity burns that accompany 

prescribed fire efforts (Jackson 1997). Wildfires tend to have greater flame lengths and 

often burn more intensely. Such fires would likely require bulldozers or indirect 

suppression tactics such as burnout operations or retardant drops to contain. Sites that are 

susceptible to fire include those with flammable elements and/or rock features, such as rock 

art, which are subject to spalling (chipping or breaking of rock through heat). 

The careful application of prescribed fire can benefit heritage resource management: 1) 

prescribed fire reduces fuel loadings and fuel densities; 2) lower fuel densities reduce the 

potential for hotter uncontrolled wildfires; and 3) prescribed fires burn away materials 

from the surface and provide for better visibility. 

Cumulative Effects Common to all Allotments 

Cumulative effects analysis for heritage resources considered all lands that fall within the 

allotment boundaries. Livestock grazing and grazing improvements have less impact to 

cultural resources than other ongoing forest uses like recreation, camping and off-road 

vehicle use. The action alternatives provide for heritage resource protection and mitigation 

which will not cause sites to be adversely affected by livestock grazing. 

Traditional Use 

Existing information about heritage and cultural values may often be inadequate; ongoing 

inventories tend to be project-specific rather than part of the general program. Obtaining 

information about traditional use sites from some American Indian groups is difficult 

because the Forest Service styles of communication and negotiation are often 

incompatible with these cultures and revealing traditional values and identifying 

traditionally used places to outsiders may be thought to imperil the values in need of

protection. The ability to identify and protect sacred sites is heavily dependent on tribal 

representatives sharing information with the Forests. The heritage resource specialists 

can and do identify cultural material but it is critical for the tribes to provide cultural 

information. The Forest has been made aware of sacred sites on other parts of the Forest 

and we are currently protecting these types of sites Forest-wide. 

A range of traditional American Indian resources has been identified within the Forest. 

American Indian groups throughout the region consider the Black Hills a source of 

spiritual importance (USDA Forest Service 1996b p. 1b-37; p. 3a-1 through 3a-16). 

Sacred places can include topographic features such as buttes, mountains, valleys, rocks, 

springs, and caves. People who use sacred places often consider them sensitive, so the

specific names and locations of sacred places are not always released to the public. It 

should be noted that the within the preservation laws and regulations that we work under, 

the terms sacred site and Traditional Cultural Property (TCP’s) refer to two distinct 

categories of sites. TCP’s are formally documented sites using criteria defined in the 

Secretary of Interior’s Bulletin #38. To formally document and protect a TCP extensive 

oral history specific to that site must be collected and documented. There are a number of 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 264

criteria that documentation must adequately address in order for a site to be classified as a 

TCP. Sacred sites do not require the same level of documentation. No Spiritual Sites, 

Traditional Cultural properties or traditionally used flora and fauna were identified or 

made known to the Forest Service 

Access 

For those areas that contain traditional use sites, access needs will be high for traditional 

groups utilizing the area. This is particularly true for tribal elders, who may have 

difficulty accessing areas for physical reasons. The ability to access Tradition Cultural 

Properties, Sacred sites, traditional use areas, or traditional plant gathering areas is 

guaranteed under the American Indian Freedom of Religion Act (AIRFA) and under 

Executive Order 13007, and the Agency must not impede access to such locations. 

Consultation 

The Heritage Resource Reports were sent to the South Dakota State Historic Preservation 

Office of Review and Compliance for comment and eligibility determinations for the 

heritage resources located within the analysis area. The SHPO letter dated October 26, 

2009, has concurred with the determination of “No Historic Properties Affected”. Likewise 

the reports were also sent to Tribal Historic Preservation Offices and tribal groups 

requesting the reports, for their review and comment, and additional recommendations for 

the protection of American Indian traditional use sites. Follow up contact was made with 

the Tribal representatives, either no additional information was received or there were no 

concerns on the environmental document. Prescribed burning in the Porcupine Allotment 

has not received SHPO concurrence. This concurrence is needed prior to implementation. 

Conclusion 

Consultation with all appropriate historic preservation offices and consulting parties has 

been entered into pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. If

additional site elements or new discoveries are found during project actions (inadvertent 

discoveries), the new elements or discoveries must be assessed according to the guidelines 

established in 36 CFR 800. 

SOCIAL / ECONOMICS 

Affected Environment 

The analysis of economic effects identified the counties and communities with economic 

dependencies associated with livestock grazing on the Black Hills National Forest, in 

particular, the Mystic Range project area. Communities with economic dependencies were 

defined as those communities with economic sectors that have ties to the grazing on the 

Black Hills National Forest in particular on those allotments in the Mystic Range Project 

area. For the purposes of this analysis, only those communities located most closely to the 

Black Hills National Forest were included in the analysis. The counties considered most 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 265

vulnerable to decisions within the Mystic Range Project area are Pennington and Custer 

Counties, SD. All eight of the allotments are located in Pennington County, SD with a 

portion of the Porcupine Allotment in Custer County. The communities of Rapid City and 

Hill City, SD, were considered those most likely to be affected based on their proximity to 

the project area in Pennington County and the town of Custer is the community most likely

to be affected in Custer County. Rapid City is the largest community (pop 59,607) in 

Pennington County, South Dakota. 

Every county’s economy is fueled by one or more sectors that provide jobs and income 

throughout the area. Jobs and income are dependent upon the size and vitality of these 

economic sectors. The health of the economy is dependent not only on strong economic 

sectors but upon a diversified range of sectors. If a county’s economy is heavily dependent on 

only one industrial segment, it may be vulnerable to declines in prosperity if business 

conditions for that industry turn downward. Economies that are diversified are more resilient 

and far less vulnerable to downturns resulting from adverse conditions in any one sector. 

In 2001in Pennington County, agriculture (combined with forestry,) accounts for about 

2.3 percent of jobs (http://censtats.census.gov/data/SD). These jobs represented >1.0% of 

personal income (http://www.bea.gov). The population of Pennington County is 88,565 

and Custer County is 7,275 based on Demographic Information (U.S. Census Bureau 

2000). From 2000 to 2006, Pennington County population increased by 5.1% and Custer 

increased by 7.4%. Growth rate from 2000 to 2006 was fairly homogeneous ethnically 

and racially (U.S Census Bureau 2000). Ethnicity is predominantly Caucasian in 

Pennington County (86.7%) and Custer County (94.2%). The median age in Pennington 

County was 35 years old and in Custer County the median age was 43.2 in 2000. These 

agriculture based numbers are understated due to the large agriculture dependence of 

surrounding counties and the substantial indirect effect on the retail, medical, education 

and other expenditures made within the Rapid City regional trade center. Custer County 

has a higher percentage of its economy directly tied to agriculture. 

Geography 

Pennington County encompasses 2,776 square miles of land area out of 75,885 total square 

miles in the state of South Dakota. According to data from the census year 2000, there were 

32.0 people per square mile in Pennington Country compared to 10.0 people per square mile 

as an average across the entire state. Custer County comprises 1,558 square miles with a 

population density of 4.7 people per square mile compared to an average population density 

of 10.0 people for the state of South Dakota as a whole. 

Employment and Income 

In 2000, agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting and mining comprised 2.3% of employment in 

Pennington County and 12.2% in Custer County (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). Employment 

information for strictly agriculture or ranching in South Dakota is not available. 

In 2007, the unemployment rate in Pennington and Custer Counties were 2.8% and 3.0, 

respectively, compared to 3.0% for the state and 4.8% for the nation (SD Governor’s Office 

of Economic Development 2007), these numbers may be higher today. Both counties have 

fairly diverse economies with service, mining, ranching, retail, construction, government, 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 266

professional, and education-related jobs contributing to the economic base. Agriculture is a 

smaller portion of the economy than it once was, but adds to the diversity of the county and 

the surrounding communities. Income from ranching is highly variable. 

Ranching operations in the area often operate at a loss or close to the margin and the 

profitability can be significantly affected by a variation of market conditions. If access to 

federal lands for grazing is altered significantly, this change could affect ranching profits and 

overall business viability. Most of the animals that currently graze on the Black Hills National 

Forest (including on these allotments) are beef cattle. They are part of the ranching and 

farming economic base for the area. Statewide, as of 2007, there were 3.7 million head of 

cattle. South Dakota is nationally ranked 8th in exports of live animals and meat (SD 

Agriculture 2008). 

Social Environment 

In addition to the economic factors, ranching contributes to the social fabric of the area. It is 

an important part of the people’s heritage in both Pennington and Custer Counties. Ranching 

has a long history in the local communities dating back to the late 1800s. Many of the local 

ranching families are direct descendants of the area’s earliest settlers while others have 

moved to the area more recently. The Mystic RD allotments support seven permittees and 

their families. The use of the National Forests has been an integral part of the management of 

these ranches for many years and contributes to the viability of their agricultural operations. 

Grazing Fees 

The Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 declared that “vast segments of the public

rangelands are producing less than their potential for livestock, wildlife, habitat, recreation, 

forage, and water and soil conservation benefits . . .” The act further declared that “. . . to 

prevent economic disruption and harm to the western livestock industry, it is in the public 

interest to charge a fee for livestock grazing permits and leases on the public lands which is 

based on a formula reflecting annual changes in the costs of production . . .” Guidance for

implementation of grazing fees is found in 36 CFR 222. Subpart C. These regulations state 

that: “. . . the calculated grazing fee for 1988 and subsequent grazing fee years represent the 

economic value of the use of the land to the user and is the product of multiplying the base 

fair market value of $1.23 by the result of the annual Forage Value Index, added to the sum

of the Beef Cattle Price Index minus the Prices Paid Index and divided by 100: provided, 

that the annual increase or decrease in such fee for any given year shall be limited to not 

more than plus or minus 25 percent of the previous year’s fee, and provided further that the

fee shall not be less than $1.35 per head per month”. 

While that act established that grazing on public land was in the public interest, it did not 

require that the grazing programs administered by land management agencies, such as the 

Forest Service, achieve a profit from grazing. 

Environmental Effects 

Direct and Indirect Economic Effects 

The economic analysis was assessed on an allotment-by-allotment basis to assist the 

decision maker in utilizing this information to make a decision for each allotment. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 267

Although the economic benefits of the project as a whole have some value in assessing 

the overall costs of the range program, such an analysis would have little value in making 

choices between alternatives for the individual allotments. Also, some allotments have 

substantial differences between alternatives while there is essentially no economic 

difference between alternatives for other allotments. Thus combining the allotments into 

a single economic analysis would not accurately portray the differences between 

alternatives. 

The Quicksilver economic program (USDA Forest Service 2010) was used to compare the 

economic costs of the proposed action and the alternatives to both the Forest Service and the 

range permittees. Costs were calculated for both the permittee and the Forest Service 

separately because certain grazing practices are more costly to one or the other. For all 

alternatives, the analysis considered costs associated with grazing on the Forest. Costs to the 

Forest Service include permit administration, monitoring range conditions, and any costs of 

improvements provided by the Forest Service. Costs to permittees include hauling livestock, 

herding, salting, incidental livestock mortality, veterinary costs, construction of range 

improvements, maintenance and reconstruction of range improvements, and grazing fees. 

The value of the weight gained by livestock while grazing on NFS lands was not included as 

abenefit in this analysis because it is dependent on many factors that vary between 

allotments and permittees. This includes the breed of livestock, management strategies 

while on private lands, market conditions at the time of sale and other factors. Because the 

value of weight gained on NFS lands is the ultimate benefit and it was not used in the

analysis, the comparison between alternatives portrays the relative costs to permittees. This 

method also gives a valid comparison of the total cost to the Forest Service for grazing these 

allotments under each alternative. The results of the cost analysis for each alternative and 

allotment are displayed in the following tables. For analysis purposes, all reconstruction and 

construction costs are assumed to be paid by the permittee. 

Table 3-22 Costs Associated with Alternative A.

Alternative A 

Allotment 

FOREST SERVICE PERMITTEE 

Cost per Year Total Cost** Cost per Year* Total Cost* 

Bald Horse $11,186 $111,186 $27,606 $55,213 

Deerfield $6,934 $69,340 $9,615 $19,230 

Palmer North $3,561 $35,610 $8,174 $16,348 

Palmer South $4,532 $45,320 $7,698 $15,397 

Porcupine $11,155 $111,556 $20,133 $40,266 

Redfern $5,357 $53,574 $15,051 $30,102 

Rimmer $1,889 $18,898 $4,926 $9,852 

Slate Castle $4,156 $41,564 $15,812 $31,624 

Tigerville $5,252 $52,526 $10,485 $20,970 

Total $54,022 $539,574 $119,500 $239,002 

*Cost / Year and Total Cost for the permittee is based on two years. 

**Forest Service Total cost is based on 10 years 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 268

Table 3-23 Costs Associated with Alternative B.

Alternative B 

Allotment 

FOREST SERVICE PERMITTEE 

Cost per Year Total Cost* Cost per Year Total Cost*

Bald Horse $4,380 $43,800 $25,887 $258,874 

Deerfield $4,016 $40,160 $10,356 $103,564 

Palmer North $3,548 $35,480 $9,674 $96,740 

Palmer South $4,016 $40,160 $8,334 $83,342 

Porcupine $5,108 $51,080 $22,821 $228,212 

Redfern $4,016 $40,160 $16,942 $169,423 

Rimmer $5,160 $51,600 $5,380 $53,803 

Slate Castle $6,564 $65,640 $17,368 $173,689 

Tigerville $5,160 $51,600 $11,686 $116,862 

Total $41,968 $419,680 $128,448 $1,284,509 

*Total cost is based on 10 years 

Table 3-24 Costs Associated with Alternative C.

Alternative C 

Allotment 

FOREST SERVICE PERMITTEE

Cost per Year Total Cost* Cost per Year Total Cost*

Bald Horse $4,380 $43,800 $29,769 $297,696 

Deerfield $4,016 $40,160 $12,915 $129,148 

Palmer North $3,548 $35,480 $12,487 $124,873 

Palmer South $4,256 $42,560 $8,810 $88,103 

Porcupine $5,108 $51,080 $26,111 $261,116 

Redfern $4,016 $40,160 $19,023 $190,236 

Rimmer $5,160 $51,600 $7,288 $72,887 

Slate Castle $6,564 $65,640 $17,635 $176,351 

Tigerville $5,160 $51,600 $11,746 $117,462 

Total $42,208 $422,080 $145,784 $1,457,872 

*Total cost is based on 10 years 

Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, grazing would be eliminated on all eight allotments after two years. 

Whether the permittees would continue to maintain their business in a reduced form or 

supplement the forage loss through other means could depend on several factors. The 

permittees may choose a number of different options to provide forage previously 

provided by these allotments. They may choose to: (1) graze on their own properties if 

they have sufficient land; (2) find and graze on other private land at a fee; (3) use 

alternative sources of feed such as purchasing hay; or (4) reduce the size of their herds to 

reduce their demand for forage. 

Eliminating livestock from these allotments could affect the economic viability of the 

livestock operations because of the additional costs associated with securing additional 

range or buying supplement feed to accommodate herd sizes consistent with current

permitted numbers. Additional costs could include the possibility of additional fencing, 

establishment of water on newly acquired range, along with increased trucking and labor 

costs associated with moving and otherwise handling livestock. Reduced economic 

viability of ranching operations could result in loss of the business itself. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 269

There is an increasing trend in subdivision of farms and ranches into “ranchettes” or 

“exurban housing developments” (Knight et al., 1995; Mitchell et al., 2002; Maestas et 

al., 2002; Maestas et al., 2003; Hansen et al., 2005; Talbert et al., 2007; Knight, 2007). 

Such land conversion can have a variety of socio-economic impacts, including increase

of invasive species and decrease of native species, species richness, and biodiversity 

(Maestas et al., 2002; Maestas et al., 2003; Hansen et al., 2005), an increase in land 

management issues such as access, rights of way, water rights, liability, public relations, 

and infrastructure (Knight et al., 1995), increase social issues like free-ranging dog and 

cat populations, vehicle traffic, light pollution, and human density (Mitchell et al., 2002), 

and an increase in per-capita costs to county governments and school districts (Knight, 

2007). If large tracts of private land that are adjacent to public land are subdivided, this 

reduces the buffer between public land and urban development and fragments the 

landscape (Mitchell et al., 2002). 

The level of risk of a ranching operation failing under Alternative A is unknown, and 

would be dependent upon a variety of factors, including the overall economic condition 

of the local area and each ranch’s ability to access economically feasible alternatives to 

grazing on public land. 

In Alternative A, the Forest Service would no longer receive grazing permit fee revenues 

of $8,831.70 per year after two years. The Forest Service would also be responsible for 

capping pipelines and removal of livestock developments, such as fences and water 

developments as planning, time, and funding permit. Some water developments may 

remain to support wildlife depending on needs and funding opportunities. Permittees 

who participated in the development of range improvements would be reimbursed for 

their amortized share, consistent with direction in FSH 2209.13, Chapter 70. 

Since the costs of grazing administration are not completely offset by the grazing fees 

collected for any of the alternatives, long term costs to the Forest Service would go down 

under Alternative A. However, the Forest Service is not required to achieve a profit from 

the grazing program as discussed above. Alternative A would eliminate all benefits to 

permittees and would force the permittees to either find other locations for grazing or lose 

this source of income. 

Alternatives B and C 

Both Alternatives B and C maintain or improve resource conditions in rangeland health, 

vegetation, watershed conditions, designated Botanical Areas, and wildlife habitat relative 

to livestock grazing. Alternative B proposes to meet the desired condition without 

additional investments in new range improvements. Alternative C (Proposed Action) 

proposes new range improvements, in addition to utilizing existing structures, to better 

control, distribute and, in places, exclude livestock use and incorporates a suite of adaptive 

management options that could be employed if needed. For both alternatives: 1) the 

permittee is responsible to move livestock before utilization standards for riparian and 

upland areas are exceeded; 2) there are monitoring requirements to ensure desired resource 

conditions are maintained or achieved; and 3) monitoring results could lead to a reduction in 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 270

total livestock use on individual allotments if grazing capacity determinations, resource 

conditions, or both warrant reductions. 

Alternative C includes new structural improvements and proposes alternative management 

activities intended to sustain livestock grazing in the eight allotments while improving range 

conditions. No permitted AUM reductions are proposed, although actual use could be 

reduced in order to meet required resource conditions. The additional structures may 

increase the administrative cost to manage these allotments, but would also provide limited 

employment opportunities. Under alternative C, only the initial new improvements were 

included in the economic analysis. No adaptive management options were included. This is

because in most cases there is a range of adaptive options that could be chosen and there is 

no way of knowing which might be chosen in the future. 

Both Alternatives B and C could result in a reduction in actual use (less days or livestock) 

for some allotments. This is totally dependent on the ability to meet Forest Plan resource 

requirements. Alternative B is the least costly of the two action alternatives, but it poses a 

higher risk to the permittee in terms of potential actual use reductions. Alternative C 

includes new structural improvements that better distribute livestock and reduce effects to 

riparian areas. Although it is more costly, it provides the best opportunity to maintain 

higher actual use on the allotments. Both Alternatives could be economically viable for the 

affected ranches; however, the magnitude of effects depends upon a number of factors, 

including options available to each permittee, the size of their total operations, debt 

structure, and business goals and objectives. These factors are specific to each individual 

operation and only the permittees can choose which options fit their business needs. 

Under both action alternatives, costs to the Forest Service are not reduced since 

administration and monitoring costs remain similar. Both costs and benefits for permittees 

could be reduced, if actual use is reduced. Many permittee costs are directly related to the 

actual use on the allotment, thus costs could be reduced more in Alternative B than C. 

Prescribed fire is proposed as an adaptive option under Alternative C. Prescribed fire costs 

were not included in the economic analysis. Prescribed fire costs generally are $300 per acre. 

Social Effects 

For many people, livestock ranching is an essential and unique element of western culture. 

The ranching lifestyle has its roots deep in the history of the area and for many is a valued 

link to the area’s rich history. Some families have raised cattle or sheep for generations 

making this lifestyle more than an element of the area’s culture, but also a part of family 

identity. Changes in public grazing opportunities have the potential to affect the viability of 

marginal operations and are of great concern to those who value this lifestyle. 

The effects of the alternatives on the social setting are directly tied to the economic 

effects. Those alternatives that have a lower benefit to local permittees could affect the 

viability of those operations and move them toward economic demise. The loss of these 

ranching operations could force landowners to sell to developers and affect the social

fabric of the communities. Alternative A is the most likely to result in changes in the 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 271

social setting as a result of loss of grazing on the eight allotments being analyzed at this 

time. Those alternatives (Alternatives B and C) that have higher benefits to local ranchers 

and provide grazing are more likely to maintain cattle ranching in the local communities. 

A direct social and economic effect of the three alternatives is the risk associated with 

livestock-vehicle collisions. This potetial currently exists along the Sheridan Lake Road, 

Deerfield Road, Twin Springs Road, and the Old Hill City Highway. The Sheridan Lake 

Road is expected to be reconstructed within the next few years, and this will likely 

straighten out some curves, increase speed and likely increase traffic. The Deerfield Road 

is also expected to see increased traffic after the planned surfacing of the South Rochford 

Road is completed. The risk of collision could potentially result in human or livestock 

injury or death. This has both social and economic impacts. Alternative A would eliminate 

grazing thereby eliminating the potential for collisions on the affected allotments. 

Alternative B does not include fencing to restrict livestock from entering the road right-ofway; hence it will not reduce the risk of livestock-vehicle collisions. Alternative C reduces 

or eliminates the risk by requiring that these road right-of-ways be fenced off. 

Cumulative Effects 

There are many outside influences that affect the economic viability of ranching operations 

including livestock market conditions, weather patterns, governmental regulation, 

occurrence of diseases, and international trade policies. Within the local counties, the overall 

volume of livestock related jobs in the local economy is quite small. For this reason, despite 

the size of the differences between the alternatives, the economy-wide impacts of all the 

alternatives are small. However, the direct and indirect effects may be considerable for 

individual persons, families, or businesses within the analysis area. Within the rural 

communities of the surrounding area, particularly in very small communities, the loss of a 

single job may be very important to that community, even though it may be barely 

noticeable within the larger economy. 

The American Farmland Trust (2006) found that from 1992 to 1997, more than 11 million 

acres of rural land in the United States were converted to developed use – more than half of 

that conversion was from agricultural land. In that same period, an average of more than 1 

million agricultural acres was developed each year. And the rate is increasing – up 51% from 

the rate reported in the previous decade. If these local ranching operations become 

economically unviable, it is likely that the ranches will be sold, broken up, and developed for 

residential properties or converted to other uses. Gradually the ranching component of the 

social setting could be decreased or lost. 

The use and occupation of the Black Hills is increasing due to population growth and a 

fairly diverse and flexible economy. Subdivisions and home construction building permits

on private lands within and adjacent to the project area have increased steadily and demands 

for public access roads and utility lines across the project area will continue to exert 

additional pressure on the Forest. Due to the increase in population, more users frequenting 

the Forest and subdivisions within and adjacent to the National Forest, livestock/private 

property controversies could rise. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 272

Summary of Effects to Socio-economics 

All of the grazing alternatives would provide some economic value to the local communities. 

The effects of the alternatives on the social setting are directly tied to the economic effects. 

Those alternatives that have a lower benefit to local permittees could affect the viability of 

those operations and move them toward economic demise. The loss of these ranching 

operations could force landowners to sell to developers and affect the social fabric of the 

communities. Those alternatives that have higher benefits to local ranchers and provide some 

added grazing are more likely to maintain cattle ranching in the local communities. All action 

alternatives would help with the attainment of Forest Plan Goal 8 and Forest Plan Objectives 

803 and 804. Alternative A would not help attain these goals and objectives. 

Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898 (February 11, 1994) directs Federal agencies to focus attention on 

the human health and environmental conditions in minority communities and low-income 

communities. The purpose of the Executive Order is to identify and address, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects

on minority populations and low-income populations. 

None of the communities in the project area contain low-income or minority populations 

as defined by Executive Order 12898. During the course of this analysis, no alternative 

resulted in any identifiable effects or issues specific to any minority or low-income 

population or community. The agency has considered all input from persons or groups 

regardless of age, race income status, or other social and economic characteristics. 

Civil Rights 

No civil rights effects associated with age, race, creed, color, national origin, or sex have 

been identified. 

IRREVERSABLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS 

OF RESOURCES 

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the 

extinction of a species or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those 

that are lost for a period of time such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in 

forested areas that are kept clear for use as a power line rights-of-way or road. 

No irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources are expected as a result of 

implementation of any of the project alternatives. In areas of poor rangeland condition, shortterm losses may occur until such sites have recovered their potential or desired conditions. 

However, such losses are not expected to occur for any substantial period of time and 

therefore are not irretrievable. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 273

SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 

NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s 

environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 

1502.16). As declared by the Congress, this includes using all practicable means and 

measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster 

and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and 

nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other 

requirements of present and future generations of Americans (NEPA Section 101). 

All action alternatives would allow short-term uses (livestock grazing) that may promote 

long-term productivity and sustainability for rangeland resources in the project area. The 

No Action alternative would preclude those short-term uses but still promote long-term 

productivity and sustainability. 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS 

Alternatives B and C would continue livestock grazing in the Mystic Range Project area. 

Livestock grazing can contribute to short and long term effects to soils, vegetation, and 

water quality (Hydrology/Soils, Range and Wildlife sections in Chapter 3). 

Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 275

CHAPTER 4 BIBLIOGRAPHY/REFERENCES 

Abdel-Magid, Ahmed, et al. 1987. Soil Bulk Density and Water Infiltration as Affected by Grazing 

Systems. Journal of Range Management 40(4): 307-309. 

Allotment 2210 Files. Located at the Mystic Ranger District Office. 

Ammon E. M. and P. B. Stacey. 1997. Avian nest success in relation to past grazing regimes in a 

montane riparian system. The Condor 99:pp. 7-13. 

Anderson. T. 2002. Conservation assessment for the American dipper in the Black Hills National 

Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. [Online]. Black Hills National Forest. Custer, SD. 35pp. 

Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/american_dipper.pdf. 

[Accessed July 27, 2009] 

Anderson, T. 2003. Conservation assessment for the woodpeckers in the Black Hills National Forest, 

South Dakota and Wyoming. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Custer, South Dakota. 176pp. 

Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/woodpeckers.pdf. 

[Accessed July 28, 2009 

Anderson, T. 2004a. Callused Vertigo (Vertigo arthuri): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/callusedvertigo.pdf [July 28, 2009]. 

Anderson, T. 2004b. Mystery Vertigo (Vertigo paradoxa): a technical conservation assessment. 

[Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/mysteryvertigo.pdf [July 28 2009]. 

Anderson, T. 2005. Oreohelix strigosa cooperi (Cooper’s Rocky Mountain Snail): a technical 

conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/coopersrockymountainsnail.pdf [January 2010]. 

Anderson, W. E. and R. J. Scherzinger 1975. Improving quality of winter forage for elk by Cattle 

Grazing. Journal of Range Management 28(2) p. 120-125. 

Arcese, P., M. K. Sogge, A. B. Marr, and M. A. Patten. 2002. Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia). In: 

The Birds of North America, No. 704. A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The Birds of North America, Inc. 

Philadelphia, PA. 

Backlund, D. 2007. The American dipper, Cinclus mexicanus, in the Black Hills of South Dakota: Past 

and present. South Dakota Dept. Game, Fish and Parks. [Online] 

http://www.sdgfp.info/Wildlife/Diversity/dipper/index.htm. [July 27, 2009].

Beck, J.L. and J.M. Peek. March 2005. Diet Composition, Forage Selection, and Potential For Forage 

Competition Among Elk, Deer, and Livestock on Aspen-Sagebrush Summer Range, pp. 142. 

Rangeland Ecology & Management 58(2). 

Beckner, Craig. 2007. Personal communication with Mark Vedder, RMS regarding effect of pine 

needles on forage quality and palatability for livestock use. 

Beecham, J. J. Jr., C. P. Collins, and T. D. Reynolds. (2007, February 12). Rocky Mountain Bighorn 

Sheep (Ovis canadensis): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/rockymountainbighornsheep.pdf [July 27, 2009]. 

Belica, L.T. and N.P. Nibbelink. 2006. Mountain Sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus): a technical 

conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/mountainsucker.pdf [July 28, 2009]. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 276

Belsky, A. Joy & Blumenthal, Dana M. April, 1997. Effects of Livestock Grazing on Stand Dynamics 

and Soils in the Upland Forests of the Interior West. Conservation Biology, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 315-

327. 

Belsky, A. J., A. Matzke and S. Uselman. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian 

ecosystems in the western United States. J. of Soil and Water Conservation. 54:419-431. 

Bisson, Pete. 2008. Salmon and Trout in the Pacific Northwest and Climate Change. (June 16, 2008). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Climate Change Resource Center. 

Blakesley, J. A., G. Giroir, and C. White 2008. Population densities and trend detection of avian species 

on the Black Hills National Forest. Tech. Rep. M-MBBH07-02. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, 

Brighton, CO, 45 pp. 

Blate, G.M. et. al. 2009. Adapting to climate change in the United States national forests. Unasylva 

231/232, Vol. 60. 57-62. 

Bleich, Vernon C. et.al. 2005 Managing Rangelands for Wildlife. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, 

Maryland. PP 873-897. 

Bock, C., V. Saab, T. Rich, and D. Dobkin. 1992. Effects of Livestock Grazing on Neotropical 

Migratory Landbirds in Western North America. In: D. Finch and P. Stangel. Status and Management 

of Neotropical Migratory Birds. USDA Forest Service. GTR-RM-229. Fort Collins, CO. 

Bonnot, T. W., J. J. Millspaugh, and M. A. Rumble. Multi-scale nest-site selection by black-backed 

woodpeckers in outbreaks of mountain pine beetles. Forest ecology and Management. Vol. 259, Issue 

2, pages 220-228. 

Boyle, S. and S. Owens. 2007. North American Beaver (Castor canadensis): a technical conservation 

assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northamericanbeaver.pdf. [July 27, 2009]. 

Bradford, J.B. and Lauenroth, W.K. 2006. Controls Over Invasion of Bromus Tectorum: The

Importance of Climate, Soil, Disturbance and Seed Availability. Journal of Vegetation Science 17: 

693-704. 

Bryant, Larry D. 1985. Livestock management in the riparian ecosystem. Paper presented at the North 

American riparian conference, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. 

Burton, T.A., E.R. Cowley, and S.J. Smith. 2007. Idaho Technical Bulletin 2007-01, Monitoring 

Stream Channel and Riparian Vegetation Multiple Indicators. Version 3.0.

Chaikina, N. A. and K. E. Fuckstuhl 2006. The effect of cattle grazing on Native Ungulates: The good, 

the bad and the ugly. Ranglands, Society of Range Management. p. 8-14. 

Buskirk, S. W. 2002. Conservation assessment for the American marten in the Black Hills National 

Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. 

Custer, SD. 51pp. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/marten.pdf [July 26, 2009] 

Chaikina, N. A., and K. E. Ruckstuhl 2006. The effect of cattle grazing on native ungulates: The good, 

the bad and the ugly. Rangelands, Society of Range Management. p. 8-14. 

Chambers, J.C., B.A. Roundy, R.R. Blank, S.E. Meyer, and A. Whittaker. 2007. What makes Great 

Basin sagebrush ecosytems invasible by Bromus tectorum? Ecological Monogrpahs 77:717-145. 

Clark, P. E., W. C. Krueger, L. D. Bryant and D. R. Thomas. 2000. Livestock grazing effects on forage 

quality of elk winter range. J. Range Manage. 53: 97-105. 

Clary, W.P. January 1995. Vegetation and Soil Responses to Grazing Simulation on Riparian 

Meadows. Journal of Range Management. 48:18-25. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 277

Clary, W. P. and W.C. Leininger. 2000. Stubble Height as a Tool For Management of Riparian Areas. 

Journal of Range Management. 53(6): 562-573. 

Clary, Warren P. and Bert F. Webster. 1989. Managing Grazing of Riparian Areas in the 

Intermountain Region, GTR INT-263. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station: 13 p. 

Coe, P. K., B. K. Johnson, J. W. Kern, S. L. Findholt, J. G. Kie, M.H. Wisdom. 2001. Responses of elk 

and mule deer to cattle in summer. J. Range Manage. 54:A51-A76. 

Collins, C.P. and T. D. Reynolds (2005, September 2). Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis): a technical 

conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/ferruginoushawk.pdf. [January, 2010]. 

Cowely, E.R. and T. Burton, 2005. Monitoring Streambanks and riparian vegetation-multiple 

indicators. Technical Bulletin No. 2005-2 USDI BLM, Idaho State Office, Boise. 

Crane, K.K., J.C. Mosley, T.K. Brewer, W.L.F. Torstenson, and M.W. Tess. 2001, Influence of Cattle 

Grazing on Elk Habitat Selection. Proceedings, Western Section, American Society of Animal Science. 

Vol. 52. 

Cryan, P.M. 2004. Synthesis of existing information on meadow jumping mice (Zapus hudsonius) in 

the northern Great Plains. Information Review Compiled for the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Region 6, Denver, CO. 27pp. 

Cryan, P. M. and L. E. Ellison. 2005. Distributional survey of the meadow jumping mouse (Zapus 

hudsonius) in the northern Great Plains: Trapping Report, Summer 2005. Administrative report 

compiled for the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Denver CO. 

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. 625pp. 

Dechant, J. A., M. L. Sondreal, D. H. Johnson, L. D. Igl, C.M. Goldade, M. P. Nenneman, and B. R. 

Euliss. 1992 (revised 2002). Effects of management practices on grassland birds; Grasshopper 

Sparrow. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestons, ND. 28pp. 

DelCurto, T., M. Porath, C. T. Parsons, and J.A. Morrison. 2005. Management strategies for 

sustainable beef cattle grazing on forested rangelands in the Pacific Northwest. Rangeland Ecol 

Manage March 58:119-127. 

Dobkin, D. S., A. C. Rich, J. A. Pretare and W. H. Pyle Nest-Site Relationships among Cavity-Nesting 

Birds of Riparian and Snowpocket Aspen Woodlands in the Northwestern Great Basin. The Condor, 

Vol. 97, No. 3 (Aug., 1995), pp. 694-707 

Dorn, B. 2006. Examination of specimens and site visits to Black Hills National Forest reported Salix 

lucida locations. 

Drilling, N. E. 2010. 2009 Black Hills Owl Surveys. Tech. Rep. M-SDBBA2-03. Rocky Mountain 

Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO, 13pp. 

Duckwitz, J. J. 2001. Small mammal survey of Wind Cave National Park. Masters Thesis, Wildlife and 

Fisheries Sciences. South Dakota State University, Brookings. 

Ellison, C., Skinner, Q. D., and Larry Hicks. July 2009. Assessment of Best-Management practice 

Effects on Rangeland Stream Water Quality Using Multivariate Statistical Techniques. Rangeland 

Ecology and Management 62(4): 371-386. 

Environmental Protection Agency 430-R-08-005, Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and 

sinks: 1990-2006 Final. April 15, 2008. [Online]. (2008, April 10—last update). Avaialble: 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 278

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. 

Fecske, D. M. 2003. Distribution and abundance of American martens and cougars in the Black Hills 

of South Dakota and Wyoming. Dissertation: Dr of Philosophy, South Dakota State. University. 

170pp. 

Findholt, S.L. and B.K. Johnson, D. Damiran, T. DeCurto, J. G. Kie. 2004. Diet composition, dry 

matter intake, an diet overlap of mule deer, elk and cattle. Transactions of the North American Wildlife 

and Natural Resource Conference 69: 670-686 

Fleischner, T. L. 1994. Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western North America. Conservation 

Biology 8:629-644. 

Flora of North America Association. 2002. Flora of North America, Volume 23. Oxford University 

Press New York, NY.

Ford, R.C. 1988. Black Hills Stream Inventory and Classification 1984 and 1985. South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish and Parks. Report No. 88-1. 

Forest Service. August 1996. Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide. Lakewood, CO: 

USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

FS Agreement No. 1105-0001-96-020. 1996. Memorandum of Understanding Among the U.S.D.A. 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region and the State Historic Preservation Offices of Colorado, 

Wyoming, South Dakota, and Nebraska, Regarding the Rangeland Management Activities. Appendix 

B-03 (Revised June 1999). Part I: Implementation Plan For The Black Hills National Forest. 

Agreement on file at the BHNF Supervisors Office: Custer, South Dakota.

Frest, T. J., and E. J. Johannes. 1993. Land snail survey of the Black Hills National Forest, South 

Dakota and Wyoming. Unpubl. Report prepared for USDA Forest Service, Black Hills National 

Forest. Custer, SD. 

Frest, T. J., and E. J. Johannes. 2002. Land snail survey of the Black Hills National Forest, South 

Dakota and Wyoming, Summary Report 1991-2001. Unpubl. Report prepared for USDA Forest 

Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, SD. 127pp. and appendices. 

Froiland, S.G. 1990. Natural History of the Black Hills and Badlands. Sioux Falls, SD: Center for 

Western Studies, Augustana College. 

Gaines, William L.; Singleton, Peter H.; Ross, Roger C. 2003. Assessing the cumulative effects of 

linear recreation routes on wildlife habitats on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-586. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 79 p. 

Ghalambor, C.K. and R.C. Dobbs. 2006. Pygmy Nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea): a technical conservation 

assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/pygmynuthatch.pdf. [July 27, 2009]. 

Gill, Chris. Fall, 2009. Doing What Works. Range Magazine. Society of Range Management. pp 48-50. 

Gillen, R. L., W. C. Krueger, and R. F. Miller. 1985. Cattle use of riparian meadows in the Blue 

Mountains of Northeastern Oregon. Journal of Range Management, Vol. 38, No. 3 pp. 205-209. 

Giuliano, W.M. and J.D. Homyack. 2004. Short-term grazing exclusion effects on riparian mammal 

communities. Rangeland Ecology and Management. 57(4):346-350. 

Godwin, D.C, and J.R. Miner, 1996. The Potential of Off-Stream Livestock Watering to Reduce Water 

Quality Impacts. Bioresource Tech. 58(3):285-290. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 279

Gonyer, Leslie. 2009. Draft Soils and Watershed Specialist Report. Mystic Range Project; Bald 

Horse, Deerfield, Palmer Gulch, Porcupine, Redfern, Rimmer, Slate Prairie and Tigerville Allotments. 

Mystic Ranger District, Black Hills National Forest. Pennington County, South Dakota 

Gove, Philip B. 1966. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, 

Unabridged. G. & C. Merriam Company. Springfield Massachusetts. 

Graves, H.I. 1899. The Black Hills Forest Reserve (South Dakota and Wyoming). Ann. Rep. U.S. 

Geol. Surv. for 1897-98. Black Hills National Forest. Custer, SD. 

Grider, D., et. al. 1995. A comprehensive literature review of the effects of livestockgrazing on natural 

resources. U.S. Forest Service, Dixie National Forest. 

Griebel, R., K. Burns, and S. Deisch. 2007. Focus species. Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. [Online]. 

USDA Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, SD. 54pp Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/wildlife/norbec_focus_species.pdf . [Accessed August 10, 

2009]. 

Griscom, H., D. Keinath, and J. Handley. 2008. Five year study of factors affecting jumping mice 

(Zapus) on the Medicine Bow National Forest, Wyoming, USA; Five Year Project Report: 2008. 

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming 

Gruver, J.C. and D.A. Keinath 2006. Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii): a technical 

conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/townsendsbigearedbat.pdf [July 27, 2009]. 

M. R. Haferkamp, M.R., R.K. Heitshcmidt, E.E. Grings, M.D. MacNeil, and M. G. Karl. Suppression 

of annual bromes impacts rangeland: Vegetation responses. Journal of Range Management 54(6), 

November 2001. 

Haferkamp, M.R., R.K. Heitshcmidt, and M. G. Karl. Clipping and Japanese brome reduce western 

wheatgrass standing crop. Journal of Range Management 51(6), November 1998. 

Haferkamp, M.R. and M.G. Karl. July 1999. Clipping effects on growth dyanamics of Japanese 

brome. Journal of Range Mnagement 52(4). 

Hall, Frederick C. 1985a. Wildlife habitats in managed rangelands--the great basin of southeastern 

Oregon, management practices and options. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pacific Northwest Forest 

and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service. 

Hansen, A.J., R.L. Knight, J.M. Marzluff, S. Powell, K. Brown, P.H. Gude, and K. Jones. 2005. 

Effects of exurban development on biodiversity: patterns, mechanisms, and research needs. Ecological 

Applications 15(6):1893-1905. 

Harmoney, K.R.. Grazing and Burning Japanese Brome (Bromus japonicus) on Mixed Grass 

Rangelands. Rangeland Ecology and Management 60(5) September 2007. 

Hayward, G. D., and J. Verner, eds. 1994. Flammulated, boreal, and great gray owls in the United 

States: a technical conservation assessment. Gen. Tech. Rpt. RM-253. USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Forest, and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, CO. 214 pp. and maps. 

Hayward, G. D., C.H. Flather, E. Uloth, H. D. Safford, and D. A. Cleaves. 2009. Managing fish and 

wildlife habitat in the face of climate change: USDA Forest Service perspective. Transaction of the 74th

North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference. Wildlife Management Institute 

Publications Department March 16-19, 2009. p. 98-109. 

Heidel, Bonnie. 2007. Wyoming Plant Species of Concern. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database – 

University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. 

Higgins, K. F., E. D. Stukel, J. M. Goulet, and D. C. Backlund. 2000. Wild mammals of South Dakota. 

South Dakota Dept. of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre. 278pp. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 280

Hoeft, D. 1988. Black Hills National Forest Ecological Land Units Study. USDA Forest Service, 

Custer, SD. 68pp plus Appendices. 

Hough, M. 2008. Research techniques, habitat use, and ecology of northern flying squirrels, and 

research techniques and distribution of red squirrels in the Black Hills National Forest and Northeastern 

South Dakota. Master of Science Thesis, South Dakota State University. 132pp. 

Howery, L. July 1999. Rangeland Management Before, During, and After Drought. University of 

Arizona. Cooperative Extension Bulletin AZ1136 (page 2). 

Huxoll, C. 2008. Big game harvest projections, 2007 annual report. South Dakota Game Report No. 

2008-02. South Dakota Dept. Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre. [Online] 

http://www.sdgfp.info/Wildlife/hunting/Harvest/Projections.htm 

Idaho, University of. Stubble Height Review Team. July 1, 2004. Stubble Height Study Report. 

University of Idaho Forest, Wildlife, and Range Experiment Station Contribution No. 986. 

Isaak, D.J., W.A. Hubert, C.R. Berry, Jr. 2003. Conservation assessment for lake chub, mountain 

sucker, and finescale dace in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. Available 

at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/chub_sucker_dace.pdf 

Jellison, B., T. Emme, T. Cundy. 2007. Response of prairie stream riparian buffers to livestock 

exclusion and short-duration grazing in northeast Wyoming-a pre- and post-photographic comparison. 

WGFD, Sheridan Regional Office report. 32pp. 

Jenks, J. A. and D. M. Leslie. 2003. Effects of domestic cattle on female white-tailed deer in southern 

pine-bluestem forests, USA. Acta Theriologica 48:131-144. 

Johnson, A. S., and S. H. Anderson. 2002. Conservation assessment for the western burrowing owl in 

the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Black 

Hills National Forest. Custer, SD. 24pp. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/burrowing_owl.pdf. [July 27, 2009] 

Johnson, A. S. and S. H. Anderson. 2003. Conservation Assessment for the Northern Saw-whet owl in 

the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Custer, 

South Dakota. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/northern_saw_whet_owl.pdf. [July 

27, 2009] 

Jones, B. E., D. F. Lile, and K. W. Tate. 2009. Effect of simulated browsing on aspen regeneration: 

Implications for restoration. Rangeland Ecol. Manage. November, 62: 557-563 

Kanta, J. 2009. Pers. comm. South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks. 

Kauffman J. B., W. C. Krueger and M. Vavra. 1983. Effects of late season cattle grazing on riparian 

plant communities. J. Range Manage. 36:685-691. 

Kaufman, J. Boone and W.C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and 

streamside management implications--a review. Jornal of Range Management. 37(5): 430-438. 

Kelly, B.T. 2007. Wyoming Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Species List. Letter dated August 

8, 2007, from Brian T. Kelly, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wyoming Field Office, 

Cheyenne, WY. 

Kennedy, J. F. 1992. Habitat selection by female white-tailed deer in the northern Black Hills, South 

Dakotaand Wyoming. Masters thesis. South Dakota State Univ., Brookings, SD. 

Kennedy, P.L. 2003. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentiles atricapillus): a technical conservation 

assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northerngoshawk.pdf [Accessed July 26, 2009] 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 281

Kilpatrick, S. 2001. Aspen response to prescribed fire and wild ungulate herbivory. Pages 387-394 in

W.D. Shepperd landscapes: proceedings RMRS-P-18. Fort Collins, CO. 

Kimball, Abrigail. 2008. Climate Change, Kids, and Water: Comments by the Chief of the Forest 

Service. Region 2 Webpage. 

King, T. L., J. F. Swuitzer, C. L. Morrison, M. S. Eackles, C. C. Young, B. A. Lubinski and P. M.

Cryan . 2006. Comprehensive genetic analysis reveal evolutionary distinction of a mouse (Zapus 

hudsonius preblei) proposed for delisting from the US Endangered Species Act. Molecular Ecology

(2006) 15, 4331-4359 

Knapp, A.K. and T.R. Seastedt. November 1986. Detritus Accumulation Limits Productivity of 

Tallgrass Prairie. Bioscience, Vol. 36, No. 10, 662-668. 

Knight, R.L. 2007. Ranchers as a keystone species in a West that works. Society for Range Mgt: 

Rangelands 29:4-9. 

Knight, R.L., G.N. Wallace, and W.E. Riebsame. 1995. Ranching the view: subdivisions versus 

agriculture. Conservation Biology 9(2):459-461. 

Kotliar, N. B. 2007. Olive-sided Flycatcher ( ) a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/olivesidedflycatcher.pdf. [Accessed January 2010]. 

Kricher, J. C. 1995. Black-and-white warbler (Mniotilta varia). In: The Birds of North America, No. 

540. A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

Kroos, Roland. September, 2008. Holistic Management Assessment of the Porcupine Allotment. 9 

pages. 

Krueger, E. M. 2004. Distribution and habitat associations of the northern flying squirrel in the 

northern Black Hills of South Dakota. Self-published. Filed in Black Hills National Forest 

Supervisor’s Office (Forest Biologist’s files), Custer, South Dakota. 

Krueper, D. J. 1992. Effects of land use practices on western riparian ecosystems. Pp. 321-3330 in D.M. 

Finch and P.W. Stangel, eds. Status and management of neotropical migratory birds. USDA Forest 

Service GTR-RM-229. 

Larson, G.E. and J.R. Johnson. 1999. Plants of the Black Hills and Bear Lodge Mountains. 

Brookings, SD. South Dakota State University. 

Lacey, J.R. and H.W. Van Poollen. May 1981. Comparison of Herbage Production on Moderately 

Grazed and Ungrazed Western Ranges. Journal of Range Management.Vol.34(3), 210-212. 

Landa, Russell. 1993. Risks of extinction from demographic and environmental stochasticity and 

random catastrophes. The American Naturalist. 142(2). pp. 911-927 

Loeser, Matthew et al. 2007. Impact of Grazing Intensity during Drought in an Arizona Grassland. 

Conservation Biology Volume 21, No. 1 PP 87-97. 

Luhrsen, D.; Vedder, M. 2001-2003 and 2008-2009. Dutchman Allotment file notes and Annual 

Operating Instructions. 

MacIntosh, A.C. 1928. Additions to the Flora of the Black Hills of South Dakota. The Black Hills 

Engineer. Vol. 16:2. pp.161. South Dakota School of Mines, Rapid City, SD. 

Maestas, J.D., R.L. Knight, W.C. Gilgert. 2002. Cows, condos, or neither: what’s best for rangeland 

ecosystems? Rangelands 24(6):36-42. 

Maestas, J.D., R.L. Knight, W.C. Gilgert. 2003. Biodiversity across a rural land-use gradient. 

Conservation Biology 17(5): 1425-1434. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 282

Marriott, H. J. and D Faber-Langendoen. December 2000. Black Hills Community Inventory. Volume 

2: Plant community descriptions. The Nature Conservancy,Midwest Conservation Science Center and 

Association for Biodiversity Information, Minneapolis MN. 

Marriott, H. J. 2000. Survey of Black Hills montane grasslands. Report to the South Dakota Department 

of Game, Fish, and Parks. Pierre, SD. 56pp. 

Marriott, H. J., D. Faber-Langendoen, A. McAdams, D. Stutzman, and B. Burkhart. 1999. Black Hills 

community inventory: Final report. The Nature Conservancy, Midwest Conservation Science Center. 

Minneapolis, MN. 

Marriott, Hollis et. al. February, 2000. Survey of the Black Hills Montane Grasslands for the South 

Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks. 55 pages plus appendicies. 

Marriott, H. J. and D. Faber-Langendoen, 2000. The Black Hills community inventory; Vol. 2: Plant 

Community Descriptions. The Nature Conservatory. Midwest Conservation Science Center And 

Association for Biodiversity Information. Midwestern Resource Office, Minneapolis, MN. 326pp. 

Marrone, G. M. 2002. Field guide to butterflies of South Dakota. Published by South Dakota Game 

Fish, and Parks, Pierre, SD. 478pp. 

Marrone, G. M. 2005. A butterfly survey of the southern Black Hills and adjacent areas with emphasis 

on species monitored by the South Dakota Natural Heritage Program. Report submitted to South 

Dakota Dept. Game, Fish and Parks. Fort Pierre, South Dakota. 

Marrone, G. M. 2006. A butterfly survey of the northern Black Hills and adjacent areas with emphasis 

on species monitored by the South Dakota Natural Heritage Program. Report submitted to South 

Dakota Dept. Game, Fish and Parks. Fort Pierre, South Dakota. 

Marrone, G. M. 2007. Monitoring Surveys for the Dakota Fritillary (Speyeria atlantis pahasapa) in the 

Black Hills of South Dakota. Report submitted to South Dakota Dept. Game, Fish and Parks. Fort 

Pierre, South Dakota. 

McInnis, M.L. and J.D. McIver. 2009. Timing of cattle grazing alters impacts on stream banks in and 

Oregon mountain watershed. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. November 2009. Vol. 64, No. 6. 

394-399. 

Merigliano, Michael F. 1998. Cottonwood and willow demography on a young island, Salmon River, 

Idaho. Wetlands. 18(4) pp. 571-576 

Miner, J.R., Buckhouse, J.C. & Moore, J.A. 1992. Will a water trough reduce the amount of time hayfed livestock spend in the stream (and therefore improve water quality)? Rangelands, 14(1), 35-38. 

Mitchell, J.E., R.L. Knight, R.J. Camp. (2002). Landscape attributes of subdivided ranches. 

Rangelands 24(1):3-9. 

Mohren, S. and S. Anderson. 2000. Black-backed woodpeckers (Picoides articus) and three-toed 

woodpeckers (Picoides tridactylus) in the Black Hills National Forest of Wyoming and South Dakota: 

Annual report for 2000 summer field season. Unpublished Report prepared for the Black Hills National 

Forest. Wyoming Coop. Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Univ. of Wyoming, Laramie. 

Molinar, F., Galt, D. & Holechek, J 2001. Managing For Mulch. Rangelands, Vol. 23 No.4, 3-7. 

Moore, L., S. Friedley, and D.L. Hazlett. 2006. Carex alopecoidea Tuckerman (foxtail sedge): a 

technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/carexalopecoidea.pdf 

Mosley, J.C., S.C. Bunting, and M.E. Manoukian. 1999. Biology and Management ofNoxious 

Rangeland Weeds. P. 175-188. Oregon State University Press. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 283

Natural Resources Conservation Service. November 1993. Guide for Grazeable Forestland Technical 

Guide. South Dakota. 

NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life [web application]. 

Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. [Online]. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer 

Accessed September 28, 2009. 

Oesterheld, M & S.J. McNaughton. 1990. Effects of stress and time for recovery on the amount of 

compensatory growth after grazing. Oecologia. 85: 305-314 

Osborn S. A. H. 1999. Factors affecting the distribution and productivity of the American Dipper 

(Cinclus mexicanus) in western Montana: Does streamside development play a role? [M. S.]. Missoula: 

University of Montana. 150 pp. 

Parrish, B. J., 1996. A century of change in the Black Hills Forest and riparian ecosystems. USDA 

Forest Service, Agricultural Experiment Station and USDA, S.D. State University. 

Parrish, J. P., D. J. Herman and D. J. Reyher. 1996. A century of change in Black Hills forest and 

riparian ecosystems. USDA Forest Service, Agricultural Experiment Station, USDA, South Dakota 

State University. Custer, SD. 20pp. 

Parsons, C.T.; P.A. Momont; T. Delcurto; M. McInnis and M.L. Porath. July 2003. Cattle Distribution 

patterns and vegetation use in mountain riparian areas. Journal of Range Management 56(4) p. 337. 

Permit 2230 Files. Located at the Mystic Ranger District Office. 

Peterson, R. A. 1995. The South Dakota breeding bird atlas. South Dakota Ornithologists’ Union. 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center home page. Jamestown, North Dakota. 

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

Platts, W.S. 1981. Influence of Forest and rangeland management on anadromous fish habitat in 

western North America: Effects of livestock grazing. USDA Gen. Tech Rpt. PNW-124. 25pp. 

Platts, W.S. 1981. Sheep and cattle grazing strategies on riparian-stream environments. Pages 251-

270. In: Proceedings, wildlife-livestock relationships symposium. Univ. of Idaho, Forest, Wildlife and 

Range Exp. Sta., Moscow ID. 

Platts, W.S., and R.F. Raleigh. 1984. Impacts of grazing on wetlands and riparian habitat, p. 1105-I 

117. In: Developing strategies for rangeland management. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. 

Pond, Floyd W. 1961. Effect of Three Intensities of Clipping on the Density and Production of 

Meadow Vegetation. Journal of Range Management. 14(1). 

Provenza, Fred. 2003. Foraging Behavior: Managing to Survive in a World of Change and Behavioral 

Principles for Human, Animal, Vegetation, and Ecosystem Management. Utah State University 

and USDA, National Resource Conservation Service. 57 pages.

Reece, Patrick E, et. al., 1991. Drought Management on Range and Pastureland: A Handbook for 

Nebraska and South Dakota. Nebraska Cooperative Extension Service EC 91-123. 

Reynolds, L. 2007. Personal conversation with Mark Vedder, Rangeland Mgt. Specialist regarding 

presence of non-native plants through NFS lands, Black Hills National Forest. 

Richardson, A. 1971. The Rocky Mountain goat in the Black Hills. South Dakota Department of Game, 

Fish, and Parks. Bulletin Number 2. 25pp. 

Rideout, C. B. and R. S. Hoffmann. 1975. Oreamnos americanus. Mammalian Species. American 

Society of Mammalogists. No. 63. Nov. 21, 1975. pp. 1-6. 

Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (RMBO). 2001-2009. Monitoring the Birds of the Black Hills: 

Annual Reports (Year 1-8) to the Black Hills National Forest. [Online]. Custer, SD. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/wildlife/index.shtml. [July 27, 2009] 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 284

Roundy, B.A., S.P. Hardegree, J.C. Chambers and A. Whittaker. Prediction of Cheatgrass Field 

Germination Potential Using Wet thermal Accumulation. Rangeland Ecology and Management 60(6) 

November 2007. 

Saab, V., W. Block, R. Russell, J. Lehmkuhl, L. Bate and R. White. 2007. Birds and burns of the

interior wets: descriptions, habitats, and management in western forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR712. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 23p. 

SAIC. 2003. A framework for revising deer and elk strategic management direction on the BHNF. 

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). Project number 01-0209-04-4456-106. 26pp. 

SAIC 2005. Selection of management indicator species on the Black Hills National Forest Phase II Plan 

Amendment. Science Application International Corporation. 

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2008. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and 

Analysis 1966 - 2007. Version 5.15.2008. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD 

Available: http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html.[Accessed [July 28, 2009] 

Savory, Allen. 1999. Holistic Management – A New Framework for Decision Making. The Center for 

Holistic Management. Island Press. 616 pages. 

Schmidt, C. A. 2003a. Conservation assessment for the northern myotis in the Black Hills National 

Forest South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills 

National Forest, Custer SD. 19pp. 

Schmidt, C. A. 2003b. Conservation assessment for the small-footed myotis in the Black Hills National 

Forest South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills 

National Forest, Custer SD. 16pp. 

Schmidt, C. A. 2003c. Conservation assessment for the long-eared myotis in the Black Hills National 

Forest South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills 

National Forest, Custer SD. 22pp. 

Schmidt, C. A. 2003d. Conservation assessment for the long-legged myotis in the Black Hills National 

Forest South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills 

National Forest, Custer SD. 20pp. 

Schmidt, C. A. 2003e. Conservation assessment for the Townsend’s big-eared bat in the Black Hills 

National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Black Hills National 

Forest. Custer, SD. 23pp. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/big_ear_bat.pdf. [January 2010]. 

Schmidt, C. A., and S. H. Anderson. 2003. Conservation Assessment for the Fringed Bat in the Black 

Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. [Online]. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain 

Region, Black Hills National Forest. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/fringed_bat.pdf [Accessed July 26, 

2009]. 

Schulz, Terri Tucker and Wayne C. Leininger. 1990. Differences in riparian vegetation structure 

between grazed areas and exclosures. Journal of Range Management. 43(4).

Schulz T. T. and W. C. Leininger. 1991. Nongame wildlife communities in grazed and ungrazed 

montane riparian sites. Great Basin Nat. 51:286-292. 

Sedgwick, J. A. 2006. Long-Billed Curlew (Numenius americanus): a technical conservation 

assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/longbilledcurlew.pdf [January 2010] 

Selby, G. 2005. Ottoe Skipper (Hesperia ottoe W.H. Edwards): a technical conservation assessment. 

[Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 285

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/ottoeskipper.pdf. [January 2010]. 

Selby, G. 2007. Regal Fritillary (Speyeria idalia Drury): a technical conservation assessment. 

[Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/regalfritillary.pdf. [January 2010]. 

Shearer, J. 2006. E-mail message dated May 25, 2006 from Jeff Shearer, Coldwater Fisheries Biologist, 

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Rapid City, SD to Steve Hirtzel, Fisheries 

Biologist, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, SD regarding the spawning period for mountain suckers 

in the Black Hills. 

Sieg, C. H., and K. E. Severson. 1996. Managing habitats for white-tailed deer: Black Hills and Bear 

Lodge Mountains of South Dakota and Wyoming. GTR RM-GTR-274. Rocky Mountain Forest and 

Range Exp. Stn., Ft. Collins CO. 

Slater, G. L. (2004, October 7). Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum): a technical 

conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/grasshoppersparrow.pdf [July 27, 2009]. 

Slater, G. L. and C. Rock. (2005, September 30). Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus): a technical 

conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northernharrier.pdf. [January 2010]. 

Smith, B. E. 2003 Conservation assessment for the northern leopard frog in the Black Hills National 

Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. 

Custer, SD. 78pp. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/leopard_frog.pdf. [January 2010] 

SD Administrative Code 74:51:03:01. South Dakota Legislature. Administrative Rules. Uses 

Assigned to Streams. http://legis.state.sd.us/rules/DisplayRule.aspx?Rule=74:51:03 

South Dakota Agriculture 2008. 

http://www.nass.usda/Statistics_by_State/Ag_Overview/AgOverview_SD.pdf. July 2008. 

South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2008. The 2008 South Dakota 

Integrated Report for Surface Water Quality Assessment. South Dakota Water Quality Water Years 

2002-2007 (streams) and Water Years 2000-2007 (lakes). South Dakota Department of Environment 

and Natural Resources. Steven M Pirner, Secretary. Pierre, South Dakota. 

South Dakota Game, Fish , and Parks. 1993. 1993 Black Hills Stream Management Plan. Report No 

93-8. 

South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks. 2005a. Stream fisheries database of Black Hills stream surveys. 

April 14, 2005 version. 

South Dakota Game Fish, and Parks. 2005b. Technical Fish Stocking Report 2004. Annual Report No. 

05-05. 

South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks. 2005c. South Dakota All Bird Conservation Plan. Wildlife 

Division Report 2005-09. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, South Dakota. 

131pp. [Online] Available: http://www.sdgfp.info/Wildlife/Diversity/Birdplan.pdf. [Accessed 

November 2007] 

South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks. 2006. 2005 Fish Stocking Report. Annual Report No. 06-13. 

South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks. 2006c. Statewide Fisheries Surveys, 2004. Fisheries Management 

Plan. Progress Report No. 06-01. 

South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks. 2007. South Dakota stocking schedule. 

South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks. 2008a. Natural Heritage Database: List of State Species of 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 286

Concern. [Online] South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, South Dakota. Updated December 29, 

2008. Available: http://www.sdgfp.info/Wildlife/Diveristy/. [Accessed July 27, 2009] 

South Dakota Game Fish and Parks. 2008b. Hunting and Trapping Handbook. South Dakota Game, 

Fish and Parks Department Pierre, SD 61pp. 

South Dakota Historic Preservation Center. 1995. Guidelines for Cultural Resource Surveys and 

Survey Reports in South Dakota; South Dakota State Historic Preservation Center: Vermillion, p. 23. 

SDNHP (South Dakota Natural Heritage Program). 2002. Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plant 

Species Tracked by the South Dakota Natural Heritage Program South Dakota Department of Game, 

Fish, and Parks. [Online]. http://www.sdgfp.info/Wildlife/Diversity/rareplant2002.htm Accessed June 

30, 2009. 

Sieg, C. H., and K. E. Severson. 1996. Managing habitats for white-tailed deer: Black Hills and Bear 

Lodge Mountains of South Dakota and Wyoming. GTR RM-GTR-274. Rocky Mountain Forest and 

Range Exp. Stn. Ft. Collins CO. 

Smith, B. E. and N. T. Stephens. 2003. Conservation assessment for the redbelly snake in the Black 

Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. [Online] USDA Forest Service, Black Hills 

National Forest. Custer, SD. 18pp. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/redbelly_snake.pdf. [January 2010] 

Smith, B. E. and D. A. Keinath. (2007, January 16). Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens): a 

technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northernleopardfrog.pdf. [January 2010]. 

Stauffer, F. and Louis B. Best. 1980. Habitat Selection by Birds of Riparian Communities: Evaluating 

Effects of Habitat Alterations. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 44 (1).

Stefanich, M. R. 1995. Movements and habitat use of white-tailed deer in the northwestern Black Hills 

of Wyoming and South Dakota. Masters thesis. University of Wyoming, Laramie.

Stefanich, M. R. 2001. Draft conservation assessment for the tawny crescent in the Black Hills National 

Forest of South Dakota and Wyoming. Black Hills National Forest. March 2001. 

Stephens, R. M. and S. H. Anderson. 2002. Conservation assessment for the Cooper’s Hawk and 

Sharp-shinned hawk of the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. [Online]. USDA 

Forest Service. Black Hills National Forest. Custer, SD. 50pp. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/coopers_ss_hawk.pdf. [Accessed July 

28, 2009] 

Stephens, R. M. and S. H. Anderson 2003. Conservation assessment for the Broad-winged hawk of the 

Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. [Online]. USDA Forest Service. Black 

Hills National Forest. Custer, SD. 25pp. Available:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/broad_winged_hawk.pdf. [Accessed 

July 28, 2009] 

Stewart, R.K. and C.A. Thilenius. 1964. Stream and lake inventory and classification in the Black Hills 

of South Dakota. Dingell-Johnson Project F-1-R-13, Job Numbers 14 and 15. South Dakota Department 

of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre. 

Stringham, T.K., W.C. Krueger, and P.L. Shaver. March 2001. Special Report 1024: States, 

Transitions, and thresholds: Further Refinement for Rangeland Applications. Agriculture Experiment 

Station Oregon State University. 

Stubbendieck, J.; S. L Hatch; C. H. Butterfield; K. L. Rhodes; B. P Jansen and D Meier. 1997. North 

American Range Plants. Fifth Edition. Lincoln, NE. University of Nebraska. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 287

Talbert, C.B., R.L. Knight, J.E. Mitchell. 2007. Private ranchlands and public land grazing in the 

southern Rocky Mountains. Rangelands 29: 5-8. 

Tallman, D. A., D. L. Swanson, and J.S. Palmer. 2002. Birds of South Dakota. 3rd Edition. Northern 

State Univ. Press. Aberdeen, SD. 441 pp. 

Tausch, R.J., R.S. Nowak, A.D. Bruner and J. Smithson. 1992. Effects of Simulated Fall and Early 

Spring Grazing on Cheatgrass and Perennial Grass in Western Nevada. Presented at the Symposium on 

Ecology, Management, and Restoration of Intermountain Annual Rangelands, Boise, ID. 

Tewksbury, J. J., A. D. Black, N. Nur, V. A. Saab, B. D. Logan and D. S. Dobkin. 2002. Effects of 

anthropogenic fragmentation and livestock grazing on western riparian bird communities. Studies in 

Avian Biology, No. 25:158-202. 

Tigner, J., and W. C. Aney. 1994. Report of Black Hills bat survey, October 1993-October 1994.

 Yearly Report, Nemo/Spearfish Ranger District, Black Hills National Forest, Nov. 25, 1994 

Tigner, J. and E. D. Stukel. 2003. Bats of the Black Hills – a description of status and conservation 

needs. [Online]. South Dakota Dept. Game, Fish and Parks. Pierre, SD. Wildlife Division Report 

2003-05. 94pp. [Online] Available: http://www.sdgfp.info/Wildlife/Diversity/battechreport.pdf 

[Accessed July 27, 2009] 

Turner, R.W. 1974. Mammals of the Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming. University of Kansas. 

Museum of Natural History. Miscellaneous Publication 60:1-178. 

Ursek, Daniel W.; Severson, Kieth. 1988. Influence of Ponderosa Pine Overstory on Forage Quality in 

the Black Hills, South Dakota. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest 

and Range Experiment Station 5p. Great Basin Naturalist Vol. 48 No. 1 January 1988. 

Ursek, Daniel W.; Severson, Kieth. 1989. Understory-overstory relationship in ponderosa pine forests, 

Black Hills, South Dakota. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station 6p. Journal of Range Management Vol. 42 No. 3 May 1989. 

Ursek, Daniel W.; Severson, Kieth. 1998. Response of Understory Species to Changes in Ponderosa 

Pine Stocking Levels in the Black Hills. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station 16p. Great Basin Naturalist Vol. 58 No. 4 1998.

Uresk, D. W. and K.E. Severson. 1998. Response of understory species to changes in ponderosa pine 

stocking levels in the Black Hills. Great Basin Nat.54: 4. 

USDA Economic Research Service. 2009. The Economics of Food, Farming, Natural Resources, and 

Rural America. Data Sets. State Fact Sheets: South Dakota. Last Updated June 30, 2009. 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/statefacts/SD.htm. 

USDA Forest Service. 1927. Master Plan for the Protection and Administration of the Norbeck 

Wildlife Preserve. Black Hills National Forest, SD. 

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. 

USDA Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, SD. 

USDA Forest Service. 1991. Forest Service Manual 2300 code: Recreation Management. On File at 

the Black Hills National Forest Supervisors Office, Custer, South Dakota. 

USDA Forest Service. 1994a. Historic and Contemporary Use and Occupation of the Black Hills. In: 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Revised Land Resource Management Plan. 

Black Hills National Forest. Custer, SD. 

USDA Forest Service. 1994b. The Range of Natural Variability for the Black Hills: A First Step. In: 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Revised Land Resource Management Plan. 

Black Hills National Forest. Custer, SD. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 288

USDA Forest Service. 1996a. Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide. Rocky 

Mountain Region. Denver, CO. 

USDA Forest Service. 1996b. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Black Hills 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Black Hills National Forest. Custer, SD. 

USDA Forest Service. 1997. Revised Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management 

Plan. Black Hills National Forest. Custer, SD. 

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Economics. Quicksilver Program. Version 5.004.45. USDA Forest 

Service. Natural Resource Information System. 

USDA Forest Service. July, 2003. Caribou National Forest Riparian Grazing Implementation Guide 

Version 1-2 (updated 12/28/05). 

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Memorandum of Understanding between the South Dakota Department of 

Game, Fish and Parks and United States Department of Agriculture. USDA Forest Service, Black Hills 

National Forest. FS Agreement No. 04-MU-11020300-052. [Online]. Black Hills National Forest, 

Custer, SD 5pp. [Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/wildlife/norbeck_mou_sdgfp.pdf. [Accessed August 11, 

2009] 

USDA Forest Service. 2005a. Black Hills National Forest Phase II Amendment Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. Custer, South Dakota. 

USDA Forest Service. 2005b. Monitoring implementation guide for the Black Hills National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan. [Online]. Custer, South Dakota. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/MonGuide.pdf. 

USDA Forest Service. 2005c. Biological Evaluation for the Phase II Amendment to the Forest Plan. 

Black Hills National Forest. Available online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/amendments/phase_II/feis/10_append_c_2005_101

9_p1-106.pdf 

USDA Forest Service. 2005d. Forest Service Manual Black Hills National Forest. Supplement No.: 

r2_bh_2600-2005-1. Effective Date: November 7, 2005 

USDA-Forest Service. 2005e. Record of Decision for the Phase II Amendment to the 1997 Revised 

Land and Resource Management Plan for the Black Hills National Forest. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture-Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. October, 2005. 

USDA-Forest Service. 2005f. Analysis of Alternative Treatment Methods to Maintain Limited Fire 

Potential Following the Prairie Project, Black Hills National Forest. U.S. Department of AgricultureForest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Rapid City, South Dakota. March, 2005. 

USDA Forest Service. 2006a. Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. 

[Online]. Custer, South Dakota. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/97Revision/fp/index.shtml. 

USDA Forest Service. 2006b. Monitoring Implementation Guide for Sensitive Plant Species and Plant 

Species of Local Concern for the Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

(Addendum to the October 2005 Guide). [Online]. Custer, SD. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/plant_monitoring_guide_2006.pdf 

USDA Forest Service. 2006c. Forest Service Handbook, Region 2 Supplement, 2509.25 – Watershed 

Conservation Practices Handbook. Rocky Mountain Region, Ft. Collins, Colorado. 

USDA-Forest Service. 2006d. 1997 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Black Hills 

National Forest, As Amended by the Phase II Amendment. U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest 

Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. March, 2006. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 289

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Modification #1 to Memorandum of Understanding between the South 

Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks and United States Department of Agriculture. USDA 

Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. FS Agreement No. 04-MU-11020300-052 M1. [Online]. 

Black Hills National Forest, Custer, SD 5pp. [Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/wildlife/norbeck_mou_sdgfp_m1.pdf [Accessed August 11, 

2009]. 

USDA Forest Service. 2007b. FY2007 Monitoring and Evaluation Report. Black Hills National Forest. 

May 2007. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/index.shtml 

USDA Forest Service. 2007d. Mitchell Project Area Final Environmental Impact Statement. Black 

Hills National Forest. Rapid City, South Dakota. 

USDA Forest Service. 2008a. Black Hills National Forest FY2007 Monitoring and Evaluation Report. 

Custer, South Dakota. [Online] Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/fy2007_report.pdf. [Accessed July 27, 2009]. 

USDA Forest Service 2008b. Forest Service Strategic Framework for responding to climate change. 

USDA Forest Service, Washington D.C., 21pp. [Online] 

http://www.fs.fed.us/climatechange/documents/strategic-framework-climate-change-1-0.pdf 

USDA Forest Service. 2009a. Black Hills National Forest plants database. Unpublished database 

information updated in June 2009. 

USDA Forest Service. 2009b. Black Hills National Forest FY2008 monitoring and evaluation report. 

Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota. [Online] 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/fy08_monitoring_evaluatio_report29sept2009.pdf 

Accessed October 20, 2009. 

USDA, Forest Service. October, 2009c. Forest Service Strategic Framework For Responding to Climate 

Change Version 1.0; 21 pages. 

USDA Forest Service. 2009d. Species Conservation Program: Region 2 Regional Forester's Sensitive 

Species. [Online] http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/sensitivespecies/index.shtml Accessed January 

12, 2009. 

USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, Technical Guide, Section IIE, EcologicalSite 

Description for Loamy 15-19” P.Z. 2005. R061XY122WY. 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2001. Soil Quality Information Sheet. 

Rangeland Soil Quality – Compaction. 2p. Accessed by: 

http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/management/files/RSQIS4.pdf 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing 

the Bald Eagle in the Lower 48, States From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Federal 

Register. Vol. 72, No. 130. Monday, July 9, 2007. [Online] 

http://www.fws.gov/southdakotafieldoffice/baldeaglefinaldelisting.pdf. [December 10, 2007]. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of conservation concern 2008. Division of Migratory 

Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 99pp. [Online] Available: 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/BCC2008/BCC2008.pdf. 

[Accessed January, 2009]. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008b. Endangered Species by County List. Last updated 18 

December 2007. South Dakota Ecological Services Field Office. [Online] 

http://southdakotafieldoffice.fws.gov/endsppbycounty.htm. [accessed on April 14, 2008]. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Partial 90-day finding on a petition to list 206 species in the 

Midwest and Western United States a Threatened or Endangered with critical habitat. Federal Register, 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 290

Vol. 74., No. 158, p. 41649-41662. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009b. 90-day finding on a Petition to List the American Dipper in the 

Black Hills of South Dakota as Threatened or Endangered. Federal Register, Vo. 74. No. 206, p.55177-

55180. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009c. Candidate Notice of Review. [Online]. Vol. 74, No. 215. 

Federal Register 69034, November 9, 2009. 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/pdfs/CNOR/CNOR%2011-9-09.pdf [December 10, 2009]. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009d. Endangered Species by County List. [Online] MountainPrairie Region, South Dakota Ecological Services Field Office. Pierre, SD. Updated November 2, 2009 

Available: http://southdakotafieldoffice.fws.gov/endsppbycounty.htm. [January 21, 2010]. 

USDI Fish & Wildlife Service. 2009e. USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species System (TESS) 

for South Dakota. [Online] 

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public//pub/stateListingAndOccurrence.jsp?state=SD Accessed January 12, 

2009. 

USDI Fish & Wildlife Service. 2009f. Plants of the Mountain Prairie Region. [Online] 

http://www.fws.gov/mountain%2Dprairie/species/plants/ Accessed January 12, 2009. 

USDI Fish & Wildlife Service. 2009g. USFWS Threatened & Endangered Species System for South 

Dakota: Proposed Species. [Online] 

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public//pub/stateListing.jsp?state=SD&status=proposed Accessed January 12, 

2009. 

USDI Fish & Wildlife Service. 2009h. USFWS Threatened & Endangered Species System for South 

Dakota: Candidate Species. [Online] 

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public//pub/stateListing.jsp?state=SD&status=candidate Accessed January 12, 

2009.

Vallentine, J.F. 1990. Grazing Management pg. 10, 294-296. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 

Van Poollen, H.W. and J.R. Lacey 1979. Herbage Response to Grazing Systems and Stocking 

Intensities. Journal of Range Management, Vol. 32(4). pg. 250-253. 

Vickery, P. D. 1996. Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), The Birds of North America 

Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America 

Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/239doi:10.2173/bna.239 

Volland, Leonard A. 1978. Trends in standing crop and species composition of a rested Kentucky 

bluegrass meadow over an 11-year period. In: Hyder, Donald N., ed. proceedings of the first 

international rangeland congress; 1978 August 14-18; Denver, CO; Society for Range Management: 

526-529. 

Watershed Definition. 2003. What is a Watershed. http://www.co.yamhill.or.us/ybc/ defnWS.htm. 

Whisenant, S.G. Post-fire population dynamics of Bromus japonicus. Smier. Midl. Natur.123: 301-

308. 1990. 

Wiggins, D. 2004. American Three-toed Woodpecker (Picoides dorsalis): a technical conservation 

assessment [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/americanthreetoedwoodpecker.pdf. [Accessed January 

2010] 

Wiggins, D. A. 2005. Brown Creeper (Certhia americana): a technical conservation assessment. 

[Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/browncreeper.pdf. [Accessed July 27, 2009]. 

Wiggins, D. 2005a. Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus): at technical conservation assessment 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 291

[Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/loggerheadshrike.pdf [Accessed January 2010] 

Wiggins, D. 2005b. Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccynes americanus): a technical conservation 

assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/yellowbilledcuckoo.pdf. [Accessed January 2010] 

Wiggins, D. A. 2006. Ruffed Grouse (Bonasa umbellus): a technical conservation assessment. 

[Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/ruffedgrouse.pdf. [Accessed July 27, 2009]. 

Wiggins, D. A. 2006b. Mountain Bluebird (Sialia currucoides): a technical conservation assessment. 

[Online]. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/mountainbluebird.pdf. [Accessed January, 2010] 

Wood, Christian & Callie K. Knipmeyer. Global climate change and environmental stewardship. 

Ruminant Livestock Producers. Agricultural Education, University of Missouri. 6 p. 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. 1997. Grazing Best Management Practices. 

Wyoming Nonpoint Source Management Plan. Cheyenne, WY. 

Wyoming Range Service Team. 2001. Wyoming Rangeland Monitoring Guide: A Cooperative and 

Voluntary Approach to Monitoring Rangelands. Wyoming Department of Agriculture. June, 2001. 

Zimmerman, T.J. 2004. Effects of fire on the nutritional ecology of selected ungulates in the Southern 

Black Hills, South Dakota, pp. 234-235. Brookings, SD South Dakota State University. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 292
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 293

CHAPTER 5 GLOSSARY 

Access - The opportunity to approach, enter, and make use of public or private land. 

Activity - A measure, course of action, or treatment that is undertaken to directly or indirectly produce, 

enhance, or maintain forest and rangeland outputs or achieve administrative or environmental quality 

objectives. 

Adaptive Management - A type of natural resource management in which decisions are made as part of an 

ongoing process. Adaptive management involves testing, monitoring, evaluating, and incorporating new 

knowledge into management approaches based on scientific findings and the needs of society. Results are used 

to modify management policy. 

Adaptive Management (as defined in this EIS) - Adaptive management is defined as a process where land 

managers implement management practices that are designed to meet LRMP standards and guidelines, and 

would likely achieve the desired conditions in a timely manner. If monitoring shows that desired conditions, as 

described by LRMP Direction, are not being met, then an alternate set of management actions, the effects of 

which are analyzed in this EA, would be implemented to achieve the desired results. 

Adjustment - Change in animal numbers, seasons of use, kinds or classes of animals, or management 

practices as warranted by specific conditions. 

Administrative Use - Use authorized by Forest Service officials to complete management functions and activities. 

Administrative Wetland - These sites are considered to be wetlands for administrative purposes. However, 

having been delineated based on remote sensing technology, these sites may not meet all criteria (hydrophytic 

vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology) to be considered jurisdictional wetlands. 

Affected Environment - The biological and physical environment that may be changed by proposed actions 

and the relationship of people to that environment. 

Allocation - The assignment of a land area to a particular use or uses to achieve management goals and objectives. 

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 System lands, including national grasslands. 

Allotment Management Plan (AMP) - The document containing the action program needed to manage the 

range resource for livestock utilization, and possibly wildlife utilization, while considering the soil, watershed, 

wildlife, recreation, timber, and other resources in a range allotment. 

Allowable Use – 1) The degree of utilization considered desirable and attainable on various parts of a ranch or 

allotment considering the present nature and condition of the resource, management objectives, and levels of 

management. 2) The amount of forage planned to be used to accelerate range improvement. 

Alternative - A combination of management prescriptions applied in specific amounts and locations to 

achieve a desired management emphasis as expressed in goals and objectives. One of several policies, plans, or 

projects proposed for decision-making. An alternative need not substitute for another in all respects. 

Animal Unit Month (AUM) - The amount of feed or forage required by an animal-unit for one month. 

Animal-Month - A month's tenure upon the rangeland by one animal. Must specify kind and class of animal. 

Note: This term is not synonymous with animal unit month (AUM). 

Animal-Unit - Considered to be a mature 1,000-pound cow, either dry or with a calf less than six months old, 

based on an average daily forage consumption of 26 pounds dry matter per day. 

Annual (plant) - A plant that completes its life cycle and dies in one year or less. 

Aquatic Ecosystem - An ecosystem (biological and physical components and their interactions) in which 

water is the principal medium. Examples include wetlands, streams, reservoirs, and areas with plants or 

animals suited to either permanently or seasonally inundated soils. 

Archeological Resource - Any physical remains of past human life or activities. 

Available Forage - That portion of the forage production that is accessible for use by a specified kind or class 

of grazing animal. 

Available Lands - Those portions of the national forest or national grassland not administratively excluded 

from timber harvest or livestock grazing. 

Base Property - Those lands in a ranching enterprise that are owned and required to hold a term grazing 

permit. 

Benchmarks – Benchmarks are reference points that are sensitive to management changes. These are the 

small areas where long-term trend studies are installed and maintained so that the manager can assess the 

resource impacts from management. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 294

Best Available Science – “Best Available Science” was considered in analysis for the range management 

resources by reviewing information from the following sources: 1) Black Hills National Forest Monitoring 

Reports; 2) Phase II Final EIS, applicable supporting documents, and applicable literature references; 3) 

applicable research in cited works which represents a reasonable cross-section of the total range available, 

including responsible opposing views, sufficient to professionally evaluate the effects of this proposal; 4) 

applicable Forest-wide species assessments; 5) applicable Regional species assessments; and 6) literature 

sources offered in comments provided on this project analysis. 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) - Land management methods, measures or practices intended to 

minimize or reduce water pollution as well as practices that result in healthy ecosystems. Usually, BMPs are 

applied as a system of practices rather than a single practice. BMPs are selected based on site-specific 

conditions that reflect natural background conditions and political, social, economic, and technical feasibility. 

Biennial (plant) - A plant that lives for two years, usually flowering and fruiting only in the second year and 

then dying. 

Big Game - Certain wildlife that may be hunted for sport under state laws and regulations, including elk, mule 

and white-tail deer, turkey, and bighorn sheep. 

Biological Diversity - The full variety of life in an area, including the ecosystems, plant and animal 

communities, species and genes, and the processes through which individual organisms interact with one

another and their environments. Emphasis is on the diversity of native or endemic species. 

Botanical Area - A unit of land that contains plant specimens, plant groups, or plant communities that are 

significant because of their form, color, occurrence, habitat, location, life history, arrangement, ecology, rarity, 

or other features. 

Browse - Twigs, leaves, and young shoots of trees and shrubs upon which animals feed: in particular, those 

shrubs that are utilized by some livestock and big game animals for food. 

Brush barriers – Piles of logging slash, brush, stumps or other natural woody material that has been placed on 

the ground around sensitive sites (e.g. archeological sites) to exclude livestock. 

Candidate Species – Species for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has on file sufficient information 

on biological vulnerability and threat(s) to support issuance of a proposed rule to list the species for protection 

under the Endangered Species Act. 

Capable Rangeland - The potential of an area of land to produce resources, supply goods and services and 

allow resource uses under an assumed set of management practices and at given levels of management 

intensity. Capability depends on current conditions and site conditions such as climate, slope, landform, soils, 

and geology, as well as the application of management practices such as silviculture or protection from fire, 

insects, and disease. 

Carrying Capacity - The maximum possible stocking rate that is consistent with maintaining or improving 

vegetation or related resources. It may vary from year to year in the same area due to fluctuating forage 

production. Also called grazing capacity. 

Carrying Capacity (Wildlife and Livestock Grazing) - The maximum number of animals that can be 

supported in a given environment without deteriorating that environment. 

Cattleguard - A device or structure, at points where roads or railroads cross a fence line, that is so designed 

that vehicular travel is uninterrupted but crossing by all kinds of livestock is restricted. 

CFR - Code of Federal Regulations. 

Class of Animal - Description of age and/or sex-group for a particular kind of animal. Example: cow, calf, 

yearling, ewe, doe, fawn, etc. 

Cold-water Fishery - Steam and lake waters that support predominately cold-water species of game or food 

fishes, which have maximum, sustained water-temperature tolerances of about 70 degrees Fahrenheit in the 

summer. 

Community (Biological) - Any assembly of organisms living together. 

Community (Social) - The people who reside in one locality and are subject to the same laws or who have 

common interests, etc. 

Community Stability - The capacity of community to absorb and cope with change without major hardship to 

institutions or groups within the community. 

Community Type – An aggregation of all plant communities with similar structure and floristic composition. 

A unit of vegetation within a classification with no particular successional status inferred. A taxonomic unit of 

vegetation classification referencing existing vegetation. 

Conservation - The aggregate of practices and customs to perpetuate sustained yield of renewable resources 

and prevent waste of nonrenewable resources. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 295

Conservation Practices - Required land use practices on the national grasslands that are imposed upon the 

persons or organizations holding grazing permits (including grazing agreements) in order to protect, improve, 

develop, and administer the land and thus assist in furthering the program of land conservation and good land 

utilization. 

Consumptive Uses - Uses of a resource that reduce the supply. Examples include irrigation, domestic and 

industrial water use, grazing, and timber harvest. 

Continuous Grazing - The grazing of a specific unit by livestock throughout a year. 

Cool-Season Plant - A plant that generally makes the major portion of its growth during the late fall, winter, 

and early spring. Cool-season species generally exhibit the C3 photosynthetic pathway. 

Cost - The negative or adverse effects or expenditures resulting from an action. Costs may be monetary, social, 

physical, or environmental in nature. 

Cost Efficiency - The usefulness of specified inputs (costs) to produce specified outputs (benefits). In 

measuring cost efficiency, some outputs, including environmental, economic, or social impacts, are not

assigned monetary values but are achieved at specific levels in the least-cost manner. Cost efficiency is usually 

measured using present net value, although use of benefit-cost ratios and rates of return may be appropriate. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) - An advisory council to the President established by the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 

Cover Type - The vegetative species that dominates a site. Cover types are named for one plant species or 

non-vegetative condition presently (not potentially) dominant, using canopy or foliage cover as the measure of 

dominance. In several cases, sites with more than one dominant species have been lumped together into one 

cover type. Co-dominance is not necessarily implied. 

Cover/Forage Ratio - The ratio of tree cover (usually conifer types) to foraging areas, such as natural 

openings. 

Cross Fence - A fence that divides an allotment or pasture into smaller units. 

Cultural Resources - See Heritage Resources. 

Cumulative Impact - The impact on the environment that results from the incremental effect of the action 

when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of the source (federal 

or nonfederal agencies, individuals). Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively 

significant actions taking place over time. 

Deciduous (Plant) - Plant parts, particularly leaves, that are shed at regular intervals or at a given stage of 

development; that is, a deciduous plant regularly loses or sheds its leaves. 

Decision Documents - Documents that provide the criteria and information used in the formulation and 

evaluation of alternatives and the preferred alternative. 

Decreaser (Plant) - Plant species of the original or climax vegetation that will decrease in relative amount 

with continued disturbance (heavy defoliation, fire, and drought) to the norm. Some agencies use this only in 

relation to response to overgrazing. 

Deferment - Delay of livestock grazing on an area for an adequate time to allow plant reproduction, 

establishment of new plants, or restoration of vigor of existing plants. 

Deferred Rotation - To discontinue grazing on various parts of a range in succeeding years, allowing each 

part of the range to rest successively during the growing season to permit seed production, establishment of 

seedlings, or restoration of plant vigor. Each rested part of the range is grazed during the year. At least two, but 

usually three or more, separate grazing units are required. 

Defoliation - The removal of plant leaves by grazing or browsing, cutting, chemical defoliant, or natural 

phenomena, such as hail, fire, or frost. 

Demand - The amount of output that users are willing to take at a specified price, time period, and conditions 

of sale. 

Dependent Communities - Communities whose social, economic, or political life would become discernibly 

different in important respects if market or no market outputs from the national forest or national grasslands 

were significantly disrupted. 

Desired Condition - A portrayal of the land or resource conditions that are expected to result if goals and 

objectives are fully achieved. 

Desired Plant Community - A plant community that produces the kind, proportion, and amount of vegetation 

necessary for meeting or exceeding the land use plan/activity plan objectives established for an ecological site. 

The desired plant community must be consistent with the site's capability to produce the desired vegetation 

through management, land treatment, or a combination of the two. 

Desired Plant Species - Species that contribute positively to the management objectives. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 296

Deteriorated Range - Range where vegetation and soils have significantly departed from the natural potential. 

Corrective management measures, such as seeding, would change the designation from deteriorated range to 

some other term. 

Developed Recreation - This type of recreation is dependent on facilities provided to enhance recreational 

opportunities in concentrated use areas. Examples include campgrounds and picnic areas. Facilities in these 

areas might include roads, parking lots, picnic tables, toilets, drinking water and buildings. 

Developed Recreation Sites - Relatively small, distinctly defined areas where facilities are provided for 

concentrated public use, such as campgrounds, picnic areas, and swimming beaches. 

Direct Effects - Environmental effects caused by an action and that occur at the same time and place. 

Dispersal - Leaving an area of birth, origin, or activity for another area. 

Dispersed Recreation - This type of recreational use requires few, if any, improvements and may occur over a 

wide area. This type of recreation involves activities related to roads, trails and undeveloped waterways, and 

beaches. The activities do not necessarily take place on or adjacent to a road, trail, or waterway, only in 

conjunction with them. Activities are often day-use oriented and include hunting, fishing, boating, off-road 

vehicle use, hiking, and others. 

District Ranger - The official responsible for administering the National Forest System lands, including 

national grasslands, on a ranger district. 

Disturbance - A discrete event, either natural or human induced, that causes a change in the existing condition 

of an ecological system. 

Diversity - Diversity refers to the distribution and abundance of different plant and animal communities and 

species within the area covered by land and resource management plans. This term is derived from the 

National Forest Management Act (NFMA). This term is not synonymous with biological diversity. 

Domestic - Refers to those animals and plants that are under the control of humans throughout their life cycle.

Animals whose breeding is controlled by humans. 

Drift Fence - An open-ended fence used to retard or alter the natural movement of livestock. Generally used in 

connection with natural barriers. 

Drought – Any year or sequence of years when annual precipitation amounts are less than 75% below 

average. 

Dry Meadow - A meadow dominated by grasses and characterized by soils that become moderately dry by 

mid-summer. 

Ecological Diversity - The variety of ecosystems occurring within a given landscape. 

 Economic Efficiency - The usefulness of inputs (costs) to produce outputs (benefits) and effects when all 

costs and benefits that can be identified and valued are included in the computations. Economic efficiency is 

usually measured using present net value, though use of benefit-cost ratios and rates-of-return may sometimes 

be appropriate. 

Ecosystem – 1) 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. 2) A community of 

organisms and its environment functioning as an ecological unit in nature. 

Ecosystem Health - A condition where the parts and functions of an ecosystem are sustained over time and 

where the system's capacity for self-repair is maintained, such that goals for uses, values, and services of the 

ecosystem are met. 

Ecosystem Management - Scientifically based land and resource management that integrates ecological 

capabilities with social values and economic relationships to produce, restore, or sustain ecosystem integrity 

and desired conditions, uses, products, values, and services over the long term. 

Effects - Physical, biological, social, and economic results (expected or experienced) resulting from 

achievement of outputs. Effects can be direct, indirect, and cumulative. 

Effects (Heritage Resources) - Impacts to the characteristics that qualify a heritage resource for the National 

Register of Historic Places. These can include alterations in location, setting, use design, materials, feeling, 

and association. Adverse effects include: 

Physical destruction or damage. 

Isolation from or alteration of setting. 

Introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements. 

Physical deterioration from neglect or from any action. 

Transfer, lease, or sale. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 297

Effectiveness Monitoring – This monitoring asks the question: “Did the management practices do what we 

wanted them to do; did they meet the objective?” An example is trend studies to determine whether vegetation 

is moving towards the desired plant community. It is long-term monitoring. It determines whether management 

practices are effective in moving the allotment towards desired condition as described in the Forest Plan and 

subsequent AMP. 

Eligible (Heritage Resources) - Indicates that a specific heritage resource qualifies for or is already listed in 

the National Register of Historic Places. 

Endemic – Plants or animals that occur naturally in an area and whose distribution is relatively limited to a 

particular locality. 

Environment - All the conditions, circumstances, and influences surrounding and affecting the development 

of an organism or group of organisms. 

Environmental Analysis - An analysis of alternative actions and their predictable short- and long-term 

environmental effects, which include physical, biological, economic, social, and environmental design factors 

and their interactions. 

Environmental Impact Statement - A public document, for which a federal agency is responsible, that serves 

to disclose the effects of a federal action, and alternatives, on the human environment. It is used by federal 

officials to plan actions and make decisions. 

Erosion - The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice, gravity, or other geological 

activities. 

Executive Order - An order or regulation issued by the President or some administrative authority under 

presidential direction. 

Exotic - Not native to the place where it is found. Often in reference to a specific race or variety of an 

organism that has been transplanted to a new region. 

Exotic Species - An organism that exists in a free state in an area in which it is not native. Also refers to 

animals from outside the country in which they are held captive or in free-ranging populations. 

Extinction - Disappearance of a taxon of organisms from existence in all regions. 

Extirpated - The elimination of a species from a particular area. 

Fair Market Value - The amount or value for which, in all probability, a property would be sold by a 

knowledgeable owner willing but not obligated to sell to a knowledgeable purchaser who desires but is not 

obligated to buy. 

Fauna – All vertebrate and invertebrate animal species. 

Fertilizer - Mineral nutrients added to the substrate of plants to enhance growth and vitality. 

Fire Suppression - All the work and activities connected with fire-extinguishing operations beginning with 

discovery and continuing until the fire is completely extinguished. 

Fire-dependent Systems - Forests, grasslands, and other ecosystems historically composed of species of 

plants that evolved with and are maintained by fire regimes. 

Floodplain - The area adjacent to a stream/river channel effective in carrying flow, within which carrying 

capacity must be preserved and where the flood hazard is generally highest; that is, where flood depths and 

velocities are the greatest (FSH 2520). 

Flora – All plant species. 

Forage - Vegetation used for food by wildlife and livestock, particularly ungulate wildlife and domestic 

livestock. 

Forage Production - The weight of forage that is produced within a designated period of time on a given area. 

The weight may be expressed as green, air dry, or oven dry. The term may also be modified as to time of 

production such as annual, current year, or seasonal forage production. 

Forage Reserve – Standing forage specifically maintained for future or emergency use. 

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 Development Roads - A Forest road under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service. Forest Development 

Roads are not intended to meet the transportation needs of the public at large. Generally, these are roads 

constructed to a standard to serve expected traffic generated by resource management. Although generally 

open and available for public use, the Forest Service may restrict or control use to meet specific management 

direction. 

Forest Development Trails - As defined in 36 CFR 212.1 and 261.2, those trails wholly or partly within or 

adjacent to and serving national forests and national grasslands that have been included in the Forest

Development Transportation Plan. A trail is a pathway for purposes of travel by foot, stock, or trail vehicle. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 298

Forest Plan (Forest Land and Resource Management Plan) - A document that guides natural resource 

management and establishes standards and guidelines for a national forest or national grassland. Required by 

the National Forest Management Act. 

Forest Supervisor - Official responsible for administering any particular national forest. Forest supervisors 

report to regional foresters. 

Forest System Roads - Roads that are part of the Forest Development Transportation System, which includes 

all existing and planned roads, as well as other special and terminal facilities designated as part of the Forest 

Development Transportation System. 

Forested Range - Forestland that produces, at least periodically, sufficient under story vegetation suitable for 

forage and that can be grazed without significantly impairing wood production and other forest values. 

Fragmentation - The breakup of a large land area (such as a grassland) into smaller patches isolated by areas 

converted to a different land type. The opposite of connectivity. 

FSH - Forest Service Handbook 

FSM - Forest Service Manual 

Fuel Break - A zone in which fuel quantity has been reduced or altered to provide a position for wildfire 

suppression. Fuel breaks are designated or constructed before the outbreak of a fire. Fuel breaks may consist of 

one or a combination of the following: natural barriers, constructed fuel breaks, and human-made barriers. 

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. 

Synonymous with 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. 

Geographic Information System (GIS) - A spatial type of information management system that provides for 

the entry, storage, manipulation, retrieval, and display of spatially oriented data. 

Greenline Vegetation: The Greenline is the first perennial vegetation that forms a lineal grouping of 

community types on or near the water’s edge. Most often occurs at or slightly below bankfull stage (Winward 

2000). It is found only along streams with defined channels. 

Goal - A concise statement that describes a desired condition to be achieved sometime in the future. A goal is 

normally expressed in broad, general terms that are timeless in that there is no specific date by which the goal 

is to be achieved (36 CFR 219.3). The Region 2 Desk Guide has this to say about goals: "Desired conditions 

and processes are measurable, have a timeless nature, and describe a resource condition or ecological process. 

In the first round of (land and resource management) planning, these statements were often termed 'goals.' 

They describe the conditions or processes we expect to achieve through resource management. Complete 

accomplishment of desired conditions is not mandatory during the current planning phase, but it is our ultimate 

intent." 

Graminoid - Grass or grass-like plant, such as Poa, Carex, or Juncus species 

Grass - A member of the grass family, Poaceae. 

Grassland - Any land on which the dominant plants are grasses or on which grasses originally dominated. 

Grazing - The act of animals consuming plants on range or pasture. 

Grazing Capacity – The amount of livestock use that can be allowed while meeting basic resource needs and 

associated allotment objectives. The rate of stocking allows resource conditions to meet or be moving towards 

Forest Plan goals and objectives. 

Grazing Distribution - Dispersion of livestock or wild herbivores grazing within a given area. 

Grazing Fee - A charge, usually on a monthly basis, for grazing use by a given kind of animal. 

Grazing Land - An area of rangeland, public or private, that is used by animals for grazing. 

Grazing Permit - Official, written permission to graze a specified number, kind, and class of livestock for a 

specific period on a defined range allotment. 

Grazing Season – 1) A period of grazing to obtain optimum use of the forage resource. 2) On public lands, an 

established period for which grazing permits are issued. 

Grazing System - A specialization of grazing management that defines systematically recurring periods of 

grazing and deferment for two or more pastures or management units. Some examples are: deferred grazing, 

rotation grazing, deferred-rotation grazing, and short-duration grazing. 

Grazing Trespass - The grazing of livestock on a range area without proper authority and resulting from a 

willful or negligent act. 

Grazing Unit - An area of rangeland, public or private, that is grazed as an allotment or pasture. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 299

Grazing, Short-duration - A grazing system in which animals are concentrated on less than one-half of the 

total land area and the lengths of deferment exceed the lengths of grazing. 

 Ground Cover - The percentage of material, other than bare ground, covering the land surface. It may include 

live and standing dead vegetation, litter, cobble, gravel, stones, and bedrock. Ground cover plus bare ground 

would total 100 percent. 

Groundwater - Water within the Earth that supplies wells and springs. Specifically, water in the zone of 

saturation where all openings in soils and rocks are filled. The upper surface level forms the water table. 

Growing Season - In temperate climates, that portion of the year when temperature and moisture permit plant 

growth. 

Guideline - Advisable actions that should be followed to achieve grassland or forest goals and objectives. 

Deviations from guidelines must be analyzed during project-level analysis and be documented in a project 

decision document but do not require management plan amendments. 

Habitat – The sum total of environmental conditions of a specific place occupied by a wildlife species or a 

population of such species. 

Habitat Capability – The capacity of a vegetative community to support selected wildlife and fish species for 

all or a part of its life cycle. Habitat capacity is normally expressed as projected populations or densities of 

animals. 

Habitat Effectiveness - As used in this document, habitat effectiveness refers to the capability of an area to 

support big game based on forage, cover, open roads, and the spatial distribution of the three factors, 

regardless of the time of year. 

Habitat Suitability – A measure of current habitat quality relative to the local biological potential of an area 

to provide habitat for a species. Habitat suitability is usually expressed as low, moderate or high or is 

quantitatively presented as an index value scaled from 0 (unsuitable) to 1.0 (optimum habitat). 

Hardened Sites (Recreation) - Developed recreation sites where techniques have been used to protect natural 

resources (soil, water, vegetation, etc.) from overuse. For example, vehicles may be confined to roads by 

barriers or gravel, pavement, or soil additives may be placed on roads, walkways, and under picnic tables. 

Hardened Water Crossings – Livestock watering sites where techniques have been used to protect stream 

banks and stream beds from sloughing and erosion. For example, livestock may be confined to one short 

section of a stream where rock, gravel, or concrete has been placed on the banks of the stream. 

Herb - A plant with one or more stems that dies back to the ground each year. 

Herbicide - A chemical substance used for killing plants. 

Herbivore - An animal that subsists principally or entirely on plants or plant material. 

Herd - An assemblage of animals usually of the same species. 

Heritage Resources - The physical remains and conceptual content or context of an area. Physical remains 

may include artifacts, structures, landscape modifications, rock art, trails, or roads. Conceptual content/context 

includes the setting for legendary, historic, or prehistoric events, such as a sacred area for American Indians. 

Historic Property - Any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in or 

eligible for inclusion in the National Register. This term includes artifacts, records, and remains related to and 

located within such properties. 

Home Range - The geographic area within which an animal restricts its activities. 

Human Environment - Includes the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people within 

that environment. 

Hydrologic Cycle - The ecological cycle that moves water from the air, by precipitation, to the earth and back 

to the atmosphere. A variety of processes are involved, including evaporation, runoff, infiltration, percolation, 

storage, and transpiration. 

IDT - Interdisciplinary Team . See Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team). 

Implementation - Those activities necessary to initiate the actions in the approved land and resource 

management plan. 

Implementation Monitoring – This type asks the question: “Did we do what we said we were going to do?” 

It includes allotment inspections and utilization estimates. It is considered short-term monitoring. It determines 

whether standards, guidelines, and management practices are implemented as detailed in the Forest Plan and 

subsequently AMP. 

Inaccessible Range – Rangeland that is not grazed by livestock because of barriers, distance to water or steep 

slopes. 

Increaser (Plant) - Plant species of the original vegetation that increase in relative amount, at least for a time, 

under continued disturbance (heavy defoliation, fire, drought) to the norm. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 300

Indigenous Species - Animals or plants that originated in the area in which they are found; for example, 

animals or plants that were not introduced after frontier settlement of the Northern Great Plains and that 

naturally occur on the Northern Great Plains. 

Indirect Effects - Environmental effects caused by an action but resulting later in time or farther away in 

place, yet which are still reasonably foreseeable. 

Infrastructure - The facilities, utilities, and transportation systems needed to meet public and administrative 

needs. 

In-holdings - Lands within the proclaimed boundaries of a national forest or national grassland that are owned 

by some other agency, organization, or individual. 

Insecticide - A chemical or biological agent formulated to kill insects. 

Instream Flows - The minimum water volume (cubic feet per second) in each stream necessary to meet 

seasonal stream flow requirements for maintaining aquatic ecosystems, visual quality, recreational 

opportunities, and other uses. 

Intensity (Fire Management) - 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. 

Intensive Grazing Management – Grazing management that attempts to increase production or utilization per 

unit area or production per animal through a relative increase in stocking rates, forage utilization, labor, 

resources, or capital. Intensive grazing management is not synonymous with rotation grazing. Grazing 

management can be intensified by using any one or more of a number of grazing methods that use relatively 

more labor or capital resources. 

Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team) - A group of people 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 – 1) A stream that flows only 50 to 90 percent of the year when it receives water from 

some surface source, such as melting snow. 2) A stream that does not flow continuously, as when water losses 

from evaporation or seepage exceed the available stream flow. 

Introduced Species - A species not a part of the original fauna or flora of the area in question. 

Invader (Plant) - Plant species that were absent in undisturbed portions of the original vegetation of a specific 

range site and will invade or increase following disturbance or continued heavy grazing. 

Invasive Plant - A species that displays rapid growth and spread, free from natural controls and enhanced by 

abundant seed production and germination. 

Irretrievable Commitments - Applies to losses of production or use of renewable natural resources for a 

period of time. For example, road construction leads to an irretrievable loss of the productivity of the land 

under which the road is located. If the road is later obliterated, the land may eventually become productive 

again. The production lost is irretrievable, but the action is not irreversible. 

Irreversible Commitments - Decisions causing changes that cannot be reversed. For example, if an area is 

mined, that area cannot, at a later date, be allocated to some other resource activities, such as Wilderness. Once 

mined, the ability of that area to meet Wilderness criteria, for instance, has been irreversibly lost. Irreversible 

commitments often apply to some non-renewable resource, such as minerals and heritage resources. 

Key Area - 1) An area selected to monitor the effects of management activities on ecosystem health. Examples 

may include, but are not limited to, uplands, riparian areas, and valley bottoms. 2) That portion of a pasture or 

grazing unit which is selected as a monitoring point because of its location, use, or grazing value. 

Land Exchange - The conveyance of nonfederal land or interests to the United States in exchange for 

National Forest System land, including national grasslands, or interests in such land. 

Land Unit - A mapped land type polygon or a mapped soil unit. 

Landowner - Person who has title to land recognized by the prevailing legal system. 

Landscape - The landforms of a region in aggregate. 

Listed Species - Any species of fish, wildlife, or plant officially designated as endangered or threatened by the 

Secretary of the Interior or Commerce. 

Litter - A surface layer of loose organic debris consisting of freshly fallen or slightly decomposed organic 

materials. 

Livestock - Domestic animals. 

Livestock Use Permit - Used to document specific animal numbers, class, and seasons of use under a 

specified management plan for a given period (10 years). 

Logging - Harvest of trees of given size from a forest. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 301

Management - The organization of actions designed to reach a given set of objectives. 

Management Area – Area of the grassland that are managed for a particular emphasis. These areas have 

common management direction and may be non contiguous on the national forest or national grassland. 

Management Indicator Species – A plant or animal species selected because their status is believed to (1) be 

indicative of the status of a larger functional group of species, (2) be reflective of the status of a key habitat 

type, or (3) act as an early warning of an anticipated stressor to ecological integrity. The key characteristic of a 

MIS species is that its status and trend provide insights to the integrity of the larger ecological system to which 

it belongs. 

Management Indicators (Fish and Wildlife) - Plant or animal species or habitat components selected in a 

planning process used to monitor the effects of planned management activities on populations of wildlife and 

fish, including those that are socially or economically important. 

Marginal Land - Land of questionable physical or economic capabilities for sustaining a specific use. 

Market Value - The unit price of an output normally exchanged in a market after at least one stage of 

production, expressed in terms of what people are willing to pay as evidenced by market transactions. 

Meadow – 1) An area of perennial herbaceous vegetation, usually grass or glasslike, used primarily for hay 

production. 2) Openings in forests and grasslands of exceptional productivity in arid regions, usually resulting 

from high water content of the soil (streamside situations, areas having a perched water table). 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) - A legal agreement between the Forest Service, other agencies, 

private parties, or individuals resulting from consultation between them that states specific measures they will 

follow to accomplish a project. A memorandum of understanding is not a fund-obligating document. 

Migration - The movement of genotypes (as individuals) into or out of a population. 

Mitigate - To lessen the severity. 

Mitigation - Includes avoiding an impact by not taking certain actions; minimizing impacts by limiting the 

degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or 

restoring the affected environment; reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and 

maintenance operations during the life of the action; and compensating for the impact by replacing or 

providing substitute resources or environments. 

Mitigation (Heritage Resources) - Actions taken to reduce or eliminate adverse effects caused to heritage 

resources. Avoidance is not considered a mitigation measure. 

Monitoring and Evaluation - The sample collection and analysis of information regarding LRMP 

management practices to determine how well objectives have been met, as well as the effects of those 

management practices on the land and environment. There are three types of monitoring – see Implementation, 

Effectiveness, and Validation Monitoring. 

Monoculture - The cultivation of a single crop to the exclusion of other land uses. 

Motorized Recreation - A recreational opportunity provided through the use of a motorized vehicle. This 

includes travel on and off highways, Forest roads, and four-wheel-drive primitive roads and trails. Travel 

regulations may be established to protect forest and grassland resources, to minimize use conflicts, and to 

promote user safety. 

MOU - See Memorandum of Understanding. 

Multiple Use - According to the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, multiple use is the management of 

all the various renewable surface resources of the National Forest System, including national grasslands, so 

that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people. Such 

management makes the most judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources or related services 

over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing 

needs and conditions. Some lands will be used for less than all of the resources. Harmonious and coordinated 

management of the various resources is employed, each with the other, without impairment of the productivity 

of the land. Consideration is given to the relative values of the various resources and not necessarily the 

combination of uses that gives the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) - An act declaring a national policy to encourage 

productive harmony between people and their environment, to promote efforts that will prevent or eliminate 

damage to the environment and the biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of people and to enrich the 

understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the nation and to establish a 

Council on Environmental Quality. 

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) - A 1976 law that amended the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 

Resources Planning Act and requires the preparation of Regional and Forest Plans and regulations to guide 

forest plan development. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 302

National Forest System (NFS) Lands - Federal lands designated by Executive Order or statute as national 

forests, national grasslands, or purchase units, or other lands under the administration of the U.S. Forest 

Service. 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) - A list of heritage resources that have local, state, or national 

significance maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. 

National Wilderness Preservation System - All lands covered by the Wilderness Act and subsequent 

wilderness designations, irrespective of the department or agency having jurisdiction. 

Native - A plant or animal indigenous to a particular locality. 

Native Seed - Seeds of plants considered indigenous to the Northern Great Plains. 

Natural - Occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature. An area having undergone no, or at least

minimal, disturbance by anthropogenic forces. 

Natural Barrier - A natural feature that will restrict livestock movements, such as a dense stand of trees or 

downfall, or a feature that will stop the spread of fire, such as a talus slope, water course, or areas otherwise 

devoid of fuel. 

NEPA Process - Means all measures necessary for compliance with the requirements of Section 2 and Title I 

of NEPA. 

Niche - The ecological role of a species in a community. 

No Adverse Effect (Heritage Resources) - Any effect on a heritage resource that would not be considered 

harmful to those characteristics that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register of Historic 

Places. 

No Effect (Heritage Resources) - No effect to those characteristics that qualify the property for inclusion in 

the National Register of Historic Places. 

No Action Alternative - An alternative that maintains established trends or management direction. 

Non-consumptive Use - Those resources that do not reduce the supply. No consumptive uses of water include 

hydroelectric power generation, boating, swimming, etc. 

Nonmotorized Activities - Activities that do not incorporate the use of a motor, engine, or other nonliving 

power source. This includes such machines as aircraft, hovercraft, motorboats, automobiles, motor bikes, 

snowmobiles, bulldozers, chainsaws, rock drills, and generators. 

Non-point Source Pollution - Pollution whose source is not specific in location. The sources of the pollutant 

discharge are dispersed, not well-defined or constant. Examples include sediments from logging activities and 

runoff from agricultural chemicals. 

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 - A concise, time-specific statement of measurable, planned results that respond to pre-established 

goals. An objective forms the basis for further planning to define the precise steps to be taken and resources to 

be used in achieving identified goals. 

Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) or Off-Road Vehicle (ORV) - Any motorized vehicle designed for or capable 

of cross-country travel on or immediately over land, water, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural 

terrain. 

Operating Plan - A written plan, approved by a forest officer and prepared by those engaged in mining 

activity on the national forest or national grassland. It covers prospecting, exploration, or extraction activities 

that will take place on National Forest System lands, including national grasslands. 

Opportunity Cost - A foregone value. In this analysis, it is a cost calculated as the difference between present 

net value of the alternative and the present net value (PNV) of the maximum PNV increment. 

Outputs - The goods, end products, or services purchased, consumed, or utilized directly by people. Outputs 

are goods, services, products, and concerns produced by activities that are measurable and capable of being 

used to determine the effectiveness of programs and activities in meeting objectives. A broad term used to 

describe any result, product, or service that a process or activity actually produces. 

Overgrazing - Continued heavy grazing that exceeds the recovery capacity of the community and creates a 

deteriorated range. 

Overstocking - Placing a number of animals on a given area that will result in overuse if continued to the end 

of the planned grazing period. 

Overstory - The portion of vegetation in a forest that forms the uppermost foliage layer. 

Parturition Habitat - Habitat used by big game species during the birthing season. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 303

Pasture - A land area consisting of grass or other growing plants used as food by grazing animals. Also an 

area used for grazing, often enclosed and separated from other areas by fences, hedges, ditches, or walls. 

Perennial (plant) - A plant that lives for two or more years. 

Perennial Streams - Streams that flow continuously throughout most years. 

Permitted Grazing - Use of a National Forest System range allotment under the terms of a grazing permit. 

Permittee (Grazing) - One who holds a permit to graze livestock on state, federal, or certain privately owned 

lands. 

Pesticide - A chemical agent formulated to kill or suppress insects, plants, or animals. 

Pioneer Species - The first species or community to colonize or re-colonize a barren or disturbed area in 

primary or secondary succession. 

Planning Area - The area of the National Forest System, including national grasslands, covered by a Regional 

or Forest Plan. 

Planning Period - A time interval for which inputs and outputs are identified in a planning process. Current 

RPA and National Forest Plan intervals are five and ten years, respectively. 

Planning Questions - A major policy question of long-range significance, derived from the public issues and 

management concerns, to be addressed when selecting among alternative Forest plans. 

Planning Records - Documents and files that contain detailed information and decisions made in developing 

the Forest Plan. Available at the Forest Supervisor's Office. 

Planning Unit – Each individual national grassland and forest in the planning area. 

Plant Associations - A grouping of plants that have reached dynamic equilibrium with the local environmental 

conditions; equivalent to climax. On site, there is no evidence of replacement by other dominant plant species, 

and there is no evidence of serious disturbances. 

Plant Communities - Assemblages of plant species living in an area. A plant community is an organized unit 

to the extent that it has characteristics in addition to the individuals and populations and functions as a unit. 

Potential Natural Community (PNC) - A taxonomic unit of vegetation classification. The biotic community 

that would be established under present environmental conditions if all successional sequences were completed 

without additional human-caused disturbances. Natural disturbances, such as drought, flood, wildfire, grazing 

by native fauna, and insect and disease infestations, are inherent in the development of potential natural 

communities, which may include naturalized, non-native species. 

Preferred Alternative - The alternative recommended for implementation in the Forest Plan based on the 

evaluation completed in the planning process. 

Prehistoric Site - Archeology sites associated with American Indians and usually occurring before contact 

with Europeans. 

Prescribed Burning - Controlled application of fire to wild land 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, to produce the fire line intensity and rate of spread required to attain planned resource 

management objectives. 

Prescribed Fire - A fire burning with prescription, resulting from planned or unplanned ignition. 

Present Net Value (PNV) - The difference between the discounted value (benefits) of all outputs to which 

monetary values or established market prices are assigned and the total discounted costs of managing the 

planning area. 

Primary Grazing Areas - Areas that animals prefer to use and over which they will graze when management 

is limited. The area on which overuse will occur before secondary range is used when animals are allowed to 

shift for themselves. 

Productivity - The total quantity of organic material produced within a given period by organisms or the 

energy that this represents, such as gram-calories per square centimeter per year. The innate capacity of an 

environment to produce plant and animal life. The capacity of a soil to produce a certain kind of crop under a 

defined set of management conditions. 

Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) - Riparian/wetland areas achieve proper functioning condition when 

adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris is present to dissipate stream energy associated with high 

water flows. This reduces erosion; improves water quality; filters sediment; captures bed load; aids floodplain 

development; improves floodwater retention and groundwater recharge; develops root masses that stabilize 

stream banks against cutting action; develops diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide habitat 

and water depth, duration, and temperature necessary for fish production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses; 

and supports greater biodiversity. The functioning condition of riparian/wetland areas is a result of the 

interaction among geology, soil, water, and vegetation. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 304

Proposed Action - In terms of the National Environmental Policy Act, the project, activity, or action that a 

federal agency intends to implement or undertake and which is the subject of an environmental analysis. 

Proposed Species - Any species of fish, wildlife, or plant that is proposed by the Fish and Wildlife Service or 

the National Marine Fisheries Service for listing as threatened or endangered. 

Public - The people of an area, state, or nation that can be grouped together by a commonality of interests, 

values, beliefs, or life-style. 

Public Access - Usually refers to a road or trail route over which a public agency has secured a right-of-way 

for public use. 

Public Involvement - A Forest Service process designed to broaden the information base upon which agency 

decisions are made. It includes the following steps: Informing the public of Forest Service activities, plans, and 

decisions. Encouraging public understanding about the participation in the planning processes that lead to final 

decision-making. 

Public Issue - A subject or question of widespread public interest identified through public participation 

relating to management of National Forest System lands, including national grasslands. 

Quality Habitat – Habitat that is highly suitable for a plant or animal species or community based on the local 

biological site potential. 

Range - Any land supporting vegetation suitable for grazing including rangeland, grazeable woodland, and 

shrubland. 

Range 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 System lands, including national grasslands, 

and other associated lands administered by the Forest Service. 

Range Analysis - Systematic acquisition and evaluation of rangeland resources data needed for allotment 

management planning and overall land management. 

Range Betterment Funds - Funds established by Title IV, section 401 (b) (1), of the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 to be used for range improvement. This consists of 50 percent of all money received 

by the United States as fees for grazing livestock on the national forest and national grasslands in the 16 

contiguous western states. 

Range Condition – 1) A rangeland is considered to be in satisfactory condition when the desired condition is 

being met or short-term vegetative objectives are being achieved to move the rangeland toward the desired 

condition or trend. Unsatisfactory condition is when the desired condition is not being met and short-term 

vegetative objectives are not being achieved to move the rangeland toward the desired condition or trend. 2) 

Historically, range condition usually has been defined in one of two ways: (a) a generic term relating to present 

status of a unit of range in terms of specific values or potentials. Specific values or potentials must be stated or 

(b) the present state of vegetation of a range site in relation to the climax (natural potential) plant community 

for that site. It is an expression of the relative degree to which the kinds, proportions and amounts of plants in a 

plant community resemble that of the climax plant for the site. 

Range Development, Nonstructural - Any practice designed to improve range condition or facilitate more 

efficient utilization of the range. 

Range Development, Structural - Any structure or excavation to facilitate management of range or livestock. 

Range Management - A distinct discipline founded on ecological principles and dealing with the use of 

rangelands and range resources for a variety of purposes. These purposes include use as watersheds, wildlife 

habitat, grazing by livestock, recreation, and aesthetics, as well as associated uses. Two kinds of range 

management can be described: Extensive range management carries the goal to control livestock numbers 

within the present capacity of the range, but little or no attempt is made to achieve uniform distribution of 

livestock. Range management investments are minimal and only to the extent needed to maintain stewardship 

of the range in the presence of grazing. Past resource damage is corrected and resources are protected from 

natural catastrophes. Intensive range management carries the goal to maintain full plant vigor and to achieve 

full livestock utilization of available forage. This goal is achieved through implementation of improved 

grazing systems and construction and installation of range improvements. Cultural practices, such as seeding 

and fertilizing, to improve forage quality and quantity may be used. 

Range Readiness - Indicators used to determine rangeland readiness are soils and vegetation conditions. 

Rangelands are generally ready for livestock grazing when soils have become firm after winter and spring 

precipitation, and when plants have reached the defined stage of growth at which grazing many begin under 

the specific management plan without long-lasting damage 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 305

Rangeland - Lands on which the native vegetation is predominately grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or shrubs 

suitable for grazing or browsing usage. Includes lands revegetated naturally or artificially to provide a forage 

cover that is managed like native vegetation. 

Rangeland Health - The degree to which the integrity of the soil, the vegetation, the water, and air as well as 

the ecological processes of the rangeland ecosystem is balanced and sustained. Integrity is defined as: 

Maintenance of the structure and functional attributes characteristic of a particular locale, including normal 

variability. 

Ranger District - Administrative subdivision of the national forest or national grassland supervised by a 

district ranger who reports to a forest supervisor. 

Rare Communities - A ranking system used by The Nature Conservancy to assess relative endangerment. 

Community types are ranked on a global, national, and state scale of 1 to 5. A rank of G1 (Global 1) indicates 

that a community type is critically imperiled globally to rarity, endemism, and/or threats. A rank of G5 

indicates little to no risk of global elimination. Similar definitions apply to national and state rankings. 

Regeneration - The renewal of a tree crop, whether by natural or artificial means. This term may also refer to 

the crop itself. 

Region - An administrative unit within the National Forest System lands, which includes national grasslands. 

The United States is divided into nine geographic regions. Each region has a headquarter office and is

supervised by a regional forester. Each region contains national forests and sometimes national grasslands or 

other lands administered by the Forest Service. 

Regional Forester - The official responsible for administering a single region. 

Rehabilitation - Actions taken to restore or reclaim site productivity, water quality, or other values. 

Renewable Resources - Resources that can be used indefinitely when the use rate does not exceed the ability 

to renew the supply. However, in the RPA program, the term is used to describe those matters within the scope 

of the responsibilities and authorities of the Forest Service as required by the Forest And Rangeland 

Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974. Consequently, the renewable resources include: timber, range, 

minerals, wildlife and fish, water, recreation, and Wilderness. 

Residual Cover – Standing or lodged herbaceous vegetation left after livestock grazing and killing frost. 

Resource Values - The tangible and intangible worth of forest and grassland resources. 

Responsible Official - The Forest Service employee who has the delegated authority to make a specific 

decision. 

Rest - To leave an area of rangeland ungrazed by livestock or unharvested by mechanical methods for at least 

one year (12 consecutive months). 

Rest Rotation (Livestock Grazing) - An intensive system of management where grazing is deferred on 

various parts of the range during succeeding years, allowing the deferred part complete rest for one year. At 

least two, but usually three or more, separate grazing units are required. 

Restoration - Holistic actions taken to modify an ecosystem to achieve desired, healthy, and functioning 

conditions and processes. Generally refers to the process of enabling the system to resume its resiliency to 

disturbances. 

Revegetation - The reestablishment and development of plant cover. This may take place naturally through the 

reproductive processes of the existing flora or artificially through reforestation or reseeding. 

Rhizome - A horizontal underground stem, usually sending out roots and above-ground shoots from the nodes. 

Riparian - The bands and adjacent areas of water bodies, water courses, seeps, and springs whose waters 

provide soil moisture in excess of what is locally available. This results in a moister habitat than that found on 

the contiguous flood plains and uplands. Refers to land bordering a stream, lake, or tidewater, and generally 

implies a particular type of habitat physiognomy often characterized by an over story of trees or other large 

woody plants with a complex under story of other woody and/or herbaceous species. 

Riparian Area - Areas of the aquatic and riparian ecosystems with distinctive resource values and 

characteristics that are geographically delineated (FSM 2526). Ecological units with distinctive vegetation, 

landform, soil, and water regimes consisting of the aquatic ecosystem and wet-to-moist areas located between 

aquatic ecosystems and adjacent terrestrial ecosystems. Includes floodplains and wetlands. Riparian 

ecosystems are distinguished by soil characteristics and distinctive existing or potential vegetation 

communities that are adapted to soils with consistently high levels of moisture. 

Riparian Communities - Repeating, classified, defined and recognizable assemblages of plant or animal 

communities associated with riparian areas. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 306

Riparian Ecosystem - A transition between the aquatic ecosystem and the adjacent upland terrestrial 

ecosystem. It is identified by soil characteristics and by distinctive vegetative communities that require free or 

unbounded water. 

Risk Assessment - Process of gathering data and making assumptions to estimate short- and long-term effects 

on human health or the environment from particular products or activities. 

Road - A general term denoting a way with at least two-wheel tracks for purposes of travel by vehicles greater 

than 50 inches in width. 

Road Density - Road density refers to the miles of road per square mile. There are different road densities 

depending on what road types are being considered. 

Forest Development Road Density: The miles of Forest Development Roads per square mile. This is the road 

density of the road system managed by the Forest Service for resource management. 

Rocky Mountain Region - The Forest Service organizational units consisting of Colorado, Wyoming, part of 

South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas. Also known as Region 2. 

Rotation - The planned number of years between the formation or regeneration of a crop or stand and its final 

cutting at a specified stage of maturity. 

Rotation Grazing - A grazing scheme where animals are moved from one grazing unit (paddock) in the same 

group of grazing units to another without regard to specific graze/rest periods or levels or plant defoliation. 

Runoff - The total stream discharge of water, including both surface and subsurface flow, usually expressed in 

acre-feet of water yield. 

Rural Development - A partnership or program designed to enrich the cultural life, enhance the environment, 

provide employment, and improve living conditions in rural America. 

Scoping Process - An early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for 

identifying the significant issues related to the proposed action. Identifying the significant environmental 

issues deserving of study and de-emphasizing insignificant issues, narrows the scope of the environmental 

impact statement accordingly. 

Season-long Grazing (Livestock Grazing) - Allowing livestock to graze a single pasture throughout one 

growing season. 

Secondary Range - Range that is lightly used or unused by livestock under minimal management and will 

ordinarily not be fully used until the primary range has been overused. 

Sediment - Material suspended in water or deposited in streams and lakes. 

Sediment Load - The solid material transported by a stream and expressed as the dry weight of all sediment 

that passes a given point in a given period of time. 

Sediment Yield - Amount of sediment leaving an analysis area and entering a channel. 

Seeps - A spot where water or petroleum flows from the earth, often forming the source of a small stream. 

Self-sustaining Fish Population - A reproducing fish population that does not require supplemental hatchery 

stocking. 

Sensitive Species - Those plant and animal species identified by Regional Foresters for which population 

viability is a concern, as evidenced by the following: Significant current or predicted downward trends in 

population numbers or density. Significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that 

would reduce a species' existing distribution. 

Seral (Ecology) - A biotic community that is in a developmental, transitory stage in an ecological succession. 

Seral Stages (Ecology) - The sequence of a plant community's successional stages to potential natural 

vegetation. 

Significant Archeological Sites - Sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places as 

determined by the Forest Service in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer. 

Silviculture - Generally, the science and art of tree management, based on the study of the life history and 

general characteristics of forest trees and stands, with particular reference to local factors. More particularly, 

the theory and practice of controlling the establishment, composition, constitution, and growth of forests for 

desired conditions. 

Site Productivity - Production capability of specific areas of land. 

Social Analysis - An analysis of the social (as distinct from the economic and environmental) effects of a 

given plan or proposal for action. Social analysis includes identification and evaluation of all pertinent 

desirable and undesirable consequences to all segments of society. 

Soil Compaction - A physical change in soil properties that results in a decrease in porosity and an increase in 

soil bulk density and strength. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 307

Soil Erosion - The detachment and movement of soil from the land surface by water or wind. Soil erosion and 

sediment are not the same. 

Soil Productivity - The inherent capacity of a soil to support the growth of specified plants, plant 

communities, or a sequence of plant communities. Soil productivity may be expressed in terms of volume or 

weight/unit area/year, percent plant cover, or other measures of biomass accumulation. 

Soil Profile - A vertical section of the soil from the surface down through all of its layers into the parent 

material. 

Soil Survey - A general term for the systematic examination of soils in the field and in laboratories; their 

description and classification; the mapping of soil types; the interpretation of soils according to their 

adaptability for various crops, grasses, and trees; their response to treatment for plant production or for other 

purposes; and their productivity under different management systems. 

Special Uses - Improvements or activities owned or carried out by private individuals, corporations, or other 

business entities on National Forest System lands, including national grasslands, under the authorization of a 

permit. 

Special-use Permits - A permit, term permit, lease, or easement that allows occupancy, use, rights, or 

privileges on National Forest System lands, including national grasslands (36 CFR 261.2). 

Species - A group of potentially interbreeding populations that is reproductively isolated from other such 

groups. 

Species of Local Concern – Species that do not meet the criteria for sensitive species status but may have 

declining trends in the Black Hills or those that are important components of diversity in the Black Hills. 

Species Composition – The proportions of various plant species in relation to the total on a given area. It may 

be expressed in terms of cover, density, weight, etc. 

Species Diversity - A measurement that relates the density of individuals of a species in a habitat to the 

number of different species present in the habitat. The number of different species in a given habitat. 

Species Viability - A species consisting of self-sustaining and interacting populations that are well distributed 

through the species' range. Self-sustaining populations are those that are sufficiently abundant and have 

sufficient diversity to display the array of life history strategies and forms to provide for their long-term 

persistence and adaptability over time. 

Stabilization (Heritage Resources) - Arresting the deterioration of a damaged heritage resource in order to 

prevent further damage from occurring. Stabilization may include reconstructing portions of the heritage 

resource. 

Standard - Actions that must be followed or are required limits to activities in order to achieve grassland or 

forest goals and objectives. Site-specific deviations from standards must be analyzed and documented in 

management plan amendments. 

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) - A person appointed by a state's governor to administer the 

State Historic Preservation Program. 

Static – staying the same. 

Stewardship - Caring for land and associated resources and passing healthy ecosystems to future generations. 

Stocking Rate (Livestock Management) - The actual number of animals, expressed in either animal units or 

animal unit months, on a specific area for a specific time. 

Stream Bank Alteration –Stream bank alteration consists of physical alteration of the bank by trampling that 

exposes bare soil. 

Stream Bank Stability - Stream bank stability refers to long-term bank structure, expressed as a percentage of 

the stream bank in one of six stability classes (Cowley and Burton 2005b). It is intended for long-term trend 

monitoring and is read on 3-5 year intervals. This method includes damage from natural processes, such as 

floods, and human caused impacts, such as mining or recreation vehicle crossings, as well as from livestock. 

Stream Health - The condition of a stream, relative to robust health, for that stream type and landscape, 

considering indicators such as channel pattern, slope, particle size, pool frequency and depth, bank vegetation, 

and woody debris, which reflect the stability and habitat quality of the stream. 

Stream Order - A classification of the relative position of streams in a channel network. Each non-branching 

channel segment is designated as a first-order stream. The channel segment below the confluence of the two 

first-order tributaries. The channel segment below the confluence of two second-order streams is designated a 

third-order stream, etc. 

Stream Type - A class of stream reach having a discrete combination of valley geomorphology and climate, 

flow regime, stream size, and channel morphology, which differs from other stream types in its ability to 

support biota and respond to management. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 308

Subspecies - A genetically distinct subunit of a species. 

Succession - The progress of vegetation development where different plant communities successively occupy 

an area. 

Successional Stages (Seral Stages) - The relatively transitory communities that replace one another during 

development toward a potential natural community. 

Suitable Lands - Lands that are appropriate for the application of certain resource management practices as 

determined by an analysis of the economic and environmental consequences and the alternative uses foregone. 

Suitable Rangeland - The appropriateness of applying certain resource management practices to a particular 

area of land, as determined by an analysis of the economic and environmental consequences and the alternative 

uses forgone. A unit of land may be suitable for a variety of individual or combined management practices. 

Suspended Sediment - The very fine soil particles that remain suspended in water for a considerable period of 

time without contact with the bottom of the channel. 

Sustainability - Continuation of a desired level of productivity, quality, or variability, generally of organisms. 

Sustained Yield - The achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular periodic 

output of the various renewable resources on National Forest System lands, including national grasslands, 

without impairment of the productivity of the land. 

Terrestrial - A land-based ecosystem. (See ecosystem). An interacting system of soil, geology, and 

topography with plant and animal communities. 

Tiering - Refers to the elimination of repetitive discussions of the same issue by referencing the general 

discussion in an environmental impact statement of broader scope. For example, a project environmental

assessment could be tiered to the Forest Plan EIS. 

Timber Production - The purposeful growing, tending, harvesting, and regeneration of regulated crops of 

trees to be cut into logs, bolts, or other round sections for industrial or consumer use, except fuel wood. 

Timing Limitation (Seasonal Restriction) - Prohibits surface use during specified time periods to protect 

identified resource values. The stipulation does not apply to the operation or maintenance of production 

facilities unless the finding analysis demonstrates the continued need for such mitigation and the insufficiency 

of less stringent, project-specific mitigation measures. 

TMDL – Total Maximum Daily Load 

Topography - The configuration of a land surface including its relief, elevation, and the position of its natural

and human-made features. 

Traditional Use Areas - An area that is significant to a living community because of its association with 

cultural practices or beliefs that are rooted in the community's history and are important in maintaining the 

continuing cultural identity of the community. 

Trail - The general term denoting a way for purposes of travel by foot, stock, or trail vehicle. 

Trailhead - The parking, signing, and other facilities available at the terminus of a trail. 

Trampling - Treading underfoot. The damage to plants or soil brought about by movements or congestion of 

animals. 

Travel Management - Travel management is the movement of people and products to and through national 

forests and national grasslands. It connects many different varieties of user and multiple uses on National 

Forest System lands. 

Treated Area - An area on which management, like timber harvesting or prescribed burning, occurs. 

Trespass - The act of going on another's land or property unlawfully. 

Understory (Vegetation) - The lowest layer of vegetation in a forest or shrub community composed of grass, 

forbs, shrubs and trees less than 10 feet tall. Vegetation growing under the tree canopy. 

Undesirable Species - 1) Species that conflict with or do not contribute to the management objectives. 2) 

Species that are not readily eaten by animals. 

Ungulate - A hoofed animal, including ruminants (cattle, but also horses, tapirs, elephants, rhinoceroses, and 

swine). 

Unpalatable Species (Range Management) - Plant species that are not readily eaten by an ungulate animal. 

Utilization Levels (Livestock Grazing) - The portion of the current year's forage production by weight 

consumed or trampled by livestock. Utilization levels are usually expressed as a percentage. 

Validation Monitoring – This type asks the question: “Is there a better way to meet Forest Plan goals and 

objectives as expressed by a NEPA decision and displayed in an AMP?” An example of validation monitoring 

is the continual assessment of proper use guidelines to insure they reasonably describe the level of grazing use 

that encourages progress towards allotment objectives. Validation monitoring determines whether the 

information upon which standards, guidelines, and objectives are based is valid and correct. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 309

Vegetation Structure – The vertical characteristics of vegetation. 

Vegetation Treatment - Any activities undertaken to modify the existing condition of the vegetation. 

Vegetative Buffer Zones - Strips of grass or other erosion-resisting vegetation between areas of ground 

disturbance and areas needing protection from sedimentation. 

Vegetative Management - Any activities undertaken to modify the existing condition of the vegetation. 

Viable Population - A group of individuals of a particular species that produces enough offspring for longterm persistence and adaptation of the species or population in a given place. For planning purposes, 36 CFR 

219.19 defines a viable population as one that has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive 

individuals to ensure that a continued viable population is well-distributed in the planning area. A planning 

area is further defined by 36 CFR 219.3 as the "area of the National Forest System covered by a regional guide 

or forest plan." Direction estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to ensure the 

continued existence of the species throughout its existing range (or range required to meet recovery for listed 

species) within the planning area. 

Warm-Season Plant - A plant that makes most or all its growth during the spring, summer, or fall and is 

usually dormant in winter. A plant that usually exhibits the C4 photosynthetic pathway. 

Water Development - A facility constructed or placed to hold water for livestock use. 

Water Influence Zone - The water influence zone (WIZ) includes the geomorphic floodplain, riparian 

ecosystem, and inner gorge. Its minimum horizontal width (from top of each bank) is the greater of 100 feet or 

the mean height of mature dominant late-seral vegetation. It includes adjacent unstable and highly-erodible 

soils. The WIZ protects interacting aquatic, riparian, and upland functions by maintaining natural processes 

and resilience of soil, water, and vegetation systems. 

Water Rights - Rights given by state and federal governments for the diversion and use of water. 

Water Table - The upper surface of the ground water or that level below which the soil is saturated with 

water. 

Waters of the United States - Waters used for navigation and all other waters such as lakes, streams 

(including intermittent streams), mudflats, sand flats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa 

lakes, or natural ponds, and their tributaries. 

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 (Dunne and Leopold, 1978), or to a lake, reservoir, or 

other body of water. Also called drainage basin or catchment. 

Weed - Any plant growing where unwanted and having a negative value. 

Wet Meadow - A meadow where the surface remains wet or moist throughout the growing season, usually 

characterized by sedges and rushes. 

Wetland Communities - Plant communities that occur on sites with soils typically saturated with or covered 

with water most of the growing season. 

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, 

mudflats, and natural ponds. 

Wildfire - Any wild land fire not designated and managed as a prescribed fire within an approved prescription. 

An appropriate suppression action will be applied to all wildfires. 

Wildland/Urban Interface - This references those lands that are intermingled private and National Forest 

System lands where one encounters residential developments. 

Wildlife - Collectively the no domesticated vertebrate animals, except fishes. The natural community of 

animals. 

Winter Range - Rangeland that is grazed during the winter months. 

Xeric - Having very little moisture. Tolerating or adapted to dry conditions. 

Zone of Influence - A delineated geographic area within which the present and proposed actions exert an 

important influence on residents and visitors. 

Wildlife Collectively the no domesticated vertebrate animals, except fishes. The natural community of 

animals. 

Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 311

CHAPTER 6 LIST OF PREPARERS 

Interdisciplinary Team

 

Robert Thompson District Ranger - Bachelor of Science, Geology, University of Montana, 1979. 

Thirty years of Forest Service experience at district and forest level in Montana 

and South Dakota. Fourteen years experience as geologist conducting mineral 

appraisals, permitting, environmental analysis and compliance. Certified Review 

Mineral Examiner. Fifteen years as District Ranger on two ranger districts 

responsible for managing a full range of resources, goods and services. . 

Katie Van Alstyne ID Team Leader, Writer/Editor - Bachelor of Arts, Biology, Hollins University, 

1990. Eleven years with the National Park Service as an interpreter and law 

enforcement dispatcher. nine years of Forest Service experience at the district, 

regional and national level in planning/litigation. 

Jessica Eggers Writer/Editor - Master of Science in Forestry Wildland Recreation with a minor in 

Public Administration, University of Tennessee, 2005; Bachelor of Science in 

Forestry Wildland Recreation with a minor in Wildlife and Fisheries Science, 

University of Tennessee, 2003. Three years with the National Park Service as a 

Law Enforcement Park Ranger. One year with the National Park Service as the 

Natural Resource Program Coordinator. One year of Forest Serivce experience at 

the district level in planning/litigation. 

Jay Kurth Natural Resource Specialist / Fire-Fuels - Bachelor of Science, Business Finance, 

Montana State University, 1993. Graduate attendant, University of Montana, 

Forestry/Ecology. Graduate attendant, Colorado State University, Fire 

Ecology/Forest Ecology. Technical Fire Management graduate in 2001. 26 years 

of wildland fire operations and fuels planning experience on the Angeles NF, 

Bighorn NF, Deerlodge NF, Gallatin NF and the Lolo NF. Currently the District 

Fire Management Officer on the Mystic Ranger District, Black Hills NF since 

2005. Wildland fire qualifications include: Incident Commander Type 2 trainee, 

Operations Section Chief Type 2, Prescribed Fire Burn Boss Type 1 trainee, 

Prescribed Fire Holding Specialist, and Prescribed Fire Ignition Specialist for 

complex burn projects. 

Shirlene Haas Travel Management Specialist / Wildlife Biologist - Master of Science in Wildlife 

Ecology, Utah State University, 1991; Bachelor of Science in Biology, University 

of Nebraska, 1986. 18 years of Forest Service experience at the district and forest 

level in South Dakota, Wyoming, and California in project and forest planning, 

and wildlife program management. Planning experience includes vegetation

management, special uses, lands, minerals, prescribed fire and fuels, range 

management, travel management, and recreation. Fire experience includes 

firefighter type II, prescribed fire behavior monitor, status check-in, and aircraft 

time recorder. 

Les Gonyer Hydrologist –Bachelor of Science, Forestry minor in Hydrology, University of 

Minnesota, 1977. Thirty-two years of Forest Service experience at the district and 

forest level in Utah, New Mexico, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, California, and South 

Dakota in watershed, timber, special uses, minerals, fire, engineering, and 

environmental analysis. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 312

Kristine Harper Heritage Resource Specialist - District Archeologist - Bachelor of Arts in 

Anthropology, Fort Lewis College, 2001 & Bachelor of Science in Natural 

Resource Management, Fort Lewis College, 2001. Four years with the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service as a Soil Conservationist and Soil Conservation 

Technician. One year with the Forest Service as a Range Technician, three years 

an Archeology Technician, and one year as a District Archeologist.

John Rongstad GIS Specialist - Masters program, Cartography and Remote Sensing, Minnesota

State University, 1987. Bachelor of Science, Geography with minors in Geology 

and Astronomy, Minnesota State University, 1985. Co-director and GIS 

coordinator for the Water Resources Center, Minnesota State University, for 11 

years. Ten years of Forest Service experience at the Black Hills National Forest, 

with primary assignments in managing and maintaining the vegetation, activity, 

and range GIS layers for the national forest. 

Chelsea Vollmer Botanist- Bachelor Degree in Biology with options in Botany and Ecology, 

University of Montana, 2003. five years of experience in botany with the USFS in 

Colorado, California, and South Dakota. 

Amy Ballard Recreation Forester - B.S. Aquatic Biology/Ecology, Allegheny College, 1986. 

M.S. Recreation Resources, Colorado State University, 1988. M.F. Forestry, 

University of Montana, 1990. 20 years with USFS as a recreation forester. 

Mark Vedder Rangeland Management Specialist – Bachelor of Science, Range Resources, 

University of Idaho 1978. Thirty years experience with the Forest Service in ID & 

SD in Fire/Fuels Management, Range Management, noxious weed control, trail

construction & maintenance, road maintenance & special projects, travel 

management, and contract preparation with administration. 

Steve Hirtzel Fisheries Biologist – Bachelor of Science in Wildlife & Fisheries Science, South 

Dakota State University. Twenty-one years of experience in research, regulatory 

and management programs with various federal agencies, the past seven years on 

the Black Hills NF. 
Mystic Range Project Draft EIS, Page 313

CHAPTER 7 INDEX 

adaptive management, i, v, 37, 46, 48, 

51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 103, 

109, 212, 217, 232, 237, 238, 243, 

247, 248, 262, 269, 270 

Allotment Management Plan (AMP), 66, 

76, 293 

Allotment Management Plans (AMP’s), 

v, 36 

Annual Operating Instructions (AOI), v, 

37, 66, 141, 150, 156, 192 

cover-frequency, 69 

Cover-Frequency, 49 

Deciding Official, 31 

design criteria, 21 

Desire Future Condition, 2 

Desired plant community, 28, 72 

effectiveness monitoring, v, 33, 37, 48, 

59, 111, 113, 117, 120, 122, 124, 126, 

142, 143, 151, 237 

Environmental Impact Statement 

EIS, 2, i, 21, 25 

Forest Plan, 2, iii, v, xvi, 22, 24, 25, 26, 

27, 28, 31, 32, 36, 37, 48, 58, 65, 67, 

69, 70, 71, 104, 106, 108, 127, 129, 

131, 132, 133, 134, 138, 139, 140, 

141, 145, 147, 148, 150, 152, 153, 

154, 156, 159, 160, 164, 165, 166, 

168, 169, 171, 172, 173, 174, 176, 

177, 178, 180, 181, 184, 185, 186, 

187, 188, 190, 191, 193, 194, 195, 

196, 199, 207, 209, 210, 211, 213, 

214, 215, 224, 232, 236, 238, 250, 

255, 256, 258, 262, 270, 272, 288, 

297, 298, 299, 303, 308 

FP, 24, 25, 26, 31 

Interdisciplinary Team 

ID Team, 2, 311 

Management Area 

MA, 2, 26 

Management Indicator Species 

MIS, 2 

Management Indicator Species (MIS), 

130, 131, 132 

MIMS, 2, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 70, 

71, 78, 81, 84, 91, 94, 98, 101 

Mitigation, 261 

Monitoring, 21 

Mountain Pine Beetle 

MPB, 2 

Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM), 

50 

National Environmental Policy Act 

NEPA, 2, i, 21 

National Forest System lands 

NFS lands, 25 

Ocular Utilization Estimate, 49 

prescribed fire, 311 

Proper Functioning Condition, 2, 70, 78, 

80, 84, 94, 98, 100, 221, 303 

proposed action, iii, 21, 31 

Range Readiness, 48, 60, 304 

Record of Decision 

ROD, 2 

Region 2 Rangeland Analysis and 

Management Training Guide 

(RAMTG), 65 

Residual levels, v, 36, 77, 80, 83, 90, 93, 

96, 100 

scoping, 31 

Short-term range monitoring, 48 

Soils, 21 

Species of Local Concern (SOLC), 130, 

131, 160, 205 

streambank stability, iii, 28, 50, 52, 53, 

54, 55, 56, 57, 78, 98, 101, 111, 113, 

115, 120, 122, 124, 125, 137, 141, 

142, 143, 151, 164, 168, 177, 180, 

190, 239, 240, 246, 258 

Stubble Height, 49, 70, 277, 280 

upland vegetation, iii, vi, x, 28, 32, 33, 

37, 42, 69, 77, 80, 84, 94, 97, 100, 

110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 

117, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 

237, 238 

Watershed Conservation Practices 

(WCPs), 221 
Public Comment Form

Mystic Ranger District, Black Hills National Forest

MYSTIC RANGE PROJECT 

Draft EIS Comments

NAME: _________________________________________

ADDRESS: ______________________________________

 ______________________________________

 ______________________________________

( ) I have no comments, please keep me informed.

( ) Please remove me from your Mystic Range Project mailing list. 

( ) I have the following comments about the Mystic Range Project:

Return to: Robert Thompson, District Ranger, Mystic Ranger District, Mystic Range Project, 8221 S 

Hwy 16, Rapid City, SD 57702 (Or fold, seal, and add a stamp to the back of the sheet).
...........................................................................................................................................................

.............................................................................................................................................

place

stamp

____________________________ here

______________________________

______________________________

Robert Thompson, District Ranger

Mystic Ranger District

Mystic Range Project 

8221 South Highway 16

Rapid City SD 57702
Appendix A Mystic Range Project Public Involvement

APPENDIX A

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Appendix A Mystic Range Project Public Involvement A - 1

Mystic Range Public Involvement

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

interact and cooperate with individuals and groups interested in the Mystic Range Project. Part

of this effort included public scoping as discussed below.

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

determine the breadth of issues to be addressed by project actions. The Mystic Range Project 

was entered into the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) in February 2009. A scoping letter 

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

the Mystic Range Project was mailed to approximately 91 members of the public, American 

Indian Tribes, other public agencies, range permittees, organizations, and Forest Service 

specialists on June 5, 2009. A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS was published in the 

Federal Register on Friday, June 12, 2009. The Notice of Intent and Scoping letter were also 

made available on the Black Hills National Forest website in June 2009. 

A meeting was scheduled with each permittee, to ensure that they understood the NEPA process 

and the proposed action.

The public scoping period for this project ended on July 13, 2009. Comments were received in 

writing via regular mail, email, telephone, facsimile, and personal contact. 

Below is a list of respondents and associated comment number(s) regarding the Mystic Range Project. 

Comments and agency responses are summarized in the Scoping database held in the Project File.

Comment Number / Name Comment Number / Name

 001.001 Rosebud Sioux Tribe

002.001 Northern Cheyenne Tribe

003.001-003.004 Jean Public

004.001-004.003 Scherrer

005.001 South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks - Trails

006.001 Santee Sioux Nation

007.001 Stewart

008.001 Newland

009.001 Brewer

010.001-010.016 Biodiversity Conservation Association

011.001-011.025 Norbeck Society

012.001-012.016 O’Meara

013.001-013.003 Olson

014.001-014.012 Environmental Protection Agency

015.001-015.025 Western Watersheds

016.001-016.010 Sierra Club

017.001-017.005 Rennard

018.001-018.028 South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks

019.001-019.002 Pennington County Highway Department

020.001-020.016 Porcupine Holistic Resource Management 

Team

021.001 Black Hills Sportsmen's Club
Appendix A Mystic Range Project Public Involvement A - 3

Mystic Range Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement Distribution List

Congressional:

Senator Tim Johnson

Senator John Thune

Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin

Native American Tribes:

Tribal Chairman Yankton Sioux Tribe

Tribal Chairman Crow Creek Sioux Tribe

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Northern Cheyenne Tribe

President Rosebud Sioux Tribe

Tribal Chairman Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe

Cultural Preservation Office Three Affiliated Tribes

Tribal Chairman Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe

Tribal Chairman Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe

Tribal Chairman Mandan Hidatsa & Arikara Tribes

Tribal Chairman Eastern Shoshone Tribe

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Oglala Sioux Tribe

Tribal Chairman Northern Arapaho Business Council

Tribal Chairman Lower Brule Sioux Tribe

Cultural Resource Office Lower Brule Sioux Tribe

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Standing Rock Sioux Tribe

Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe

Tribal Chairman Standing Rock Sioux Tribe

Grey Eagle Society

President Northern Cheyenne Tribe

President Oglala Sioux Tribe

Tribal Chairman Cheyenne/Arapaho Tribes Of Oklahoma

Tribal Chairman Santee Sioux Nation

Kiowa Ethnographic Endeavor For Preservation

Tribal Chairwoman Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe

Cultural & Heritage Program Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes Of Oklahoma

Rosebud Sioux Tribe Sicangu Lakota Treaty Council Office

Tribal Planner/Director Northern Cheyenne Tribe

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Rosebud Sioux Tribe

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Northern Arapaho Tribe

Federal, State, Local, and County Agencies:

Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII EIS Review Coordinator

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks

Bureau of Land Management – South Dakota Field Office

South Dakota State Historic Preservation Center

South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources

South Dakota Department of Transportation
Appendix A Mystic Range Project Public Involvement A - 3

Governor Office – Governor Mike Rounds

Pennington County Commissioners

Rapid City Public Library

Pennington County Highway Department

Planning and Review Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

USDA APHIS PPD/EAD

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

USDA National Agricultural Library Head, Acquisitions and Serials Branch

NOAA Office of Policy and Strategic Planning

US Army Engr. Northwestern Division

USDI Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance

FAA Great Lakes Region

Federal Highway Administration

US Dept. of Energy, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance

General Public and Groups not listed above:

Scoping letters were mailed to the permittees of the eight allotments under review.

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

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

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

A concerted effort was made to engage in consultation regarding the project with Tribal contacts 

known to have interest in management of the National Forest. 
Appendix B Mystic Range Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures

APPENDIX B

DESIGN CRITERIA

And

MITIGATION MEASURES

Appendix B Mystic Range Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures B - 1

APPENDIX B – DESIGN CRITERIA, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND MONITORING

Design Criteria

Design criteria include practices such as Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs), USFS 

Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices (WCPs), Best Management Practices (BMPs), and 

other similar works as they apply to the Mystic Range Project. They are actions that are 

applicable and expected to be followed or considered as a matter of standard operating 

procedures, and be consistent with the theme of a given alternative. Specific design criteria and 

mitigation measures described herein have been developed to be implemented as part of the 

action alternatives. Project implementation will incorporate all Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines. Forest Plan direction below is italicized.

Fisheries

The following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Dakota Regional Condition should be 

implemented for any adaptive management actions that would need to be authorized under a 

Clean Water Act Section 404 Nationwide Permit. Examples include, armoring stream banks at 

water gaps or in-stream work for water developments. This regional condition is intended to 

meet Nationwide Permit #3 to protect spawning areas and specifically to protect fall spawning 

brook or brown trout. 

In all South Dakota streams classified as cold water streams, when water flow is present, the 

discharge of dredged or fill material shall not take place between October 15 and April 1. 

Soil, Water and Riparian Resource 

Implement the following Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices (USDA Forest Service 

2006) as they pertain to livestock grazing: 

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

eroded, and displaced land to no more than 15 percent of any land unit. “Land treatments” are 

human actions that disturb vegetation, ground cover or soil. “Land unit” is mapped land type 

polygon or a mapped soils unit (Regional WCP Handbook Standard 13) (FP standard 1103). 

Grazing in post-wildfire situations will be evaluated by an IDT based on burn severity, 

vegetative re-growth, and management objectives. 

Adjust management in riparian areas and wetlands to improve detrimental soil compaction 

whenever it occurs. (Management Measure 3, Design Criteria (l)).

Manage land treatments to maintain enough organic ground cover in each land unit to prevent 

harmful increased runoff (Regional WCP Handbook Standard 2). (FP Standard 1112). Maintain 

the organic ground cover of each activity area so that pedestals, rills, and surface runoff from the 

activity area are not increased. The amount of organic ground cover needed will vary by 

different ecological types and should be commensurate with the potential of the site. 

(Management Measure 2, Design Criteria (a)) 

Manage land treatments to conserve site moisture and to protect long-term stream health from 

damage by increased runoff (FP Standard 1116). In each watershed containing a 3rd-order and 
Appendix B Mystic Range Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures B - 2

larger stream, limit connected disturbed areas so the total stream network is not expanded by 

more than 10%. Progress toward zero connected disturbed area as much as practicable. In 

watersheds that contain stream reaches in diminished stream health class, allow only those 

actions that will maintain or reduce watershed-scale Connected Disturbed Area. (WCP 

Management Measure 1, Design Criteria (a)) 

In the water influence zone next to perennial and intermittent streams, lakes and wetlands, allow 

only those actions that maintain or improve long-term stream health and riparian ecosystem 

condition. (Regional WCP Handbook Standard 3) (FP Standard 1301). 

• Adjust management in riparian areas and wetlands to improve detrimental soil 

compaction whenever it occurs. (Management Measure 3, Design Criteria (l)).

• Allow no action that will cause long-term change to a lower stream health class in any 

stream reach. In degraded systems (i.e. At-risk or diminished stream health class), 

progress toward robust stream health within the next plan period. (Management Measure 

3, Design Criteria (a)) 

• Allow no action that will cause long-term change away from desired condition in any 

riparian or wetland vegetation community. Consider management of stream temperature 

and large woody debris recruitment when determining desired vegetation community. In 

degraded systems, progress toward desired condition within the next plan period. 

(Management Measure 3, Design Criteria (b)).

• Manage livestock use through control of time/timing, intensity, and duration/frequency of 

use in riparian areas and wetlands to maintain or improve long-term stream health. 

Exclude livestock from riparian areas and wetlands that are not meeting or moving 

towards desired condition objectives where monitoring information shows continued 

livestock grazing would prevent attainment of those objectives. (Management Measure 3, 

Design Criteria (f)) 

• Keep stock tanks, salt supplements, and similar features out of the Watershed Influence 

Zone (WIZ) if practicable and out of riparian areas and wetlands always. Keep stock 

driveways out of the WIZ except to cross at designated points. Armor water gaps and 

designated stock crossings where needed and feasible. (Management Measure 3, Design 

Criteria (g)) 

• Maintain the extent of stable banks in each stream reach at 74 % or more of reference 

conditions. Consider degree of livestock trampling and riparian vegetation utilization on 

or immediately adjacent to stream banks when timing livestock moves between units. 

(Management Measure 3, Design Criteria (k)) 

Maintain long-term ground cover, soil structure, water budgets, and flow patterns in wetlands to 

sustain their ecological function, per 404 regulations. (Regional WCP Handbook Standard 6) 

(FP standard 1302). Avoid any loss of rare wetlands such as fens and springs. (Management 

Measure 6, Design Criteria (e)) 

Allow use of forage by livestock and wildlife in fenced riparian pastures also long as it meets the 

objectives of maintain, enhancing, or conserving the riparian ecosystem and emphasis species 

persistence( FP Standard 2507). Manage dry meadow and upland plant communities, including 

Kentucky bluegrass types that have invaded into wetland/riparian areas in a manner that will 

contribute to their replacement over time by more mesic native plant communities to the extent 
Appendix B Mystic Range Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures B - 3

practicable. Develop site-specific riparian stubble height standards or use the following default 

levels for Carex and Juncus species: 3-4 inches in spring-use pastures and 4-6 inches in summer 

or autumn use pastures; to leave adequate residual stubble height to retain effective ground 

cover. (Management Measure 3, Design Criteria (h)).

Convert season-long grazing systems to systems which require more intensive management, such 

as multiple-pasture deferred or rest rotation systems, as opportunities permit (FP guideline 

2502). Do not allow livestock grazing through an entire growing season in pastures that contain 

riparian areas and wetlands. Apply short-duration grazing as practicable (generally less than 20 

days) to minimize re-grazing of individual plants, to provide greater opportunity for re-growth 

and to manage utilization of woody species and reduce soil compaction. During the hot season 

(mid-to-late summer) manage livestock herds to avoid concentrating in riparian areas and 

wetlands. Apply principles of the Grazing Response Index to livestock management (USFS, 

1996a). (Management Measure 3, Design Criteria (i)) 

Provide riparian habitat by maintaining or establishing shrub and tree species, and protect 

riparian habitat from animal damage if needed (FP Guideline 3210). 

Provide riparian habitat diversity through vegetation treatments or in conjunction with other 

resource activities designed to maintain or improve wildlife or fisheries habitat and stream 

stability (FP Guideline 3211). Riparian enclosures or other structures that protect sensitive 

areas from livestock (i.e., archaeological site, springs, fens) that are not the responsibility of the 

permittee, should be inspected and maintained prior to “turn on” by the assigned resource group.

Manage for high quality riparian communities.

a. Provide for stable stream banks.

b. Retain woody vegetation along streams and lakes to provide shading for aquatic life and 

habitat for terrestrial species.

c. Provide large woody material for aquatic life (FP Guideline 3212).

Range and Noxious Weeds/Invasive Plants

Acceptable type of livestock to be grazed is cattle. Acceptable classes of livestock are mature 

(cow with/without calf, bull - as needed for herd breeding) and yearling.

Proper Use or Residual Levels – Riparian/Uplands

2505 Livestock and wild herbivore allowable forage use or residual levels on rangelands by 

grazing system and range condition are as follows:

Proper Allowable Use Guidelines

(Percent Utilization by Weight Each Year)

Season of Use Satisfactory Condition Unsatisfactory Condition

Continuous Use 

Spring/Summer

0-45% 0-40%

Continuous Use Fall/Winter 55-60% 0-55%

Deferred Rotation 0-50% 0-45%

Rest Rotation 0-55% 0-55%
Appendix B Mystic Range Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures B - 4

• Residual levels (or remaining height of key plant species) will be prescribed for riparian 

areas in the allotment management plan (AMP) or the annual letter of operating instructions 

(AOI) to the livestock permittee. Residual levels will be based upon specific objectives for the 

location in question and will consider season of use and range conditions. Standard. 

Allowable use and/or residual levels:

c. Utilization of willows, shrubs, woody vines, or young deciduous trees (such as aspen, birch 

and oak) in any year by livestock or wildlife is limited to browsing 40 percent of the total 

individual leaders produced in that year (not to be confused with 40 percent use on each 

and every leader produced).

d. Remove livestock from the grazing unit or allotment when further utilization of key areas 

in that year will exceed proper allowable use or prescribed residual level in the Forest 

Plan, AMP, or AOI for either grass and forbs or shrubs.

e. No authorized utilization will be allowed by domestic livestock on known occurrences of 

willow emphasis species (e.g., Salix candida, Salix serissima, Salix lucida).

f. Implement additional measures to assure avoidance of livestock use on Carex alopecoidea. 

Restrict livestock use of all portions of 5 of the largest geographically spaced 

occurrences at site number: (CAAL8-19, CAAL8-20, CAAL8-22, CAAL8-30, CAAL8-31). 

Design grazing systems to limit utilization of woody species. Where woody species have been 

historically suppressed, or where the plant community is below its desired condition and 

livestock are a key contributing factor, manage livestock through control of time/timing, 

intensity, and duration/frequency of use so as to allow for riparian hardwood growth extension 

and reproduction. Manage woody species in riparian areas to provide for stream temperature, 

bank stability and riparian habitat. (Management Measure 3, Design Criteria (j)).

Use salting to influence livestock distribution patterns. Do not salt within 1⁄4 mile of water 

sources, eligible heritage sites, developed recreation sites, or hardwood stands.

Management of rangelands determined to be neither meeting nor moving toward satisfactory 

rangeland condition in an acceptable timeframe, shall cause actions designed to move toward 

satisfactory rangeland condition within a state timeframe to be implemented. (FP Objective 

302). Maintain rangelands in satisfactory range conditions.

• In the absence of a site-specific planning process and an Allotment Management Plan, 

management direction for ongoing rangeland management activities on active allotments 

need to be address rangeland conditions and trends and species viability will be 

incorporated into the grazing permits through the annual operating instructions (AOI).

• Maintain existing range improvements as assigned in the term grazing permits. 

• Reconstruct/replace existing range improvements as their useful life expectancy is 

amortized or to respond to natural disasters.

• Evaluate range readiness annually and adjust turn-on date as needed.

Locate new livestock/wildlife water sites (i.e., drinking structures) outside of hardwood 

communities, except when no other option is available (FP Standard 2207). Design and 

location of future water sites should evaluate the effects to hardwood communities within close 
Appendix B Mystic Range Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures B - 5

proximity (e.g., 1/8 mile) of proposed location and if necessary mitigate the effects of 

concentrated use on hardwood regeneration. 

Convert season-long grazing systems to systems which require more intensive management, such 

as multiple-pasture deferred or rest rotation systems, as opportunities permit (FP Guideline 

2502. 

• Allotment conversion to Holistic Management will require commitment to the entire 

process of this type of management. Training, acceptance of methodology, and active 

participation for the entire livestock operation is necessary for success.

• Any allotment that becomes vacant in part or whole should be evaluated for designation 

as a “Forage Reserve Allotment.” Once designated, the allotment may be used in 

conjunction with authorized livestock use when there is a loss of forage availability from 

a variety of factors such as drought, fire – wildfire or prescribed, rangeland restoration 

activities, or litigation or consultation needs (FSH 2209.13, Section 13.3)

Developed recreation sites will be closed or restricted to grazing through use of fencing, as 

opportunities permit. However, grazing may be used as a management tool in these areas. 

Recreational livestock will normally be fed in designated areas (FP Guideline 2503).

The site-specific rangeland analysis necessary for preparation of allotment management plans 

shall document selected desired conditions and evaluate whether the designated area is at, 

moving towards, or moving away from, the desired conditions (FP Guideline 2504).

a. Satisfactory range conditions occur when the existing conditions are at, or 

progressing towards the desired conditions identified through the project planning 

process.

b. When trends toward satisfactory range conditions are not achieved within 5 years 

by changes in grazing systems, allowable use or residual guidelines, more restrictive 

use or residual guidelines, changes to the grazing system shall be adopted, or cattle 

use be removed or relocated for a period of time.

• Evaluate utilization and adjust pasture move dates and move-off dates based on 

allowable use standards. 

• When long-term drought situations occur, range permittees should be notified with a 

personal contact and followed up in writing that reductions in season or livestock 

numbers may be anticipated.

• Develop Drought Management approach based on any anticipated changes in rainfall 

and snowfall patterns, or shifts in phenology of growing season.

Use of roads and trails by permittees or their employees should be in compliance with the Black 

Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan. Deviations for administrative use needs may 

need evaluation and authorization by the District Ranger.

Permittees will not trail livestock across another permittee’s assigned allotment or pasture 

without consultation with the affected permittee and authorization from the Forest Service.
Appendix B Mystic Range Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures B - 6

Ground disturbing activities such as installation of water developments, pipelines, fences or 

exclosure require both heritage resource and sensitive species surveys and approval by a Forest 

Service archeologist, botanist, and wildlife biologist prior to construction.

Initiate re-vegetation as soon as possible, not to exceed 6 months after termination of grounddisturbing activities. Re-vegetate all disturbed soils with native species in seed/plant mixtures 

that are noxious-weed free. On areas needing immediate establishment of vegetation, nonnative, non-aggressive annuals (E.G., wheat, oats, rye) or sterile species may be used while 

native perennials are becoming established, or when native species are not available (e.g., 

during drought years or years when wildfires burn large acreages in the United States). Other 

aggressive non-native perennials (e.g., smooth brome, timothy) will not be used. Seed will be 

tested for noxious weeds. If mulches are used they are to be noxious-weed free. Weed-free 

alfalfa seed may be used only when native legume seed is not available and only when there is 

extensive disturbance associated with road construction or mine reclamation where top soil is no 

longer available (FP Standards 1110). Ground disturbing equipment used for construction or 

maintenance of range improvement should be free of weed seed or plant parts that could result in 

introduction or spread of non-native invasive plants. 

For all proposed projects or activities, determine the risk of noxious-weed introduction or 

spread, and implement appropriate mitigation measures and treatment (FP Standard 4301). 

Wildlife, Botany and Biodiversity

Management Indicator Species: The following species should be used as management indicator 

species (MIS). The indicators or their habitats will be monitored to indicate overall changes in 

the forest ecosystem. MIS will generally be monitored using trends in habitat: however, when 

available, population trends may be used as a strong indicator of management response. 

Population monitoring will be discretionary as provided by 35 CFR 219.14f (Forest Plan p. II32)

 Black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus)

 Brown creeper (Certhia americana)

 Golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa)

 Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum)

 Ruffed Grouse (Bonasa umbellus)

 Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia)

 Beaver (Castor canadensis)

 White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)

 Mountain Sucker (Castostomus platyrhynchus)

The following are objectives for management indicator species (MIS). MIS will be monitored 

using trends in habitat; however, when available, population trends may be used as a strong 

indicator of management response. Monitoring will be conducted at a Forest scale and not at the 

project level. Population monitoring will be discretionary as provided by 219.14. f (Objective 

238).

a. Maintain or enhance habitat for ruffed grouse, beaver, song sparrow, grasshopper 

sparrow, white-tailed deer and brown creeper; as outlined in specific direction 

pertaining to aspen, other hardwoods, riparian areas, grasslands, spruce and ponderosa 

pine (e.g., Objectives 201, 205, 211, 239-LVD, 5.1-204).
Appendix B Mystic Range Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures B - 7

• Avoid any ground disturbing activities within montane grasslands (i.e., Lemming 

Draw, Gillette Prairie, Slate Prairie, Reynolds Prairie, and Bald Hills) and meadows 

to protect from invasion of non-native species, increaser species, and noxious weeds. 

• Development of livestock facilities (corrals, water developments) in montane 

grasslands should be avoided to protect native plant habitat.

• Prevent degradation of beaver complexes by livestock use. Monitor livestock use of 

beaver ponds. Use various methods to control livestock damage to beaver dam 

structures and surrounding habitat. 

a. Maintain or enhance habitat quality and connectivity for mountain suckers, as outlined in 

specific direction pertaining to aquatic resources (e.g., Objectives 103, 104, 215, 

Standards 1201, 1203, 1205, Guideline 1115) 

• Where water development structures intercept water from a seep, spring or creek, 

install floats and/or shut-off valves to regulate inflow to livestock watering tanks, to 

allow natural flow from spring, seep or creek to continue. 

• Water impoundments on intermittent streams should be designed to allow a majority 

of water to flow downstream and not create a barrier to fish species. 

During the planning period conserve existing hardwood communities by 10 percent over 1995 

conditions on sites capable of supporting these communities (FP Objective 201). Maintain or 

enhance existing riparian area biodiversity, physical structure, and size (FP Objective 213).

• Establish annual monitoring items for browsing of hardwoods in riparian areas and 

outside of riparian areas. 

• Develop associated adaptive management triggers that would prevent degradation of 

hardwood communities. Maintain a mix of young and mature aspen stands within 

allotment pastures. Restrict livestock grazing in hardwood (e.g., aspen/birch) 

regeneration areas for at least 2 years or until suckers are established above grazing 

height. 

Manage for 122,000 acres of prairie grassland and 3,600 acres of meadow during the life of the 

Plan. Restored acres will not be considered suitable for timber production (FP Objective 205). 

Maintain suitable grassland areas (>30 ha) to support populations of grasshopper sparrows. 

Utilization standards and grazing systems should allow climax successional stages in grasslands, 

create mosaic of various stubble heights (patches), and leave some areas untreated to provide 

refuge for fledglings or late or re-nesting pairs. If feasible in these grassland areas, grazing 

should be conducted after (August 15) nesting season. Ungrazed areas (refugia) should be away 

from trees, private land buildings to reduce disturbance, predation, and nest parasitism. 

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

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

humidity.

b. Retain ground litter, especially deciduous litter.

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

activities that may compact soils or alter vegetation composition and ground cover.

d. If prescribed burning is unavoidable, burn when snails are hibernating, usually below 50 

degrees Fahrenheit, and use fast-moving fires to minimize effects to snails.

e. Control invasive weeds, but use herbicides when snails are not on the surface, and treat 
Appendix B Mystic Range Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures B - 8

individual plants rather than broadcast application (FP Standard 3103). 

A R2 sensitive species or species of local concern located after contract or permit issuance will 

be appropriately managed by active coordination between permittee, contractor or purchaser, 

Forest Service line officer, project administrator, and biologist and/or botanist. Solutions need 

to be based on the circumstances of each new discovery and must consider the species need, 

contractual obligations and costs, and mitigation measures available at the time of discovery

(FP Standard 3115).

When completing structure maintenance, improvement or construction: 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 (FP 

Standard 3111). 

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

activities existing at onset of nest initiation, species, topography, other R2 sensitive species and 

plant species of local concern, forest cover, nest protection standards and recommendations 

used by state or federal agencies, and other appropriate factors when designing protection (FP 

Standard 3204). 

Where livestock management conflicts with bighorn sheep lambing areas, preference shall be 

give to bighorn sheep from April 1 through June 15 (FP Standard 3216). In pastures that 

overlap bighorn sheep concentrated use areas, look for opportunities to reduce livestock use of 

foraging areas during the summer and early fall to increase lamb survival and reduce their 

susceptibility to enzootic diseases. 

Manage and/or install structures to provide water for livestock and to protect the aquatic, 

shoreline and upland vegetation around ponds or water catchments containing leopard frogs

(FP Objective 240-HAB). Expand spring/seep exclosures (new and existing) to include 

associated riparian communities (e.g., willows, sedges) to protect the water source from livestock 

trampling.

Do not develop springs or seeps as water facilities where sensitive species or species of local 

concern exist unless development mitigates an existing risk (FP Standard 3104).

• Limit the amount of springs/seeps developed in a pasture to ensure natural conditions for 

wildlife and aquatic species. 

• Prior to development of new watering facilities in the allotments, existing watering 

facilities should be improved and/or maintained to acceptable standards. Funding should

focus on maintenance of current structures unless there is an identified resource concern 

that warrants a new water development. 

• Install and maintain wildlife escape ramps in all watering tank structures to prevent 

accidental death of birds and small mammals due to drowning. Design and installation of 

escape ramps should be proven to be the most effective in preventing drowning of 

wildlife. Annually clean stock tanks to remove floating debris and algae. 
Appendix B Mystic Range Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures B - 9

Structures, such as fences and roads will be designed and built so that they do not create 

unnecessary or unreasonable barriers or hazards for wildlife and people (FP Guideline 3202).

Riparian areas or wetlands where populations of sensitive species are located are to be avoided 

during ground disturbing activities. Use one or more of the following (or other mitigation 

measures) tied to the site-specific conditions for disturbances adjacent to known occurrences:

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

wetland; diverting stream flow from the current channel.

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

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

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

measures to control erosion on disturbed areas that are steep, are highly erosive, and/or 

adjacent to the riparian area.

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

of aquatic life and protect sensitive and species of local concern (FP Standard 3106).

Prescribed Burning

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

butterflies prior to prescribed burning on prairies and meadows. This is especially important for 

prescribed burns scheduled from September through April. Design the project to conserved

important habitat components of known sightings (FP Guideline 3105). Prescribed burns within 

montane grasslands should be low intensity to maintain soil/litter layer and plant rooting zone of 

most native plants. Treatments should be completed in the late fall and winter months after the 

nesting season (mid-May through early August) and prior to spring green-up to maintain host 

and nectar species for butterflies, and provide suitable nesting cover for grassland bird species. 

For Fire Control Lines: Protect heritage resources, R2 sensitive species and plant species of 

local concern (SOLC), botanical areas (BAs), research natural areas (RNAs), streams, stream 

banks, shorelines, lakes and associated vegetation from degradation by wildfire suppression 

efforts. 

b. Avoid the use of earth-moving equipment within natural register eligible heritage 

resource sites, known locations of R2 sensitive species and SOLC plants, BAs, 

RNAs, or in stream channels, except at designated points and with proper 

mitigation (FP Standard 4102).

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

growing season to ensure re-growth of forage species (FP Guideline 4107). 

Promote revegetation of prescribed burned areas.

a. Following broadcast burning, seed to initiate revegetation if ground cover is 60 percent 

or less and slopes are 30 percent or more (FP Guideline 4106). 

Prescribe burn no more that 60 percent of any contiguous grassland area at a time and burn in 

early spring or fall (FP Standard 3125). Avoid large, uniform, continuous treatments in 

grasslands to maintain a variety of stubble heights, maintains plant species that are considered 

larval host and nectar species, and provides foraging and cover habitat for wildlife species. 

Treatment blocks should be small (approximately 27-40 acres in size) and scattered with 
Appendix B Mystic Range Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures B - 10

treatments patches as part of a larger mosaic, ensuring a variety of successional grassland 

community stages. Treatments should be on a long rotation of > 5 years, with less than 50% of 

these small units being affected in a given year. No treatment should occur at the same time or 

in consecutive years in adjacent blocks within the larger grassland area. 

Management Area Specific:

Allow livestock grazing if it does not conflict with the values for which the botanical area was 

designated (FP Standard 3.1-2501)

Allow new improvements only when they are necessary to maintain, restore or enhance the 

values for which the botanical area was designated (FP Guideline 3.1-2502).

Restrict access of domestic livestock to protect R2 sensitive and species of local concern 

occurrences in designated Botanical Areas (FP Standard 3.1-2503).

Locate or design structural improvements to meet Scenery Integrity Objectives (FP Guideline 

4.1-2502).

Design livestock management strategies including distribution and stocking rates to be 

compatible with big-game habitat objectives (FP Standard 5.4-2501). Feature big game use of 

forage increases that result from the vegetative improvements, while also allowing for livestock 

increases. Follow forest-wide proper allowable use guidelines or residual levels documented in 

AMPs or AOIs for combined use by wildlife and livestock (FP Guideline 5.4-2502). In MA 5.4 

and MA 5.4a, when opportunities arise, consider not re-issuing livestock permits when they 

become vacant and removing livestock from pastures during the late summer and early fall in 

order to leave adequate forage for big game, and prevent over utilization of hardwoods and 

shrubs (See FP Norbeck Direction). During drought conditions, livestock use should be limited 

to provide forage and cover habitat for big game and other wildlife species.

Existing livestock grazing may continue: permits may be reissued to existing or new permittees. 

Do not permit any increase in livestock numbers (animal months) (FP Standard 5.4A-2501).

Take advantage of opportunities to transfer forage use from livestock to wildlife (FP Guideline 

5.4A-2502).

Livestock grazing may be used intermittently as a management tool (even in areas designated 

unsuitable for livestock grazing) to improve habitat conditions, e.g., to control noxious weeds 

(FP Guideline 5.4A-2505). 

In Norbeck Wildlife Preserve: Prevent habitat degradation adjacent to water sources. 

a. Do not permit livestock access to created water sources except impoundments of 

less than three acres.

b. Unregulated livestock access to water impoundments behind dams must be less 

than 50 percent of the impoundment perimeter.

c. Maintain late seral stage vegetation on at least 20 to 50 percent of the area within 

a 100 to 400 foot radius around all created water resources, except 
Appendix B Mystic Range Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures B - 11

impoundments behind dams (FP Guideline 5.4A-2503). 

Heritage

Recognize American Indian religious and spiritual beliefs regarding the disposition of human 

remains and make provisions for their proper reburial and treatment according to applicable 

FSM. (FP standard 7102). Tribes will be notified if culturally significant artifacts or burial 

sites are found during project implementation. 

Consider long-term Forest management needs in determining appropriate use of mitigation of 

effects to, or avoidance of, heritage resources during project planning (FP Guideline 6101). 

Local Native American groups have been contacted and responses solicited concerning this 

project. On-going consultation with members of the local Native American community would 

aid in identification of specific locations and issues of concern. Any identified religious or 

sacred site would be protected in accordance with the Native American Religious Freedom Act 

(P.L. 95-341). Additionally, contemporarily used Native American resource areas would be 

identified and protected, and perpetuation of traditionally used flora and fauna encouraged by 

Forest Service land management. 

Heritage sites located within treatment areas will be marked according to specifications provided 

in FS Manual 2309.24 and FSH 2361.28. Marked heritage sites will be avoided during any land 

disturbing activities associated with the proposed treatments.

It is recognized heritage resources may be present in the subsurface with no surface 

manifestation. Therefore if additional heritage resources are discovered during earth disturbing 

(i.e. cattle guard installation) activities, all operations must cease within a 300 ft. (100 meter) 

radius of the site and a forest archeologist notified immediately. Any additional heritage 

resources located during project implementation will be protected based on recommendations of 

the district archeologist and State Historic Preservation Officer. All sites will be evaluated under 

the terms specified in 36 CFR 60.4 and 36 CFR 800 and applicable Forest guidelines [ FP 

Guidelines 4102, 6101, 6106] (USDA Forest Service 2001). If a heritage resource site is 

damaged during project implementation, work at and within the immediate vicinity of the site 

will cease until a Forest Service archeologist evaluated the damage, make stabilization 

recommendations, and determines what additional protective measures are needed to protect the 

site. Project work will not restart until authorized by either the District or Forest Archeologist. 

Heritage sites with exposed burnable material will be protected by manually removing 

surrounding/interior fuels, foaming wooden structures, building fire lines around sites, using 

back-fires or a combination of measures to be determined on-site by the District or Forest 

Archaeologist, depending on the site’s location. If no protective measures can be effectively 

applied, sites will be avoided during prescribed burning activities. Each of the proposed 

prescribed burn areas has protected sites within the boundaries. These areas will need to be 

avoided by broadcast burn activities. Some pile burning may occur within or adjacent to the 

protected sites with coordination with the district archeologist. A detailed information packet 

will be available for these fuel reduction projects, and on the ground identification of the site 

boundaries will be accomplished by the heritage resource staff prior to implementation. All 

Forest Service and out-service personnel who may be working in the area of a site will be 
Appendix B Mystic Range Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures B - 12

advised that under the provisions of 36 CFR 261.9, the following are prohibited: digging in, 

excavating, disturbing, injuring, or destroying any archeological, paleontological or historic site; 

or removing, disturbing, injuring, or destroying an object in such a site. A Burn Plan will need 

SHPO concurrence prior to any burning activity. 

No ground disturbing activities (operating heavy machinery) will be allowed within a 35mperimeter of the designated site boundary. Any maintenance to existing roads must stay within 

existing road prisms. Heavy equipment will not drive through or park within the site boundary, 

except within existing road prisms. 

There is one known cave in the project area. As per Guideline 1401, this resource will be 

managed to protect or enhance biological, cultural, ecological, hydrological, and physical 

characteristics. 
Appendix C Mystic Range Project Past and Present Activities

APPENDIX C

PAST, PRESENT

and

FORESEEABLE ACTIVITIES

Appendix C Mystic Range Project Past and Present Activities C - 1

APPENDIX C – PAST, PRESENT, and FORESEEABLE ACTIVITIES in the MYSTIC 

RANGE PROJECT 

Past Actions

Much of the activity that has occurred within the eight allotments have been related to past 

planning project areas which have included timber sales and related activities. The following 

past timber sales and related activities are listed by allotment.

Common to all Allotments

Records indicate that harvesting within the project area has occurred as far back as the turn of the 

century. Since that time, additional harvesting has occurred on a periodic basis. Much of the 

area has had vegetative treatments within the past 20 years. Commercial harvests and noncommercial thinnings from the late '70's through the early '90's have taken place on about 90% of 

the project area. Many treatments were designed to lower the basal area to promote increased 

growth and vigor, reduce mountain pine beetle hazard and/or regenerate the stands of timber. 

The anticipated effects from past and present timber sales are minor soil disturbance, roads, 

noxious weeds, and improvements to upland forage conditions.

Bald Horse Allotment

Timber sales within the recent past were as follows:

Sale Award Area* Treatments

North Canyon Timber Sale 2006 815 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Dark Canyon Timber Sale 2005 976 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Thrall Timber Sale 2005 1,743 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Shanks Timber Sale 2004 2,327 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Bald Hills Timber Sale 2002 1,800 ac Pine Encroachment Removal

Gordon Timber Sale 1997 480 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

McGee Timber Sale 1994 185 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Whisper Timber Sale 1994 860 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Sisters Timber Sale 1993 1,061 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Tamarack Timber Sale 1992 2,023 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Horse Creek Salvage Sale 1991 146 ac Salvage

Horse Timber Sale 1987 3,062 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Wild Irishman Timber Sale 1985 2,637 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings
Appendix C Mystic Range Project Past and Present Activities C - 2

Sale Award Area* Treatments

Bluelead Timber Sale 1982 900 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Tomaha Timber Sale 1982 1,617 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Commissary Timber Sale 1981 6,403 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Rapid Creek Timber Sale 1981 586 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Victoria Timber Sale 1979 4,517 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Burnt Ranch Timber Sale 1978 3,781 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Victoria Prairie Timber Sale 1969 2,295 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Powerhouse Timber Sale 1968 1,900 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Gordon Gulch Timber Sale 1967 660 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Clog Gulch Timber Sale 1963 650 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests, Clearcuts 

& Commercial Thinnings

Custer Gulch Timber Sale 1963 1,520 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Horse Creek Timber Sale 1963 2,227 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

*Total acres of harvest, not all of the sale is within the project area.

Past Activities (Within the past 30 years):

Activity Code Units UOM

Construction of Fuel Breaks in Natural Fuels 1180 23 Acres

Burn of Activity Fuels Piles 1230 696 Acres

Activity Fuels Underburn 1213 36 Acres

Piling of Activity Fuels 1253 271 Acres

Activity Fuels Broadcast Burn 1211 301 Acres

Compacting/Crushing of Activity Fuels 1252 104 Acres

Thinning of Natural Fuels 1160 130 Acres

Piling of Natural Fuels 1153 31 Acres

Rehab Burn Piles – Natural Fuels 1135 157 Acres

Burn of Natural Fuels Piles 1130 211 Acres

Natural Fuels Broadcast Burn 1111 303 Acres

Chipping of Activity Fuels 1254 45 Acres

Invasive Species Treatment 2510 2,540 Acres

Tree Encroachment Control 2400 829 Acres

Range Structural Maintenance – Structures 2220 1 Structures

Range Grazing Structural Improvements - Structures 2010 10 Structures

Range Water Source Developments (Structures) 2200 5 Structures

Other Range Improvements – Structures 2240 3 Structures

Range Fence Obliteration – Length 2120 65 Miles

Range Water Source Developments (Pipeline) 2210 1 Miles
Appendix C Mystic Range Project Past and Present Activities C - 3

Activity Code Units UOM

Trail Construction 3230 1 Miles

Man-Caused Fire Damage 4260 1,557 Acres

Precommercial Thinning – Individual or Selected 4521 11,198 Acres

Overstory Removal Cut (from advanced regeneration) (EA/ 4143 5,489 Acres

Commercial Thinning 4220 3,147 Acres

Shelterwood Cut (EA/RN/NFH) 4131 1,485 Acres

Shelterwood Final Removal Cut (EA/RN/FH) 4141 120 Acres

Special Cut 4240 54 Acres

Permanent Land Clearing 4270 4 Acres

Sanitation (Salvage) 4230 143 Acres

Precommercial Thinning or Cleaning Need Addition 4502 1,145 Acres

Seed-Tree Seed Cut (EA/RN/NFH) 4132 106 Acres

Watershed Resource Road Obliteration – Length 5620 17 Miles

Watershed Resource Non-Structural Improvements Erosion 5510 349 Acres

Wildlife Habitat Grasses and Forbs 6090 36 Acres

Wildlife Habitat Prescribed Fire 6101 3,022 Acres

Wildlife Habitat Access Management – Road Obliteration 6243 45 Miles

Wildlife Habitat Marsh Development 6250 11 Structures

Wildlife Habitat Water Development 6220 22 Structures

Wildlife Habitat Regeneration cut 6104 7 Acres

Wildlife Habitat Mechanical Treatment 6107 519 Acres

Wildlife Habitat Nest Structures (den developments) 6210 41 Structures

Wildlife Habitat Rehabilitate Openings 6131 722 Acres

Wildlife Habitat Release and Weeding 6102 368 Acres

Wildlife Habitat Access Management Development 6240 28 Structures

Leave Trees (Wildlife Reasons) – Area 6111 688 Acres

Wildlife Habitat Seeding and Planting 6080 14 Acres

Inland Fish Habitat Structural maintenance 6681 23 Structures

Inland Fish Brush Cover Structures 6633 5 Structures

Inland Fish Channel Stabilization Construction 6636 6 Structures

Deerfield Allotment

Timber sales within the recent past were as follows:

Sale Award Area* Treatments

NICHOLS Timber Sale 1992 2,227 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

HAT Sale 1985 14 ac Commercial Thinnings

ANNABELLE Timber Sale ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

DUCK Sale ac Commercial Thinnings

DEERFIELD Timber Sale 1998 1,488 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Heely Creek Timber Sale 1979 5,707 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Bobtail Timber Sale 1987 742 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Bitter Timber Sale 2003 2,956 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 
Appendix C Mystic Range Project Past and Present Activities C - 4

Sale Award Area* Treatments

Commercial Thinnings

Bear Timber Sale 2003 2,551 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

*Total acres of harvest, not all of the sale is within the project area.

Past Activities (Within the past 30 years):

Activity Code Units UOM

Burn of Activity Fuel Piles 1230 352 Acres

Burn of Natural Fuels Piles 1130 16 Acres

Rehab Burn Piles – Natural Fuels 1135 32 Acres

Piling of Activity Fuels 1253 6 Acres

Invasive Species Treatment 2510 613 Acres

Range Seeding and Planting 2320 32 Acres

Range Grazing Structural Improvements – Structures 2010 14 Structures

Range Water Source Developments (Structures) 2200 1 Structures

Precommercial Thinning – Individual or Selected 4521 4,064 Acres

Shelterwood Final Removal Cut (EA/RN/FH) 4141 1,552 Acres

Shelterwood Cut (EA/RN/NFH) 4131 2,942 Acres

Shelterwood Preparation Cut (EA/RN/NFH) 4121 1,065 Acres

Special Cut 4240 305 Acres

Post Treatment Timber Stand Improvement Evaluation 4345 372 Acres

Patch Clearcutting (EA/RN/FH) 4111 195 Acres

Commercial Thinning 4220 2,386 Acres

Stocking Surveys 4341 231 Acres

Single-Tree Selection Cut (UA/RN/NFH) 4151 311 Acres

Permanent Land Clearing 4270 25 Acres

Group Selection Cut (UA/RN/FH) 1452 4 Acres

Overstory Removal Cut (from advanced regeneration (EA/ 4143 20 Acres

TSI Certification – Thinning 4392 720 Acres

Watershed Resource Non-Structural Improvements Erosion 5510 12 Acres

Wildlife Habitat Mechanical treatment 6107 80 Acres

Leave Trees (Wildlife Reasons) – Area 6111 800 Acres

Wildlife Habitat Regeneration Cut 6104 188 Acres

Wildlife Habitat Water Development 6220 3 Structures

Palmer Gulch Allotment

Timber sales within the recent past were as follows:

Sale Award Area* Treatments

Walker Timber Sale 1992 2,227 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Twin Springs POL Sale 1985 14 ac Commercial Thinnings

Oblivion POL Sale ac Commercial Thinnings

Maverick Timber Sale 1998 1,488 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Heely Creek Timber Sale 1979 5,707 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Bobtail Timber Sale 1987 742 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 
Appendix C Mystic Range Project Past and Present Activities C - 5

Sale Award Area* Treatments

Commercial Thinnings

Bitter Timber Sale 2003 2,956 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Bear Timber Sale 2003 2,551 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

*Total acres of harvest, not all of the sale is within the project area.

Past Activities (Within the past 30 years):

Activity Code Units UOM

Burn of Activity Fuel Piles 1230 352 Acres

Burn of Natural Fuels Piles 1130 16 Acres

Rehab Burn Piles – Natural Fuels 1135 32 Acres

Piling of Activity Fuels 1253 6 Acres

Invasive Species Treatment 2510 613 Acres

Range Seeding and Planting 2320 32 Acres

Range Grazing Structural Improvements – Structures 2010 14 Structures

Range Water Source Developments (Structures) 2200 1 Structures

Precommercial Thinning – Individual or Selected 4521 4,064 Acres

Shelterwood Final Removal Cut (EA/RN/FH) 4141 1,552 Acres

Shelterwood Cut (EA/RN/NFH) 4131 2,942 Acres

Shelterwood Preparation Cut (EA/RN/NFH) 4121 1,065 Acres

Special Cut 4240 305 Acres

Post Treatment Timber Stand Improvement Evaluation 4345 372 Acres

Patch Clearcutting (EA/RN/FH) 4111 195 Acres

Commercial Thinning 4220 2,386 Acres

Stocking Surveys 4341 231 Acres

Single-Tree Selection Cut (UA/RN/NFH) 4151 311 Acres

Permanent Land Clearing 4270 25 Acres

Group Selection Cut (UA/RN/FH) 1452 4 Acres

Overstory Removal Cut (from advanced regeneration (EA/ 4143 20 Acres

TSI Certification – Thinning 4392 720 Acres

Watershed Resource Non-Structural Improvements Erosion 5510 12 Acres

Wildlife Habitat Mechanical treatment 6107 80 Acres

Leave Trees (Wildlife Reasons) – Area 6111 800 Acres

Wildlife Habitat Regeneration Cut 6104 188 Acres

Wildlife Habitat Water Development 6220 3 Structures

Porcupine Allotment

Timber sales within the recent past were as follows:

Sale Award Area* Treatments

Signal Timber Sale 1990 2,051 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Lowell Timber Sale 1991 1,046 ac Commercial Thinnings

Lemming Timber Sale 2000 6,383 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Crooked/Uncle Timber Sale 1999 4,093 ac Commercial Thinnings

Cooper Ranch Timber Sale 1968 2,161 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 
Appendix C Mystic Range Project Past and Present Activities C - 6

Sale Award Area* Treatments

Commercial Thinnings

Cat Timber Sale 1990 3,400 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Antelope Timber Sale 1988 2,940 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

*Total acres of harvest, not all of the sale is within the project area.

Past Activities (Within the past 30 years):

Activity Code Units UOM

Burn of Activity Fuels Piles 1230 441 Acres

Range Water Source Developments (Structures) 2200 6 Structures

Tree Encroachment Control 2400 58 Acres

Invasive Species Treatment 2510 1,050 Acres

Range Grazing Structural Improvements – Structures 2010 2 Structures

Range Fences – Length 2110 4 Miles

Range Seeding and Planting 2320 57 Acres

Range Water Source Developments (Pipeline) 2210 1 Miles

Precommercial Thinning – individual or selected 4521 5,926 Acres

Shelterwood Preparation Cut (EA/NRH/NFH) 4121 135 Acres

Site Preparation for Natural Regeneration 4490 88 Acres

Commercial Thinning 4220 2,277 Acres

Full Seeding/Reseeding Concurrent with Site Prep 4421 88 Acres

Patch Clearcutting (EA/RN/FH) 4111 48 Acres

Shelterwood Cut (EA/RN/NFH) 4131 2,734 Acres

Shelterwood Final Removal Cut (EA/NRN/FH) 4141 3,548 Acres

Stand Clearcutting (EA/RH/FH) 4113 10 Acres

Stocking Surveys 4341 521 Acres

Overstory Removal Cut (from advanced regeneration)(E 4143 31 Acres

Man-Caused Fire Damage 4260 1,134 Acres

Leave Trees (Wildlife Reasons) – Area 6111 410 Acres

Wildlife Habitat Regeneration Cut 6104 82 Acres

Wildlife Habitat Precommercial Thinning 6103 59 Acres

Wildlife Habitat Water Development 6220 6 Structures

Wildlife Habitat Rehabilitate Openings 6131 223 Acres

Wildlife Habitat Mechanical Treatment 6107 70 Acres

Wildlife Habitat Access Management Development 6240 1 Structures

Redfern Allotment

Timber sales within the recent past were as follows:

Sale Award Area* Treatments

Snugget Timber Sale 1992 2,227 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Reddog Slice Sale 1985 14 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Flanagan Timber Sale ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

*Total acres of harvest, not all of the sale is within the project area.
Appendix C Mystic Range Project Past and Present Activities C - 7

Past Activities (Within the past 30 years):

Activity Code Unit UOM

Natural Fuels Broadcast Burn 1111 239 Acres

Burn of Natural Fuel Piles 1130 3 Acres

Rehab Burn Piles – Natural Fuels 1135 3 Acres

Activity Fuels Broadcast Burn 1211 117 Acres

Invasive Species Treatment 2510 264 Acres

Range Grazing Structural Improvements – Structures 2010 8 Structures

Precommercial Thinning – individual or selected 4521 1,151 Acres

Stand Silviculture Prescription 4331 949 Acres

Shelterwood Final Removal Cut (EA/NRN/FH) 4141 100 Acres

Shelterwood Preparation Cut (EA/NRH/NFH) 4121 740 Acres

Overstory Removal Cut (from advanced regeneration)(E 4143 323 Acres

Commercial Thinning 4220 94 Acres

Patch Clearcutting (EA/RN/FH) 4111 30 Acres

Shelterwood Cut (EA/RN/NFH) 4131 419 Acres

Watershed Resource Road Obliteration – Length 5620 6 Miles

Wildlife Habitat Mechanical Treatment 6107 148 Acres

Wildlife Habitat Prescribed Fire 6101 4,209 Acres

Habitat Access Management 6420 60 Acres

Inland Fish Habitat Inventory 6610 108 Acres

Leave Trees (Wildlife Reasons) – Area 6111 571 Acres

Inland Fish Brush Cover Structures 6633 5 Structures

Wildlife Habitat Regeneration Cut 6104 22 Acres

Inland Fish Channel Stabilization Construction 6636 26 Structures

Wildlife Habitat Access Management Development 6240 42 Structures

Wildlife Habitat Access Management – Road Obliteration 6243 5 Miles

Wildlife Habitat Seeding and Planting 6080 24 Acres

Rimmer Allotment

Timber sales within the recent past were as follows:

Sale Award Area* Treatments

Kinney Timber Sale 2007 1,635 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Dutchman Timber Sale 2005 180 ac Sanitation Thinnings

Mercedes Timber Sale 2004 1,507 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Lost Park Timber Sale 2004 2019 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests, Clearcuts 

& Commercial Thinnings

Angle Timber Sale 2001 704 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Crooked/Uncle Timber Sale 1996 4,093 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Sawbuck Timber Sale 1985 1,649 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Bittersweet Timber Sale 1981 3,915 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

*Acres of Harvest
Appendix C Mystic Range Project Past and Present Activities C - 8

Past Activities (Within the past 30 years):

Activity Code Units UOM

Burn Activity Fuels Piles 1230 51 Acres

Invasive Species Treatment 2510 177 Acres

Range Seeding and Planting 2320 4 Acres

Range Water Source Developments (Structures) 2200 3 Structures

Range Grazing Structural Improvements – Structures 2010 1 Structures

Precommercial Thinning – individual or selected 4521 574 Acres

Shelterwood Cut (EA/RN/NFH) 4131 220 Acres

Shelterwood Final Removal Cut (EA/NRN/FH) 4141 607 Acres

Shelterwood Preparation Cut (EA/NRH/NFH) 4121 316 Acres

Commercial Thinning 4220 20 Acres

Site Preparation for Natural Regeneration 4490 86 Acres

Overstory Removal Cut (from advanced regeneration) 4143 142 Acres

Patch Clearcutting (EA/RN/FH) 4111 2 Acres

Slate Prairie Allotment

Timber sales within the recent past were as follows:

Sale Award Area* Treatments

Dutchman Timber Sale 2005 180 ac Salvage/Sanitation Thinnings

Angle Timber Sale 2001 704 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Odakota Timber Sale 1998 3,298 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Crooked/Uncle Timber Sale 1996 4,093 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Flanagan Timber Sale 1994 925 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Bittersweet Timber Sale 1981 3,915 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

*Total acres of harvest, not all of the sale is within the project area.

Past Activities (Within the past 30 years):

Activity Code Unit UOM

Burn Activity Fuels Piles 1230 51 Acres

Invasive Species Treatment 2510 177 Acres

Range Seeding and Planting 2320 4 Acres

Range Water Source Developments (Structures) 2200 3 Structures

Range Grazing Structural Improvements – Structures 2010 1 Structures

Precommercial Thinning – individual or selected 4521 574 Acres

Shelterwood Cut (EA/RN/NFH) 4131 220 Acres

Shelterwood Final Removal Cut (EA/NRN/FH) 4141 607 Acres

Shelterwood Preparation Cut (EA/NRH/NFH) 4121 316 Acres

Commercial Thinning 4220 20 Acres

Site Preparation for Natural Regeneration 4490 86 Acres

Overstory Removal Cut (from advanced regeneration) 4143 142 Acres

Patch Clearcutting (EA/RN/FH) 4111 2 Acres
Appendix C Mystic Range Project Past and Present Activities C - 9

Tigerville Allotment

Timber sales within the recent past were as follows:

Sale Award Area* Treatments

Reddog Slice Timber Sale 2002 2,416 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

Newton Timber Sale 1992 4,047 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

China Timber Sale 1994 1,730 ac Shelterwood Regeneration Harvests & 

Commercial Thinnings

*Total acres of harvest, not all of the sale is within the project area.

Past Activities (Within the past 30 years):

Activity Code Unit UOM

Natural Fuels Broadcast Burn 1111 554 Acres

Invasive Species Treatment 2510 191 Acres

Range Water Source Developments (Structures) 2200 1 Structures

Precommercial Thinning – individual or selected 4521 1,521 Acres

Commercial Thinning 4220 226 Acres

Shelterwood Final Removal Cut (EA/NRN/FH) 4141 371 Acres

Shelterwood Preparation Cut (EA/NRH/NFH) 4121 1,989 Acres

Patch Clearcutting (EA/RN/FH) 4111 3 Acres

Improvement Cut 4210 19 Acres

Shelterwood Cut (EA/RN/NFH) 4131 35 Acres

Habitat Access Management 6420 272 Acres

Wildlife Habitat Prescribed Fire 6101 1,114 Acres

Wildlife Habitat Nest Structures, dens development 6210 56 Structures

Wildlife Habitat Regeneration Cut 6104 61 Acres

Wildlife Habitat Release and Weeding 6102 64 Acres

Present / Foreseeable Actions within the Project Area

Pennington County Department of Transportation is planning on grading and asphalt placement 

to widen the road and complete shoulder work on FH 17.

The Project Area contains overhead and underground distribution and transmission power utility 

lines under special use permits to Black Hills Electric Cooperative, Quest, and Golden West 

Telephone. Maintenance is ongoing for these facilities.

Firewood gathering and Christmas tree cutting by permit will continue to occur within the area.

Road / Utility right-of-way clearing – Road construction and maintenance and right-of-way 

brushing can be expected to continue on non-National Forest System lands. Road construction, 

reconstruction, and decommissioning are expected to continue to move towards Forest Plan 

Objective 309 based on past project decisions.

Subdivision development - Given current trends, it is likely that additional private lands may be 

subdivided and that new residences may be constructed. With subdivisions and private land 
Appendix C Mystic Range Project Past and Present Activities C - 10

ownership within the Project Area, special use permits such as utility and water line right-of-way 

and electronic tower installation may be addressed. Also, right-of-way and land easement projects 

will foreseeably be assessed for private land owners to access their property across NFS lands. 

Private landowners may harvest timber on their own lands for lumber or to reduce fire hazard.

Wildfires - The frequency, size and intensity of possible wildfires will depend upon various 

factors, including weather (drought), ignition means, and fuels loadings.

Mining activity – It is likely that there will be some mining claims reviewed within the project 

area, as well as mine shaft closures due to safety and/or bat/wildlife concerns.

Minerals – Dakota Stone, a local saleable materials business is conducting mining operations on 

several sites in various locations in the Project Area. 

Recreation – Recreation activities, both developed and undeveloped activities (ie hunting, fishing, 

hiking) will continue to increase on the Forest. Trail and Bridge work, as well as, additional 

maintenance efforts will continue on the Deerfield Trial, Castle Creek Campground, Rochford 

Road, and other developed recreation sites within the Project Area. Newton Fork Developed 

picnic ground is a destination for fishing, as well as parking to access the Mickelson Trail.

SDGFP currently manages non-native fish, primarily trout, to provide for recreational fishing 

opportunities within the analysis area. Management activities include fish stocking, habitat 

enhancement, fish population surveys, and research.

Treatments to reduce or eliminate noxious weeds and invasive species would continue.

In 2005, the Forest Service published a new rule for providing OHV access to national forests 

and grasslands. The rule itself does not designate roads or areas for OHV’s, but provides a 

framework for making those decisions at the local level. The Black Hills National Forest has 

issued a FEIS/ROD (March 22, 2010) designating routes for motorized use forest-wide. 

Black Hills Electric Cooperative (BHEC) plans to construct a new overhead 69 Kv transmission 

line from approximately Rockerville, SD to Hermosa, SD.

Black Hills Power (BHP) plans to construct a Teckla-Osage-Lange 230 Kv Transmission line 

from approximately Teckla Substation in Wyoming to Osage Substation in Wyoming to Lange 

Substation in South Dakota (NW of Rapid City). The specific route is unknown at this time.

Future timber planning areas includes Pactola Planning Area (2010) and Calumet Planning Area 

(2011).
Appendix D Mystic Range Project Summary BA/BE Wildlife, Fisheries, and Botany

APPENDIX D

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT / BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION 

WILDLIFE, FISHERIES,

AND 

BOTANY SUMMARIES

Appendix D Mystic Range Project Summary BA/BE Wildlife, Fisheries, and Botany D - 1

APPENDIX D – SUMMARY OF BIOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS FOR WILDLIFE, 

FISHERIES, AND BOTANICAL RESOURCES IN THE MYSTIC RANGE PROJECT

This document is a synthesis for the Wildlife, Botanical and Fisheries Resources in the Mystic 

Range Project (MRP). The summary is an effort to reduce redundancy and improve reading ease

while retaining important content. It is not intended to meet all the legal requirements and 

policies associated with the BE. The parent BE is contained in the Mystic Range Project 

administrative record.

The main purpose of a BE is to disclose, in detail, the potential effects of all alternatives to 

federally-listed and Forest Service sensitive species.

1 The BE also provides a “determination 

statement” to help decision-makers and other readers see how the project might affect the longterm persistence of a species. This summary document provides simplified effects disclosures

and determination statements for all species relevant to the MRP, and provides the reader with 

some of the information sources used in the analyses.

Pre-field Review and Field Reconnaissance

Pre-field review and field reconnaissance are essential in determining which species could occur 

in a project area, and how they might be affected. Pre-field reviews were completed using past 

survey results, district records, literature reviews, on-line databases, and Forest Plan monitoring 

reports. Field visits were performed with intent to identify suitable and/or occupied habitat for 

sensitive species. These surveys were conducted by qualified biologists, including Forest Service 

employees and contractors. In addition to species-specific surveys, additional field visits to the 

Mystic Range Project (MRP) were conducted with the general intent of identifying habitat and 

potential issues for other status species. Data from all sources mentioned above were used to 

determine design criteria (see Appendix B) and effects relevant to the MRP.

 1 Federally-listed species are those that have been designated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service as endangered or 

threatened (i.e., under the Endangered Species Act), including those that have been formally proposed for listing. 

Sensitive species are designated by the Regional Forester. Both categories imply rareness or sensitivity to 

management actions.
Appendix D Mystic Range Project Summary BA/BE Wildlife, Fisheries, and Botany D - 1

Table D-1 Draft Summary of Effects to R2 Sensitive Wildlife and Fish Species.

Summary of Effects to R2 Sensitive Wildlife and Fish Species 1.

Species Name2 Habitat Description

Species or 

Habitat 

Present

Alternatives Effects Summary Determination

Mammals

Black-tailed prairie dog 

Cynomys ludovicianus

Short and mixed grass 

prairie with soils 

conducive to burrowing 

(Higgins et al. 2000).

Yes

(habitat)

Alt. A

This species is less likely to colonize due to an 

increase in woody and taller vegetation due to a 

lack of grazing.

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

Alt. B & C

Livestock grazing is conducive for colonization 

and expansion due to shorter vegetation 

Beneficial impact 

American marten 

Martes americana 

Spruce forests with 

complex near-ground 

structure, extending into 

adjacent pine stands 

(Buskirk 2002). 

Corridor habitat includes 

conifer and deciduous 

riparian areas (Fecske 

2003).

Yes

(both)

Alt. A

Increase in deciduous riparian species would 

provide cover, habitat for prey species habitat. 

Increase in water tables would improve riparian 

habitat. 

Beneficial impact

Alt. B & C

Heavy grazing in riparian areas would reduce 

vegetative cover and reduce prey species.

Decrease of water table would decrease riparian 

habitat potential. 

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

Fringed myotis

Myotis thysanodes 

Roosts in caves and 

mines, on snags and rock 

faces; forages on insects 

in various habitats, 

including shrub lands, 

and forested areas 

(Schmidt and Anderson 

2003).

Yes

(both)

Alt. A

Increase standing water sources and increase prey 

habitat and availability.

Beneficial impact

Alt. B & C

Decrease in prey habitat.

Decrease in amount of standing water sources.

Decline in roosting habitat due to prescribed 

burning and fence clearing.

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

Rocky Mountain bighorn 

sheep

Ovis canadensis canadensis 

Open habitats, such as 

grasslands, talus slopes, 

rocky outcrops but may 

use deciduous and 

conifer forest with 

openings (Beecham et. 

al. 2007

Yes

(both)

Alt. A

No competition for forage would increase carrying 

capacity of use areas.

Increase in water tables would improve riparian 

habitat and provide water sources

Beneficial impact

Alt. B & C Competition for forage, especially close to escape 

cover and lambing areas would reduce carrying 

May adversely impact 

individuals, but not likely to 
Appendix D Mystic Range Project Summary BA/BE Wildlife, Fisheries, and Botany D - 2

Summary of Effects to R2 Sensitive Wildlife and Fish Species 1.

Species Name2 Habitat Description

Species or 

Habitat 

Present

Alternatives Effects Summary Determination

capacity of use areas.

Decrease of water table would decrease riparian 

habitat potential.

Decrease in amount of standing water sources.

result in a loss of viability in 

the Planning Area, nor cause 

a trend toward federal listing

Townsend’s big-eared bat

Plecotus townsendii 

Roosts in caves and 

mines, occasionally 

buildings; forages on 

insects in various 

habitats including 

forested and wet areas 

(Schmidt 2003e).

Yes

(both)

Alt. A Increase standing water sources and increase prey 

habitat and availability.

Beneficial impact

Alt. B & C

Decrease in prey habitat.

Decrease in amount of standing water sources.

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

Birds

Burrowing owl 

Athene cunicularia

Short/mixed grass 

prairie, usually 

associated with ground 

squirrels or prairie dogs 

(Johnson and Anderson 

2002, Tallman et al. 

2002).

Yes

(habitat)

Alt. A

This species is less likely to colonize due to an 

increase in woody and taller vegetation due to a 

lack of grazing. 

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 

Alt. B & C

Livestock grazing is conducive for colonization 

and expansion due to shorter vegetation.

Structural improvements near burrows would 

increase predation rates (i.e., perches).

Beneficial impact

Northern goshawk

Accipiter gentilis

Nests primarily in dense 

mature conifer forests; 

forages in a variety of 

forested areas and small 

openings (Kennedy 

2003).

Yes

(both)

Alt. A Reduced alteration of nesting habitat and human 

disturbance.

No impact

Alt. B & C

Increase habitat alteration and human disturbance 

of nesting habitat due to structural maintenance 

and fence line clearing.

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

Grasshopper sparrow

Ammodramus savannarum 

Grasslands of 

intermediate height with 

bare patches and 

moderately deep litter 

Yes

(both) Alt. A

Higher potential of loss of native grasslands due to 

an increase in woody vegetation and invasive plant 

species.

Potential reduction in productivity and nutrient 

May adversely impact 

individuals, but not likely to 

result in a loss of viability in 

the Planning Area, nor cause 
Appendix D Mystic Range Project Summary BA/BE Wildlife, Fisheries, and Botany D - 3

Summary of Effects to R2 Sensitive Wildlife and Fish Species 1.

Species Name2 Habitat Description

Species or 

Habitat 

Present

Alternatives Effects Summary Determination

(Slater 2004, RMBO 

2001-2009).

cycling in grasslands. a trend toward federal listing

Alt. B & C

Loss of nests, eggs, and young due to trampling. 

Decline of nesting and foraging habitat due to over 

utilization in grasslands.

Increase chance of predation.

Potential increase in productivity and nutrient 

cycling in grasslands

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

Ferruginous hawk

Buteo regalis

Open grasslands, shrubsteppe, croplands, desert, 

and the periphery of 

western pinyon and 

juniper (Collins and 

Reynolds 2005).

Yes

(habitat)

Alt. A

Increase nest site availability.

Increase chance of predation at nest site. 

Decrease in foraging success.

Decrease potential for nest abandonment due to 

human disturbance. 

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

Alt. B & C

Loss of nests, eggs, and young due to trampling. 

Reduced nest site availability.

Potential increase in prey habitat and availability 

(moderate to light grazing).

Increase in foraging success, especially in riparian 

areas.

Increase potential for nest abandonment due to 

human disturbance.

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

Northern harrier

Circus cyaneus 

Open areas; prairies, 

wetlands or grasslands 

with tall dense 

vegetation and high 

residual cover; logged or 

burned woodlands 

(Slater and Rock 2005, 

Tallman et al. 2002).

Yes

(both)

Alt. A

Increase in water table would increase riparian 

habitat potential.

Increase in nesting habitat and prey habitat and 

availability.

Beneficial impact

Alt. B & C

Loss of nests, eggs, and young due to trampling. 

Potential decrease of nesting habitat and increased 

predation due to over utilization.

Lowering of water table would decrease riparian 

habitat potential.

Decrease in prey habitat and availability. 

May adversely impact 

individuals, but not likely to 

result in a loss of viability in 

the Planning Area, nor cause 

a trend toward federal listing
Appendix D Mystic Range Project Summary BA/BE Wildlife, Fisheries, and Botany D - 4

Summary of Effects to R2 Sensitive Wildlife and Fish Species 1.

Species Name2 Habitat Description

Species or 

Habitat 

Present

Alternatives Effects Summary Determination

Yellow-billed cuckoo

Coccyzus americanus

(Candidate: Western US 

DPS)

Low elevation riparian 

areas and 

cottonwood/willow or 

bur oak woodlands with 

dense shrub understory 

(Wiggins 2005b, RMBO 

2001-2009).

Yes

(habitat)

Alt. A

Less chance for nest disturbance and 

fragmentation of habitats. 

Potential increase in water tables that would 

increase riparian communities.

Increase in cottonwood/oak communities and 

dense riparian shrub habitat.

Less potential for habitat fragmentation in riparian 

shrub communities.

Beneficial impact

Alt. B & C

Loss of nests, eggs, and young due to trampling.

Lowering of water table would decrease riparian 

habitat potential.

Decline in cottonwood/oak communities and 

reduced dense riparian shrub component and 

increased habitat fragmentation due to grazing.

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

Olive-sided flycatcher

Contopus cooperi 

Generally found in 

coniferous or mixed 

coniferous forests, along 

forest edges and 

openings caused by 

disturbances (Kotliar, 

2007)

Yes

(both)

Alt. A Increase in prey habitat and prey availability. Beneficial impact

Alt. B & C

Reduced prey habitat and prey availability. 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

American peregrine falcon

Falco peregrinus anatum 

Open areas and 

woodland edges 

(Tallman et al. 2002); 

nests on rocky cliffs or 

buildings.

Yes

(habitat)

Alt. A Increase in prey habitat and prey availability.

Decrease in foraging success.

Beneficial Impact

Alt. B & C

Reduced prey habitat that may reduce prey 

availability.

Increase in foraging success.

May adversely impact 

individuals, but not likely to 

result in a loss of viability in 

the Planning Area, nor cause 

a trend toward federal listing

Bald eagle

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Usually found near open 

water or in areas with 

abundant carrion in 

Yes

(both) Alt. A

Improved riparian communities, reducing potential 

sediment into lakes and streams. Increase aquatic 

prey availability and foraging success.

Beneficial impact
Appendix D Mystic Range Project Summary BA/BE Wildlife, Fisheries, and Botany D - 5

Summary of Effects to R2 Sensitive Wildlife and Fish Species 1.

Species Name2 Habitat Description

Species or 

Habitat 

Present

Alternatives Effects Summary Determination

winter (USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2007a).

Alt. B & C

Potential decrease in prey availability and foraging 

success due impaired riparian conditions that 

would affect water quality.

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

Loggerhead shrike

Lanius ludovicianus 

Open areas with 

scattered, low deciduous 

thickets, rare in higher 

elevations of the Black 

Hills (Wiggins 2005a, 

Tallman et al. 2002).

Yes

(habitat)

Alt. A

Increase in potential shrub thickets and hardwoods 

used for nesting and foraging. Increase in prey 

habitat and availability. 

Beneficial impact

Alt. B & C

Loss of nests, eggs, and young due to trampling.

Loss of suitable nesting and foraging habitat due to 

grazing.

Decrease in prey habitat and availability.

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

Lewis’s woodpecker

Melanerpes lewis 

Burned areas, open pine, 

oak, or cottonwood 

forests, with large snags 

for nesting (Abele et. al 

2004, RMBO 2001-

2009).

Yes

(both)

Alt. A

Increase in cottonwood/oak communities, 

increasing nesting habitat.

Increase in prey habitat and availability.

Beneficial Impact

Alt. B & C

Decrease in cottonwood/oak habitat due to over 

utilization.

Loss eggs, young and nesting habitat due to 

structural maintenance and fence line clearing.

Decrease in prey habitat and availability.

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

Long-billed curlew

Numenius americanus

Short and mixed-grass 

prairie habitat with flat 

to rolling topography. 

Found at lower 

elevations of the Black 

Hills (Sedgwick 2006, 

RMBO 2001-2009, 

USFWS 2009).

Yes

(habitat)

Alt. A

This species is less likely to colonize due to an 

increase in woody and taller vegetation due to a 

lack of grazing.

Increase in predation rate.

Potential decrease in suitable nesting and foraging 

habitat due higher stubble heights

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

Alt. B & C

Loss of nests, eggs and young due to trampling

Livestock grazing is conducive for colonization 

and expansion due to shorter vegetation.

Decrease in predation rates.

Potential decrease in suitable nesting and foraging 

habitat due to over-utilization

.

May adversely impact 

individuals, but not likely to 

result in a loss of viability in 

the Planning Area, nor cause 

a trend toward federal listing
Appendix D Mystic Range Project Summary BA/BE Wildlife, Fisheries, and Botany D - 6

Summary of Effects to R2 Sensitive Wildlife and Fish Species 1.

Species Name2 Habitat Description

Species or 

Habitat 

Present

Alternatives Effects Summary Determination

Flammulated owl

Otus flammeolus 

Open ponderosa pine 

forest, nests in cavities 

and large diameter snags 

(Hayward and Verner 

1994).

Yes

(habitat)

Alt. A Increases prey habitat and availability. No impact

Alt. B & C

Potential to reduce prey habitat and availability.

Potential decrease in nesting habitat due to 

prescribed burning, structural maintenance, and 

fence line clearing.

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

Black-backed woodpecker

Picoides arcticus 

Dense pine forests that 

are recently burned are 

in late successional or 

dense mature condition 

or where mountain pine 

beetle densities are high

(Moren and Rumble 

2002, RMBO 2001-

2009).

Yes

(both)

Alt. A None No impact

Alt. B & C

Potential decrease in nesting habitat due to 

prescribed burning, structural maintenance, and 

fence line clearing.

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

American three-toed 

woodpecker

Picoides dorsalis

Old-growth conifer 

forests with large 

diameter snags, burned 

areas and beetle 

infestation areas

(Wiggins 2004, RMBO 

2001-2009).

Yes

(both)

Alt. A None No impact

Alt. B & C

Potential decrease in nesting habitat due to 

prescribed burning, structural maintenance, and 

fence line clearing.

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

Reptiles and Amphibians

Northern leopard frog

Lithobates pipiens 

Riparian and wetland 

areas for tadpoles, 

subadults, and breeding 

adults; upland habitats 

for foraging adults 

(Smith 2003, Smith and 

Keinath 2007).

Yes

(both)

Alt. A

Increase in breeding habitat by improved stream 

bank stability and reducing effects to water quality 

and riparian health. 

Increase in standing water sources.

Increase in water tables that improve riparian 

communities.

Beneficial impact

Alt. B & C

Decline of breeding ponds due to increased 

siltation, changes in pH and water temperature and 

reduced standing water sources.

May adversely impact 

individuals, but not likely to 

result in a loss of viability in 
Appendix D Mystic Range Project Summary BA/BE Wildlife, Fisheries, and Botany D - 7

Summary of Effects to R2 Sensitive Wildlife and Fish Species 1.

Species Name2 Habitat Description

Species or 

Habitat 

Present

Alternatives Effects Summary Determination

Decline of wetlands and riparian habitat due to 

over-utilization, trampling, and water 

developments.

Decrease in water tables that decrease riparian 

communities.

the Planning Area, nor cause 

a trend toward federal listing

Black Hills red-bellied 

snake

Storeria occipitomaculata 

pahasapae 

Moist habitats with welldeveloped ground litter 

such as wet meadows, 

woodlands, and forestmeadow edges (Smith 

and Stephens 2003).

Yes

(both)

Alt. A Increase breeding habitat by improving riparian 

vegetative conditions and improving prey habitat. 

Beneficial impact

Alt. B & C

Habitat loss and modification due to over 

utilization and developments within wetlands, 

springs, and seeps.

Decrease in prey availability due to overutilization of riparian areas.

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

Fish

Mountain sucker

Catostomus platyrhynchus

Occurs most often in 

cool, clear mountain 

streams, with moderate 

stream flow velocities 

but have been observed 

elsewhere in large rivers, 

lakes and reservoirs 

(Isaak et al. 2003)

Yes

(both)

Alt. A

Increase in water tables that would increase 

riparian communities. 

Increase in vegetative cover would improve water 

temperature and maintain stable stream banks.

Decrease in sediments would improve spawning 

and prey habitat and availability. 

Beneficial impact

Alt. B & C

Decrease in spawning and prey habitat through 

increased sediments and poor water quality due to 

hoof action in riparian/stream habitat. 

Decrease in vegetative cover increases water 

temperature.

Simple aquatic plant growth stimulated due to 

livestock waste and increase sunlight to stream.

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

Lake chub

Couesius plumbeus 

Cool, gravel-bottomed 

pools and runs of 

streams; rocky lake 

Yes

(both) Alt. A

Increase in water tables that improve riparian 

conditions, decreasing sediments transported 

through the stream network into Deerfield Lake. 

Beneficial impact
Appendix D Mystic Range Project Summary BA/BE Wildlife, Fisheries, and Botany D - 8

Summary of Effects to R2 Sensitive Wildlife and Fish Species 1.

Species Name2 Habitat Description

Species or 

Habitat 

Present

Alternatives Effects Summary Determination

margins. Known only 

from Deerfield Lake 

(USDA Forest Service 

2005a).

Alt. B & C

Over utilization of riparian habitats reduces 

riparian condition, lowering of water tables, and 

degradation of riparian/stream habitat would 

increase sediment transported through the stream 

network into Deerfield Lake. 

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

Invertebrates

Ottoe skipper

Hesperia ottoe

Restricted to 

undisturbed, mixed-grass 

to tall-grass prairie 

habitats with big 

bluestem, little bluestem 

and sideoats gramma. 

Found in Pennington, 

Lawrence, Fall River, 

and Custer Counties 

along the foothills of the 

Black Hills (Shelby 

2005, Marrone 2005, 

2007).

Yes

(habitat)

Alt. A Increase in nectar and larval host plants.

Increases chances of over-winter survival. 

Beneficial impact

Alt. B & C

Loss of eggs and larvae due to trampling and 

grazing.

Reduced availability of nectar resources, changes 

in vegetative structure, removal of larval host 

plants. 

Prescribed fire increases the chance of larval 

mortality. 

Overutilization would increase the chances of 

changing grassland communities and increase in 

invasive species.

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

Regal fritillary

Speyeria idalia 

Tall-grass or mixedgrass prairie with violets. 

Found in Pennington, 

Lawrence, Fall River, 

and Custer Counties, rare 

in higher elevations of 

the Black Hills (Shelby 

2007, Marrone 2005, 

2007).

Yes

(both)

Alt. A

Decrease the potential for nectar and larval host 

plants (violets) availability due to a lack of light to 

moderate grazing.

Increases chances of larval survival.

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

Alt. B & C

Loss of eggs and larvae due to trampling and 

grazing.

Reduced availability of nectar resources, changes 

in vegetative structure, removal of larval host 

plants through over-utilization. 

Prescribed fire reduces larval survival.

Overutilization would increase the chances of 

changing grassland and riparian communities and 

increase in invasive species.

May adversely impact 

individuals, but not likely to 

result in a loss of viability in 

the Planning Area, nor cause 

a trend toward federal listing
Appendix D Mystic Range Project Summary BA/BE Wildlife, Fisheries, and Botany D - 9

Summary of Effects to R2 Sensitive Wildlife and Fish Species 1.

Species Name2 Habitat Description

Species or 

Habitat 

Present

Alternatives Effects Summary Determination

Cooper’s Rocky 

Mountainsnail

Oreohelix strigosa cooperi 

Occurs on limestone 

rock outcrops/cliffs at 

higher elevations with 

developed litter layer, 

moss, and downed 

woody material 

(Anderson 2005).

Yes

(both)

Alt. A

No mortality caused by trampling.

Canopy cover in mesic sites is not reduced, 

allowing expansion of colonies.

Increase in mesic habitat by maintenance of 

canopy cover, reducing environmental conditions 

that would cause dry conditions (wind, sunlight).

Improve riparian communities by increasing water 

tables. 

Beneficial impact

Alt. B & C

Mortality caused by trampling.

Decrease in mesic habitat by reduction of canopy 

cover associated with changes in vegetation that 

would cause dry conditions (i.e., wind, sunlight)

Decrease riparian communities by decreasing 

water tables and over utilization. 

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

1

Indepth discussion of species found in respective specialist reports. 2

Obtained from R2 Sensitive Species List (FSM 2600-2009-1)
Appendix D Mystic Range Project Summary BA/BE Wildlife, Fisheries, and Botany D - 1

Forest Service Sensitive Species – Plants

The determination of effects for action alternatives (Alternatives B and C) on Region 2 sensitive 

species in this BA/BE summary were made as the result of the information gathered in the prefield review, field reconnaissance, survey results, and effects analysis for all action 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.

Objectives, standards, and guidelines have been identified in the Forest Plan Phase II to conserve 

Region 2 sensitive species found on the Black Hills National Forest (USDA Forest Service

2005). This project will follow the objectives, standards, and guidelines that are applicable to 

those species and habitats found in the Mystic Range Project.

Botanical surveys were focused in areas of high probability habitat, but portions of low 

probability habitat in the project area were also surveyed. Survey areas were determined using a 

combination of resources including topographic maps, aerial photographs, field reconnaissance, 

and local knowledge. The list of target plant species has changed over the past fifteen years (the 

time span over which the surveys were performed), however many of the species have remained 

on the list. Surveys focused on locating target plant species but also provide general community 

descriptions and species lists from which basic conclusions can be drawn about the habitat. The 

2005 to 2008 survey reports often include a determination of an area’s potential to support target 

plant species. Survey intensities ranged from field check to complete, however most sites were 

surveyed with general or intuitive controlled survey intensity.

An effects analysis was completed for those plant species that could potentially be impacted by 

the proposed project. This analysis addresses federally designated endangered and threatened 

species, and Region 2 sensitive plant species which occur or which have potential habitat in the 

project area.

Federally Listed Plant Species

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) website list for Threatened and Endangered 

species was accessed on June 30, 2009 for the state of South Dakota. As of this date, there were 

no threatened or endangered plant species known to occur within the State of South Dakota 

(USDI Fish & Wildlife Service 2009a & 2009b), nor were there any proposed or candidate plant 

species known to occur in South Dakota (USDI Fish & Wildlife Service 2009c & 2009d).

Subsequently, threatened, endangered, or proposed species do not need to be analyzed and are 

not mentioned in subsequent sections. 

The narrowleaf grapefern (Botrychium lineare) was a candidate plant species but was officially 

removed from the candidate list by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish & Wildlife 

2007). Candidate species are automatically placed on the Region 2 Forester’s sensitive species 

list. The narrowleaf grapefern (Botrychium lineare) remains on the Region 2 sensitive plant list 

and is discussed under the Biological Evaluation for Region 2 sensitive species.

No further analysis is needed for species not known or suspected to occur in the project area.
Appendix D Mystic Range Project Summary BA/BE Wildlife, Fisheries, and Botany D - 2

Implementation of any of the three alternatives as described will not affect any threatened or 

endangered plant species or designated critical habitat. Endangered Species Act Section 7 

Consultation is not required for this project. 

Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species

The Forest Service Manual defines sensitive species as those plant and animal species identified 

by a Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern, as evidence by:

Significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density . Or

Significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a 

species’ existing distribution (Forest Service Manual 2670.5, 19).

The sensitive species list for the Rocky Mountain Region was published as a Regional 

Supplement (2600-2009-1) effective June 9, 2009. The list of sensitive species was verified by 

checking the Region 2 Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species Program website (USDA 

Forest Service 2009b). There are twelve plant species on the Forest Service Region 2 sensitive 

species list that are known to occur on the Black Hills National Forest. These species are the 

only ones considered in this analysis.

All Region 2 sensitive plant species confirmed to occur in the Black Hills National Forest were 

considered in the evaluation. Because of its size, habitat exists in the Mystic Range Project 

allotments for several Region 2 sensitive plant species. Species which do not occur and/or do 

not have potential habitat present within the Mystic Range Project were not analyzed. 

Yellow lady slipper (Cypripedium parviflorum), sage willow (Salix candida), and autumn willow 

(Salix serissima) are the only Region 2 sensitive plant species confirmed to occur within the 

project area. Yellow lady's slipper is known from the Bald Horse Allotment and sage and 

autumn willows are known from the Deerfield Allotment. Table B-2 summarizes Region 2 

sensitive plant species having potential habitat within Mystic Range Project allotments. 

With implementation of the Forest Plan Phase II Amendment and all of the standards and 

guidelines adopted therein, and project specific design criteria, a determination of “May 

adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, 

nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability range-wide” is made for the 

following species for the action alternatives: 

Prairie moonwort Botrychium campestre

Narrowleaf grapefern Botrychium lineare

Foxtail sedge Carex alopecoidea

Yellow lady’s slipper Cypripedium parviflorum

Trailing clubmoss Lycopodium complanatum

Large round-leaf orchid Platanthera orbiculata

Sage willow Salix candida

Autumn willow Salix serissima

Highbush cranberry Viburnum opulus var. americanum

Great-spurred violet Viola selkirkii
Appendix E Mystic Range Project Management Direction and Opportunities

APPENDIX E

MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

AND

OPPORTUNITIES

Appendix E Mystic Range Project Management Direction and Opportunities E - 1

APPENDIX E - SUMMARY OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION and

MANAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES

Forest Plan Goals/Objectives (BHNF LRMP Phase II Amendment, Ch. I), desired conditions and 

associated management opportunities provide the primary focus and direction supporting the 

purpose and need for action in the Mystic Range Project Area. The FP goals are listed in order of 

emphasis priority. Consequently, Goals 1, 2, and 3 are considered the primary project drivers in 

terms of providing Forest Plan direction and guidance to support the purpose and need and the 

development of a responsive proposed action. This is not intended to diminish the importance of 

other goals and related objectives, standards and guidelines listed below or those not listed but 

contained in the Forest Plan. They are also important in terms of providing management guidance. 

And to the extent they can be achieved, are co-benefits derived from management actions developed 

and proposed. 

Goal 1: Protect basic soil, air, water and cave resources.

Desired Conditions:

• Management of rivers, streams, wetlands, lakes riparian areas and caves of the Forest 

reflect healthy, functioning ecosystems. 

• Irreversible soil losses and detrimental soil conditions will not exceed standards and 

guidelines

• Riparian areas will support diverse plant species.

• Healthy riparian areas and stream systems will affect stream flow regime. 

• Water conditions on Forest will be of a quality and quantity to enable them to contribute 

to municipal water supplies, including those using the Madison Aquifer. 

Objective 102. Use a qualitative survey which emphasizes riparian condition, such as the Proper 

Functioning Condition methodology, to refine the preliminary watershed health assessments (FPFEIS, Appendix J) within the next planning period. This survey would focus first on Class III 

watersheds, and could be supplemented with additional qualitative methods (such as MIM –

Multiple Indicator Monitoring), as needed, for the design of watershed improvements. Class I 

watersheds do not need to be surveyed unless information becomes available which suggests 

there was an error in classification.

Opportunity – Establishment of Designated Management Areas (DMA) with MIMS 

transects in each allotment will document baseline conditions and compare results 

against desired threshold levels. These monitoring sites will provide additional 

information on current watershed health and help manage livestock use. 

Objective 103. Maintain or improve long-term stream health. Achieve and maintain the integrity 

of aquatic ecosystems to provide stream-channel stability and aquatic habitats for water quality 

in accordance with state standards.

Opportunity – Improved livestock distribution, adherence to utilization standards and 

increased monitoring along with responsive adaptive management would likely improve 

the integrity of aquatic ecosystem and improve stream-channel stability.
Appendix E Mystic Range Project Management Direction and Opportunities E - 2

Opportunity – Reconstruction of water developments may allow moving existing tanks 

out of the water influence zone. 

Objective 104. Maintain or enhance watershed conditions to foster favorable soil relationships 

and water quality.

a. Implement projects to improve watershed conditions on an average of at least 300 acres 

annually over the plan period. 

b. Achieve and maintain stable streambeds and banks, diverse riparian vegetation, and 

effective ground cover that control runoff and erosion.

Opportunity – Maintain riparian plant communities that provide overhanging vegetation 

and effective ground cover to help trap sediment, dissipate energy during peak flows, 

protect soils from erosion processes, maintain stream bank stability, and provide wildlife 

habitat. 

Objective 105. Prohibit motorized vehicle use in wetlands, wet meadows and riparian areas, 

except at specified locations and times of the year. 

Objective 106. Manage water-use facilities to prevent gully erosion of slopes and to prevent 

sediment and bank damage to streams. 

Opportunity – Reconstruction and construction of water developments to new standards 

will minimize damage to wetland habitat and prevent erosion of slopes and reduce 

potential for sediment movement. 

Objective 107. Restore degraded wetlands except where exemptions are allowed by a Clean 

Water Act Section 404 permit. 

Opportunity – Improve wetland conditions by reducing the impact of livestock through 

changes in their distribution and use and improved monitoring that would determine 

when use is exceeding utilization standards for riparian areas.

Objective 108. Manage for sustained or improved water flows.

Standard 1110. Initiate re-vegetation as soon as possible, not to exceed 6 months after 

termination of ground-disturbing activities. Revegetate all disturbed soils with native species in 

seed/plant mixtures that are noxious-weed free. On areas needing immediate establishment of 

vegetation, non-native, non-aggressive annuals (e.g., wheat, oats, rye) or sterile species may be 

used while native perennials are becoming established, or when native species are not available 

(e.g., during drought years or years when wildfires burn large acreages in the United States). 

Other aggressive non-native perennials (e.g., smooth brome, timothy) will not be used. Seed will 

be tested for noxious weeds. If mulches are used they are to be noxious-weed free. Weed-free 

alfalfa seed may be used only when native legume seed is not available and only when there is 

extensive disturbance associated with road construction or min reclamation where topsoil is no 

longer available. 
Appendix E Mystic Range Project Management Direction and Opportunities E - 3

Guideline 1115. When ground disturbing or vegetation management occurs, use vegetative 

buffer strips or barriers to reduce sediment. Determine buffer width between stream and roads or 

trails using the equation in (FP) Appendix J. 

Standard 1201. Conduct actions so that stream pattern, geometry, and habitats are maintained or 

improved toward robust stream health.

Standard 1207. Manage water-use facilities to prevent gully erosion of slopes and to prevent 

sediment and bank damage to streams. 

Guideline 1208. Design water developments to minimize damage to channel capacity, aquatic 

habitat and riparian vegetation. 

Standard 1210. Maintain enough water in perennial streams to sustain existing health. Return 

some water to dewatered perennial streams when needed. Comply with Section 505 of the 

FLPMA and 36 CFR 251.56 when issuing and re-issuing authorizations for water storage and 

diversion facilities. 

Standard 1301. In the water influence zone next to perennial and intermittent streams, lakes and 

wetlands, allow only those actions that maintain or improve long-term stream health and riparian 

ecosystem condition (Regional WCP Handbook, Standard 3).

Standard 1302. Maintain long-term ground cover, soil structure, water budgets, and flow patterns 

in wetlands to sustain their ecological function, per 404 regulations (Regional WCP Handbook, 

Standard 6). 

Standard 1304. As opportunities arise, and need dictates, relocate and implement mitigation 

measures for roads, trails, watering tanks, ponds, water catchments, and similar facilities 

currently located within the water influence zone.

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

Desired Conditions:

• Hardwood communities will be restored and increased.

• Hardwood stands will vary from uniform heights and ages to a wide range of heights and 

ages.

• Late-successional landscapes will be maintained.

• Meadows will be conserved and restored through treatment (harvest or fire).

• Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species will be conserved.

• Habitat necessary for sensitive species will be conserved.

• Coarse woody material will be provided for forest productivity and wildlife species 

habitat. 

• Cooperate with state wildlife agencies to mutually agree on population objectives through 

habitat and population management.

• Forage, cover and open road densities are key components and addressed at project level.

• Uncommon communities will be conserved to maintain their ecological function
Appendix E Mystic Range Project Management Direction and Opportunities E - 4

Objective 201. During the planning period conserve existing hardwood communities by 10 

percent over 1995 conditions on sites capable of supporting these communities.

Opportunity – Maintain and increase 3,564 acres of hardwood communities by reducing 

grazing pressure in these stands, allowing regeneration and improve growth and vigor.

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

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

Opportunity – To maintain and enhance 6,185 acres of grasslands by reducing overutilization in these ecosystems, improving the growth and vigor of native plant 

communities and the wildlife that utilize grassland habitat. 

Objective 213. Maintain or enhance existing riparian area biodiversity, physical structure and 

size.

Opportunity – Reduce the effects of livestock grazing on riparian communities that will 

improve vegetative diversity, increasing the presence of shrub species, and 

maintain/increase the size of riparian areas. 

Opportunity – Utilize livestock to increase productivity and vigor of riparian plant 

communities and decrease the potential for spread of non-native invasive species by 

removing rank vegetation and the build up litter. 

Objective 214. Restore riparian shrub communities across the forest by 500 acres during the Plan 

period on sites capable of supporting this community. 

Opportunity – Restore riparian shrub communities by excluding livestock from key areas 

through fencing and/or changes in livestock use of those areas. 

Objective 215. Manage for at least 5 stream reaches in a rehabilitated condition during the Plan 

period. Select reaches where the water table has receded and plant species composition has 

changed as a result of human activities. Coordinate planning and implementation with state game 

and fish agencies and downstream private landowners. Use Objective 215 a) through d) in 

designing the projects.

a. Raise the water table to saturate historically inundated soils.

b. Convert drier-site vegetation to native wet-meadow species.

c. Reintroduce beaver into the drainage once suitable habitat is developed.

d. Design management to maintain wet-meadow conditions.

Opportunity – Improve degraded stream reaches by implementing adaptive management 

options such as establishing riparian pastures or excluding livestock use that will 

improve bank stability, increase water tables and allow the establishment of riparian 

shrub species.. 
Appendix E Mystic Range Project Management Direction and Opportunities E - 5

Objective 216. Manage to conserve or enhance the integrity of the following important botanical 

areas: 

h. McIntosh Fen

Objective 217. Maintain habitat for game and fish populations at the state objectives in effect in 

1996. 

Objective 218. Conserve or enhance habitat for resident and migratory non-game wildlife. 

Increase habitat capability for species when recommended in project level analysis. 

Objective 219. Maintain or improve in stream fisheries habitat. Cooperate with state agencies in 

aquatic ecosystem improvements to meet mutually agreed-upon objectives. 

Opportunity – Improve in-stream fisheries habitat by implementing effective short-term 

and long-term monitoring plans, establishing management triggers that will move 

livestock prior to exceeding utilization standards. 

Objective 220. Conserve or enhance habitat for federally listed threatened, endangered and 

proposed species. 

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

(SOLC). Monitoring will be conducted at a Forest-wide level, not at the project level, and will be 

done for habitats or populations.

Opportunity – Utilize livestock to maintain or enhance habitat for grassland dependent 

species such as the grasshopper sparrow. 

Objective 222. Complete the following habitat projects each year during the plan period as 

funding allows: 

Nonstructural Structural

Wildlife Plant 1.000 acres 100 structures

Fish 50 acres 1 mile

Range 600 acres 30 structures

Opportunity – Construction of water developments will reduce livestock trampling in 

springs and seeps. 

Objective 231. Prevent new infestations and manage to reduce established noxious-weed 

infestations. Treat at least 8,000 acres per year during the next ten years to limit noxious weed 

infestations. 

Objective 238. The following are objectives for management indicator species (MIS). MIS will 

be monitored using trends in habitat; however, when available, population trends may be used as 
Appendix E Mystic Range Project Management Direction and Opportunities E - 6

a strong indicator of management response. Monitoring will be conducted at a Forest scale and 

not at the project level. Population monitoring will be discretionary as provided by 219.14.f.

a. Maintain or enhance habitat for ruffed grouse, beaver, song sparrow, grasshopper 

sparrow, white-tailed deer and brown creeper; as outlined in specific direction pertaining 

to aspen, other hardwoods, riparian areas, grasslands, spruce and ponderosa pine (e.g., 

Objectives 201, 205, 211, 239-LVD, 5.1-204).

b. Maintain habitat opportunities for black-backed woodpeckers across the Forest, as 

outlined in specific direction pertaining to conifer habitat, snags and recently burned 

habitat (e.g., Objectives 211, 11-03, 5.1-204, Standard 2301).

c. Maintain habitat for golden-crowned kinglets, as outlined in specific direction pertaining 

to spruce habitat (e.g., Objective 239-LVD).

d. Maintain or enhance habitat quality and connectivity for mountain suckers, as outlined in 

specific direction pertaining to aquatic resources (e.g., Objectives 103, 104, 215, 

Standards 1201, 1203, 1205, Guideline 1115). 

The following species should be used as management indicator species (MIS). The indicators or 

their habitats will be monitored to indicate overall changes in the forest ecosystem. MIS will 

generally be monitored using trends in habitat: however, when available, population trends may 

be used as a strong indicator of management response. Population monitoring will be 

discretionary as provided by 35 CFR 219.14f.

• Black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus)

• Brown creeper (Certhia americana)

• Golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa)

• Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum)

• Ruffed Grouse (Bonasa umbellus)

• Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia)

• Beaver (Castor canadensis)

• White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)

• Mountain Sucker (Castostomus platyrhynchus)

Objective 240-HAB. Manage and/or install structures to provide water for livestock and to 

protect the aquatic, shoreline and upland vegetation around ponds or water catchments 

containing leopard frogs.

Standard 2207. Locate new livestock/wildlife water sites (i.e., drinking structures) outside of 

hardwood communities.

Standard 3101. To protect endangered and threatened species. 

Standard 3103. Manage known sensitive species and species of local concern snail colonies to: 

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

humidity.

b. Retain ground litter, especially deciduous litter.

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

activities that may compact soils or alter vegetation composition and ground cover.

d. If prescribed burning is unavoidable, burn when snails are hibernating, usually below 50 

degrees Fahrenheit, and use fast-moving fires to minimize effects to snails.
Appendix E Mystic Range Project Management Direction and Opportunities E - 7

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

individual plants rather than broadcast application.

Standard 3104. Do not develop springs or seeps as water facilities where sensitive species or 

species of local concern exist unless development mitigates an existing risk.

Guideline 3105. Consider habitat needs (survey as appropriate) of regal fritillary and Atlantis 

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

important for prescribed burns scheduled from September through April. Design the project to 

conserved important habitat components of known sightings.

Standard 3106. Riparian areas or wetlands where populations of sensitive species are located are 

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

mitigation measures) tied to the site-specific conditions for disturbances adjacent to known 

occurrences:

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

wetland; diverting stream flow from the current channel.

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

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

control erosion and for prevention of noxious-weed infestations. Use appropriate 

measures to control erosion on disturbed areas that are steep, are highly erosive, and/or 

adjacent to the riparian area.

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

aquatic life and protect sensitive and species of local concern.

Standard 3111. 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 3115. A sensitive species located after contract or permit formation will be 

appropriately managed by active coordination between permittee, contractor or purchaser, Forest 

Service line officer, project administrator, and biologist. Viable solutions need to be based on the 

circumstances surrounding each new discovery and must consider the individual sensitive 

species needing protection, contractual obligations and costs, and mitigation measures available 

at the time of discovery.

Standard 3125. Prescribe burn no more that 60 percent of any contiguous grassland area at a time 

and burn in early spring or fall. 

Guideline 3202. Structures, such as fences and roads will be designed and built so that they do 

not create unnecessary or unreasonable barriers or hazards for wildlife and people.

Standard 3204. Protect known raptor nests. Consider potential effects of disturbance, nesting 

phenology, human activities existing at onset of nest initiation, species, topography, other R2 

sensitive species and plant species of local concern, forest cover, nest protection standards and 
Appendix E Mystic Range Project Management Direction and Opportunities E - 8

recommendations used by state or federal agencies, and other appropriate factors when designing 

protection. 

Guideline 3210. Provide riparian habitat by maintaining or establishing shrub and tree species, 

and protect riparian habitat from animal damage if needed.

Guideline 3211. Provide riparian habitat diversity through vegetation treatments or in 

conjunction with other resource activities designed to maintain or improve wildlife or fisheries 

habitat and stream stability. 

Guideline 3212. Manage for high quality riparian communities.

a. Provide for stable stream banks.

b. Retain woody vegetation along streams and lakes to provide shading for aquatic life and 

habitat for terrestrial species.

c. Provide large woody material for aquatic life. 

Standard 3216. Where livestock management conflicts with bighorn sheep lambing areas, 

preference shall be give to bighorn sheep from April 1 through June 15. 

Standard 4103. Utilize prescribed fire though planned and natural ignitions to achieve 

management objectives for each management area (As shown in Table 1, and in the Black Hills 

National Forest’s Land and Resource Management Plan (BHNF LRMP) on pages II-42 through 

II-44). 

Guideline 4105. When feasible and appropriate use broadcast burning to dispose of slash in order 

to return the inorganic chemicals in the foliage and small woody material to the soil, to reduce 

fire hazard, and to provide a seed beds for natural regeneration. GUIDELINE (Amended Regional 

Guide Silviculture Guideline) 

Guideline 4106. Promote revegetation of prescribed burned areas.

a. Following broadcast burning, seed to initiate revegetation if ground cover is 60 percent or 

less and slopes are 30 percent or more.

Guideline 4107. Defer prescribed burned areas from livestock grazing for a portion or all of the 

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

Standard 3.1-1001. Protect the unique biological, geological, historical, paleontological, or 

additional botanical values that may continue to be discovered, along with the botanical values 

for which the botanical area was designated. No new mineral material permits will be issued for 

this area. 

Goal 4.1-201. Emphasize wood-fiber production, wildlife habitat, and visual quality.

Goal 5.4-204. Improve forage on range areas. 
Appendix E Mystic Range Project Management Direction and Opportunities E - 9

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

achieve resource management objectives. 

Guideline 5.4-4102. Emphasize the use of prescribed fire as a tool to increase the density, vigor 

and nutritional value of important forage plants for improved health of wintering big game 

animals.

Objective 5.4A-204. Enhance shrub productivity.

Objective 5.4A-205. Retain or restore acres of aspen and birch within Norbeck. 

Objective 5.4A-206. Retain or restore acres of oak and white spruce within Norbeck.

Objective 5.4A- 209. Emphasis on species commonly hunted, fished, or trapped will follow 

species priorities established by the State of South Dakota. Maintain habitat needed to support 

population goals agreed upon in consultation with the State.

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

Desired Conditions:

• Emphasize long-term sustainable production of commodities for economies, communities 

and people in an environmentally acceptable manner.

• Timber harvest and livestock grazing will occur without impairing the health of 

ecosystems and in a manner compatible with other Forest uses...acres of land suitable 

and available for livestock grazing in Appendix I (USDA Forest Service 2005a).

Objective 301. Produce on a sustained basis and make available up to 233 million pounds of 

forage for livestock and wildlife use each year (weather permitting). The location and amount of 

forage produced under the forest canopy will vary with the density of the overstory. This may 

necessitate changes in where and how both livestock and wildlife grazing takes place on a local 

basis over the rotation of a stand of timber. 

a. Livestock use will be up to 127 million pounds of forage per year or approximately 

128,000 AUMs.

b. Wildlife use will be up to 106 million pounds of forage per year or approximate 

population levels of 70,000 deer and 4,500 elk or other combinations that use the same 

amount of forage. 

Opportunity – Through effective use of livestock, there is a potential to increase 

sustainable high quality forage during the year that will support livestock and wildlife 

use by improving long-term rangeland condition and trend.

Objective 302: Maintain rangelands in satisfactory range condition.

a. Management of rangelands determined to be neither meeting nor moving toward 

satisfactory rangeland condition in an acceptable timeframe, shall cause actions designed 

to move toward satisfactory rangeland condition within a stated timeframe to be 

implemented.
Appendix E Mystic Range Project Management Direction and Opportunities E - 10

b. In the absence of a site-specific planning process and an Allotment Management Plan, 

management direction for ongoing rangeland management activities on active allotments 

needed to address rangeland conditions and trends and species viability will be 

incorporated into the grazing permits through the AOI.

Opportunity – Utilize prescribed broadcast burning to increase growth and vigor of 

grassland communities. 

Opportunity – Implementation of residual guidelines for riparian areas and upland 

habitat, establishing monitoring plans and ability to adjust livestock use will move 

toward desired rangeland conditions.

Guideline 2502. Convert season-long grazing systems to systems which require more intensive 

management, such as multiple-pasture deferred or rest rotation systems, as opportunities permit.

Guideline 2503. Developed recreation sites will be closed or restricted to grazing through use of 

fencing, as opportunities permit. However, grazing may be used as a management tool in these 

areas. Recreational livestock will normally be fed in designated areas.

Guideline 2504. The site-specific rangeland analysis necessary for preparation of allotment 

management plans shall document selected desired conditions and evaluate whether the 

designated area is at, moving towards, or moving away from the desired conditions.

a. Satisfactory range conditions occur when the existing conditions are at, or progressing 

toward the desired conditions identified through the project planning process.

b. When trends toward satisfactory range conditions are not achieved within 5 years by 

changes in grazing systems, allowable use or residual guidelines, more restrictive use or 

residual guidelines, changes to the grazing system shall be adopted, or livestock use be 

removed or relocated for a period of time. 

Standard 2505. Livestock and wild herbivore allowable forage use or residual levels on 

rangelands by grazing system and range condition are as follows:

Proper Allowable Use Guidelines

(Percent Utilization by Weight Each Year)

Season of Use Satisfactory Condition Unsatisfactory Condition

Continuous Use: Spring/Summer 0-45% 0-40%

Continuous Use: Fall/Winter 55-60% 0-55%

Deferred Rotation 0-50% 0-45%

Rest Rotation 0-55% 0-55%

Residual Levels for Wetland and Riparian Areas: Residual levels (or remaining height of key 

plant species) will be prescribed for riparian areas in the allotment management plan (AMP) or 

the annual letter of operating instructions (AOI) to the livestock permittee. Residual levels will 

be based upon specific objectives for the location in question and will consider season of use and 

range conditions. 
Appendix E Mystic Range Project Management Direction and Opportunities E - 11

Allowable use and/or residual levels:

c. Utilization of willows, shrubs, woody vines or young deciduous trees (such as aspen, 

birch and oak) in any year by livestock or wildlife is limited to browsing 40 percent of 

the total individual leaders produced in that year (not to be confused with 40 percent use 

on each and every leader produced).

d. Remove livestock from the grazing unit or allotment when further utilization of key areas 

in that year will exceed proper allowable use or prescribed residual level in the Forest 

Plan, AMP, or AOI for either grass and forbs or shrubs.

e. No authorize utilization will be allowed by domestic livestock on known occurrences of 

willow emphasis species (e.g., Salix candida, Salix serissima, Salix lucida).

f. Implement additional measures to assure avoidance of livestock use on Carex 

alopecoidea. Restrict livestock use of all portions of 5 of the largest geographically 

spaced occurrences at site number: (CAAL8-19, CAAL8-20, CAAL8-22, CAAL8-30, 

CAAL8-31). 

Standard 2506. Develop site-specific vegetation utilization or residual guidelines during 

rangeland planning, and document them in allotment management plans (AMPS). In the absence 

of updated planning, the utilization guidelines as shown or residual guidelines documented in the 

AOI will apply.

Standard 2507. Allow use of forage by livestock and wildlife in fenced riparian pastures also 

long as it meets the objectives of maintain, enhancing, or conserving the riparian ecosystem and 

emphasis species persistence. 

Standard 3.1-2501. Allow livestock grazing if it does not conflict with the values for which the 

botanical areas was designated. 

Guideline 3.1-2502. Allow new improvements only when they are necessary to maintain, restore 

or enhance the values for which the botanical areas was designated.

Standard 3.1-2503. Restrict access of domestic livestock to protect the R2 sensitive and species 

of local concern plant occurrences in designated botanical areas. 

Guideline 4.1-2501. Prepare livestock management strategies in the allotment management plan 

that will be compatible with recreation objectives.

Guideline 4.1-2502. Locate or design structural improvements to meet Scenery Integrity 

Objectives.

Guideline 4.2b-2501. Livestock management strategies win allotment management plans should 

meet the recreational objectives for the management area. 

Standard 5.4-2501. Design livestock management strategies including distribution and stocking 

rates to be compatible with big-game habitat objectives.
Appendix E Mystic Range Project Management Direction and Opportunities E - 12

Guideline 5.4-2502. Feature big game use of forage increases that result from the vegetative 

improvements, while also allowing for livestock increases. Follow forest-wide proper allowable 

use guidelines or residual levels documented in AMP’s or AOIs for combined use by wildlife 

and livestock. 

Standard 5.4A-2501. Existing livestock grazing may continue: permits may be reissued to 

existing or new permittees. Do not permit any increase in livestock numbers (animal months). 

Guideline 5.4A-2502. Take advantage of opportunities to transfer forage use from livestock to 

wildlife.

Guideline 5.4A-2503. Prevent habitat degradation adjacent to water sources (See FP-Appendix 

E). 

Guideline 5.4A-2505. Livestock grazing may be used intermittently as a management tool (even 

in areas designated unsuitable for livestock grazing) to improve habitat conditions (e.g., to 

control noxious weeds). 

Guideline 8.2-2501. Livestock management strategies in allotment management plans should 

meet the recreational objectives for the management area.

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

coordinating planning and project implementation.

Desired Conditions:

• Closely coordinate with other government entities, partners and stake holders that include 

open sharing of information, identification of shared needs, local involvement and 

commitment to action during planning and project implementation. 

• Forest leaders and mangers will be knowledgeable and sensitive to American Indian 

cultural issues and provide leadership in consulting and collaboration during the decision 

process. 

• Protect land and resources necessary to American Indian beliefs and identity.

• Consult with tribal governments, political leaders, traditional practitioners, spiritual 

leaders and other knowledgeable American Indian people to protect, preserve and use 

culturally important locations and resources. 

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

development of plans and projects.

Opportunity – engaging interested individuals and groups has potential to generate a 

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

proje actions proposed and taken. 

Objective 702. Encourage cost sharing as part of cooperative efforts.
Appendix E Mystic Range Project Management Direction and Opportunities E - 13

Opportunity – Utilize partnership agreements (e.g., Memorandum of Understanding) that 

share the costs of important structural improvements to protect unique plant and wildlife 

communities

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

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

Opportunity – Utilization of ongoing BHNF consultation process provides mutually 

beneficial information exchange, cooperative and open relations, and maintains trust and 

credibility between the agency and tribal representatives. 

Guideline 6101. Consider long-term Forest management needs in determining appropriate use of 

mitigation of effects to, or avoidance of, heritage resources during project planning.

Goal 9: Provide high-quality customer service.

Desired Conditions:

• Strive to meet the highest standards of customer service by providing reasonable choices, 

flexibility, simple rules and less red table

Objective 901. Provide customers the kind and quality of services they reasonably want.

Opportunity – Establishing clear and measurable objectives that move toward meeting 

desired conditions for livestock use on these allotments will provide flexibility and 

reasonable choices for livestock and resource managers. 

Objective 903. Respond to information needs of the public.
Appendix F Mystic Range Project Maps

APPENDIX F

MAPS

Appendix F Mystic Range Project Maps F - 1

APPENDIX F – MAPS

Vicinity

Bald Horse Allotment

Deerfield Allotment

Palmer Gulch Allotment

Porcupine Allotment

Redfern Allotment

Rimmer Allotment

Slate Prairie Allotment

Tigerville Allotment
£¤16A

£¤385

£¤16

£¤16A

£¤16

£¤16

[\FS 297

[\FS 231

[\FS 301

[\FS 233

[\FS 189

[\FS 249

[\FS 304

[\FS 305

[\FS 159

[\FS 208

[\FS 237

[\FS 358

[\FS 162

[\FS 389

[\FS 253

[\FS 258

[\FS 254

[\FS 417

[\FS 261

[\FS 672

[\FS 237

[\FH 244

[\FS 301

[\FS 189

[\FS 297

[\FS 284

[\FS 231

[\FS 297

OP228

OP44

OP87

Rapid City

Keystone

Hill City

GH234

GH317

GH306

GH308

GH307

GH299

GH309

GH303

GH312

GH234

GH308

GH303

GH251

GH318

Reservoir

Deerfield

Sheridan

Pactola

Lake

Lake

§ ̈¦90

Mount

Rushmore

Lena

Prairie Creek

Lower Victoria

Heely

Queen Bee

Slate Creek Whitetail Nugget

Samalias

Burnt Ranch

Middle Horse

Palmer

Baseline

Mystic

Rabbit

Rimmer

Ford

West Horse

Middle Victoria

Middle Victoria

Trap

Keystone

Signal

Gold Run

Hay Draw

Upper Bear

White Earth

Redfern

South Wolf 1

Tigerville

North Wolf 3

Deer Park

Highline

Lower

Bear

Antelope

Springs

Wells

Cabin

North

Wolf 2

West

Hells Canyon

2

Middle Bald Hills

Lake Shore

Babbington -

North Wolf 1

East

Zimmer

North

Bald Hills

Yount

South

Bald Hills

Grandad

Dump

Marshall

West

Side

Wildcat -

North Wolf 1

Slate School

West

Hells

Canyon 1

Mcintosh

Fen

South

Exchange

Keystone

Slate School

Sunday

West School

Redfern

Holding

Pasture

±

MYSTIC RANGE PROJECT

VICINITY MAP

Other Symbols

NFS Ungrazed Land

Lakes

District Boundary

City

2 1 0 2 4 6

Miles

Roads

Interstate

Paved Road

Gravel Road

Range Allotments

Bald Horse

Deerfield

Palmer Gulch

Porcupine

Redfern

Rimmer

Slate Prairie

Tigerville

LEGEND
"

"

¬Ï

** * * * * **

*

*

*

*

*

** *

*

* *

* * * * ** **

*

*

* *

*

UT

?>

UT

UT

?>

"K

UT

UT

UT

"K UT

UT

" "

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

" " " "

"

" "

"

"

"

" "

"

! ! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

* ** * *

*

*

*

*

*

*

* **

*

*

*

* * *

*

*

*

*

* *

**

*

**

*

*

* * ** * ** * ** * * * **

*

*

*

*

*

*

* *

*

* * * *

*

** *

* *

** * *

*

* *

*

*

*

** *** * *

*

*

*

** * *

*

*

*

*

* * * * * * * *

*

*

** *

*

* * * *

** ** *

*

* * *

* *

* * *

* * ** *

* ** ** *

* * * * *

* **

*

** * * * * ** * *

* * *

** * ** * *

* * * *

*

*

*

* *

*

*

**

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* *

***

** * *

** *

*

*

* * * *

*

* * *

* * **

* * * *

** *

*

* * * *

* * *

* **

** * **

UTUT

UT

UT UT UT

UT

?>

UT UT

?> UT

UT

?>

UT

"K

"K

"K

"K "K "K "K "K

"K "K "K "K "K

"K

"K "K

"K "K"K

"K

T01N

T02N T02N

T01N

T01N

T01N

T01S

T01S

R05E

R05E

R07E

R07E

R06E

R06E

R06E

R06E

1

9

9

9

3

8

5 4

8

7

6 3 2

7

1

3 2 1 5 4 5 4 3 6 2

36

24

25

12

13

36

11

11

11

11

28

36

21

10

15

23

32

13

27

22

10

14

30

26

35

12

34

25

33

34

24

35

31

23

18

19

20

12

31

19

29

16

34

21

27

17

22

26

30

35

16

31

15 14

33

20

17

18

10

32

28

10

29

32

31

30

18

19

Â!44

£¤385

Ð6159

Ð6669

Ð6244

Ð6173

Ð6258

Ð6251

Ð6162

Ð6243

Ð6257

Ð6160

Ð6551

Ð6358

Ð6161

Ð6772

Ð6150

514

Ð6249

Ð6

243.2B

Ð6381

Ð6167

Ð6515

Ð6165

Ð6434

Ð6605

Ð6163

269

199

Ð6221

771

Ð6164

166

Ð6675

Ð6

60.2B

Ð6253

Ð6174

156

Ð6

160.2A

589

Ð6

60.2D

166.1C

Â!44

Ð6677

156.1A

167.1A

260

771.1A

Ð6

0.2E

B

164.1C

166.1D

156.1B

258.1F

252

164.1B

258.1C

173.1A

251.1B

463

395.1A

603.1A

395.1B

Ð6

2C

Â

!228

Ð6

156.1D

164.1D

251.1E

Ð6

1C

269.1C

395.1C

258.1I

156.1E

675.1C

£¤385

251.1D

675.1

Ð6244

Ð6257

167.1D

657

Ð6772

657.1A

Ð 6159

Ð6160

Ð6160

SD 44

Ð6162

251

Ð6159

Ð6243

Ð6249

Ð6159

167

Ð6738

199

160.1

Ð6159

Ð 6251

249

Ð6159

US-385

Ð6

0.2

Ð6249

Ð6166

166

11

79 50

51 78

04

31

59

32

07

49

33

26

25

27

28

29

62

09

26

901060

Prairie Creek

Pasture

Lower Victoria Pasture

Middle Horse

Pasture

Burnt Ranch

Pasture

Middle Victoria

Pasture

West Horse

Pasture

Middle Bald Hills

Pasture

North Bald Hills Pasture

South Bald Hills

Pasture

10

50

1

29

59

66

64

67

68

75

5

6

Pactola Reservoir

Sheridan

Lake

MYSTIC RANGE PROJECT

Bald Horse Range Allotment

±

03/02/2010

1 0.5 0 1 2

Miles

Existing Improvements

"K Spring Head Works

?> Pond/Reservoir

UT Water Tank

* * * Fence

! ! ! ! ! Pipeline

" Cattleguard

Other Symbols

Allotment Boundary

Pasture Boundary

Management Areas

3.7 Late Successional Forest landscape

4.1 Limited Motorized Use and Forest Product Emphasis

5.4 Big Game Winter Range Emphasis

8.2 Develop Recreational Complexes

NFS Ungrazed

Private Land

Proposed Alt C Improvements

"K Proposed Spring Head Works

UT Proposed Water Tank

?> Proposed Pond

* * Proposed Fence

¬Ï Proposed Corral

" Proposed Cattleguard
"

"

" "

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

¬Ï

*

* * * * * *

*

*

* ** *

*

** *

*

*

*

* * * * *

* * * ** * ** *

* *

*

* *

* ** * * * * *

*

*

*

* * * * * * * *

*

*

*

*

* ** *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*** **

* **

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

** * * * * * * * ** * * *

*

*

*

* * * * ** * ** **

*

* * *

*

*

*

*

* *

**

*

*

* ** * *

*

*

** **

*

*

* * * * *

* *

** *

*

*

* ** * **

*

*

* *

* *

*

*

* *

*

*

*

*

** * *

*

*

* * **

* * * * *

*

*

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* *

*

*

*

*

*

*

* *

*

* * * *

* * * **

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* *

**

?>

?>?>

?>

?>

?>

?>

?>

"

*

*

** * *

***

*

**

*

*

*

*

* *

*

*

* *

*

*

?>

T01N T01N

T01S

T01S

R03E

R02E

R02E

R03E

7 8

4 3

5 1 2 6

11

36

10

21

33 35

23

31 32

32 34

30

20

14

22

12

29

28

17

13

27

24

29

20

26 25

18

19

6Ð691

6Ð291

6Ð294

6Ð655

6Ð591

6Ð157

6Ð110

6Ð297

Ð6

FH 17

6Ð294.1B

6Ð294.1D

6Ð421

6Ð691.1C

6Ð655.1A

6Ð294.1A

6Ð294.1C

6Ð691.1I

6Ð294

6Ð385

461

6Ð385.1A

6Ð691.1K

6Ð691.1M

6Ð655.1C

6Ð691.1G

6Ð691.1N

239

6Ð291.4C

6Ð691.1O

6Ð294.1F

6Ð294.1O

461.2A

6Ð691

6Ð294.1N

6Ð691.1F

6Ð691.1D

6Ð294.1G

6Ð691.1L

6Ð294.1I

461.1B

6Ð691.1H

6Ð294.1R

157.1B

461.1D

6Ð294.1P

129

655.1F

189.1D

6Ð294.1L

461.1E

461.1C

6Ð691.1E

461.2B

655.1G

6Ð291.4H

461.1A

6Ð294.1Q

189.1B

6Ð294.1H

461.1F

6Ð894.1B

189.1E

6Ð294

6Ð291

6Ð691

6Ð691

6Ð294

461.1A

Ð6

FH 17

461

6Ð655

157

6Ð385

461.1C

Heely

Pasture

Baseline

Pasture

Gold Run

Pasture

Trap Pasture

Lake Shore

Pasture

Mcintosh

Fen

Highline Pasture

601014

611012

601014

05

45

46

47

40

01

49 11

42

Deerfield Lake

MYSTIC RANGE PROJECT

Deerfield Range Allotment

±

Existing Improvements

?> Pond/Reservoir

* * Fence

" Cattleguard

¬Ï Corral

Boundary Lines

Allotment Boundary

Pasture Boundary

Management Areas

3.1 Botanical Areas

5.1 Resource Production Emphasis

8.2 Develop Recreational Complexes

03/18/2010

Proposed Alt C Improvements

?> Proposed Pond

* * Proposed Fence

" Proposed Cattleguard

Other Symbols

NFS Ungrazed

Private Land

0.5 0.25 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles
"

"

"

*

**

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* *

*

*

* ** *

*

*

*

*

* *** *

* **

*

ÑÜ

?>

?>

"K

?>

"K

UT

?> UT

UT

/

UT

UT

?> ?> ?>

?>

UT

?>?>

?>

?> ?>

?>

?> ?>

?>

?>

?>

?>

?>?>

"K

"K

"K

" "

"" "

"

"

" "

" "

" ""

"

"

"

"

"

* *

* *

*

*

**

*

* * * * *

*

*

*

* * * *

***

****

*

*

*

*

* * * * * * **

* * * * * *

* * **

*

* * * *

* *

*

*

*

*

* **

* *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

**

  ** 

* * * * * ** **

*

* *

*

*

* *

* * *

** * * *

* *

*

** * ** * * *

*

*

*

*

* *

*

*

* * ** * * **

*

*

* *

**

*

* *

*

*

*

*

*

*

* *

**

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* *

*

*

* *

*

* *

*

*

R05E

R04E

R04E R05E

R05E

R05E

R06E

R06E

T01S

T02S T02S

T01S

9

5 4 1 1 2

8

3

7

6

6

11 11

27

34

13

30

24

28 25

22

13

20

22

25

25

36

21

19

35

35

27 26

36

23

32 33

24

26

15

10

36

34

16

15

12

29

17

23

14

20

18

14

31

12

31

30

19 19

31

30

18

Ð6353

£¤16

£¤385

Â!244

Ð6350

Â!89

Ð6392

Ð6425

Ð6452

Ð6357

Ð6352

Ð6249

Ð6354

738

Ð6531

Ð6305

Ð6356

Ð6351

Ð6

353.1B

Ð6460

447

Ð6303

249.1E

£¤16A

Ð6

357.1A

249.1B

Ð6355

Â!89

669

696

Â!87

249.1J

249.1H

594

474.1C

410

Â!244

900.1A 447

£¤385

Ð6352

357

£¤385

Ð6392

£¤16

Ð6352

Ð6353

£¤16

Ð6738

Â!89

£¤16

03

07

92

72

73 71

70

28

10

09 06 56

04

24

52

08 2

48

11

27

05

51

55

Palmer

Pasture

Samalias

Pasture

Rabbit

Keystone Pasture

Ford

Pasture

Upper Bear

Pasture

Sunday

Pasture

Dump

Pasture

Palmer

Pasture

East

Zimmer

Lower Bear

Pasture

Sawmill

Pasture

Pasture Pasture

062

85

±

MYSTIC RANGE PROJECT

Palmer Gulch Range Allotment

1 0.5 0 1 2

Miles

Existing Improvements

* * * Fence

" Cattleguard

"K Spring Head Works

?> Pond/Reservoir

UT Water Tank

Proposed Alt C Improvements

"K Proposed Spring Head Works

?> Proposed Pond

UT Proposed Stock Tank

/ Proposed Spring Exclosure

ÑÜ Proposed Stream Structure

* * * Proposed Fence

" Proposed Cattleguard

Noxious Weed Control

Other Symbols

Allotment Boundary

Pasture Boundary

NFS Ungrazed

Private Land

Management Areas

4.1 Limited Motorized Use and Forest Product Emphasis

4.2B Peter Norbek Scenic Byway

5.1 Resource Production Emphasis

5.4A Norbeck Wildlife Preserve

5.4 Big Game Winter Range Emphasis

03/02/2010
"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

* * * * * * * * * * * *

** * * * * * *

*

*

*

* * * * * *

*

* **

*

*

*

*

* **

* *

*

*

*

* *

*

* * * * * * * * * *

*

*

*

*

* *

*

*

*

*

** * * * * * ** * * * * **

*

*

* * * *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* *

*

* *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* * * * **

* * * * * * * *

** * *

* * * *

* * * * *

*

*

*

* * * * * *

**

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* * *

*

*

*

*

*

*

* ** * * * * * * *

* **

*

* * * * * * * *

* * * * * *

* *** *

* *

* *

*

*

*

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

*

*

*

*

* *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

** * * * * * * * * *

* * **

* * * * ** **

* * * * *

*

* * * * **

*

** * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * *

**

** * * * * *

*

* **

* * * *

* *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

** * * *

** * * * * *

*

*

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

UT UT ?> ?>

?>

?>

?> ?>

UT

?>

?>

UT

UT

?> ?> [

 ́

UU

TT

UT ?>

?>

?>

?>

?>

[

 ́ ?>?> UT

UT

UT

?>UT UT

UT

?>?>

UT

UT

/5

"K

/5

"K

"K

"K

"K

¬Ï

¬Ï

"

"

* *

* * * * ** * * *

* *

*

* * * * * * *

*** * * * * *

* * * ** ** *

*

*

*

* * **

*

*

*

*

* * * *

* *

*

*

*

*

*

** *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

[

 ́UT

UT[

 ́

UT

UT T03S

T02S

T03S

T02S

R02E

R02E

R02E

R02E

3

8

4 2 1

9

5

9

8

6

7

7

11

15 14

29

10

34 35 32

28 26 25

33

22

16

21

27

23 20

17

10

24

36

30

19

18

31

6Ð284

6Ð289

6Ð583

6Ð283

6Ð295

6Ð468

6Ð517

6Ð296

6Ð383

6Ð747

6Ð469

6Ð283.1J

6Ð284.3B

6Ð289.1E

383.1

6Ð282

6Ð284.3D

6Ð284.3G

6Ð295.1E

6Ð383.2A

6Ð283.1K

283.1I

6Ð284.3H

6Ð583.1A

6Ð517.1A

6Ð383.2C

6Ð468

6Ð383.2A

6Ð284.3E

6Ð289.1B

296.1C

6Ð383.2B

284.3L_DE

296.1B

6Ð468

281.1L

1.1W

296.1H

283.1G

6Ð517.1C

296.1D

383.3G

282.2C

6Ð289

6Ð583.1J

6Ð284

284.3N_DE

6Ð295

6Ð583.1A

6Ð283

6Ð284.3B

6Ð284

6Ð747

6Ð281

6Ð296

296.1

6Ð583

281

6Ð281

6Ð383

282

6Ð281

6Ð284

6Ð383

6Ð295 Signal

South Wolf 1

North Wolf 3

Antelope Springs

Wells Cabin

North Wolf 2

West Hells Canyon 2

Yount

West

Hells Canyon 1

South

Exchange

09

08

26

39

05

53

64 63

37

08

62

06

71

67

58 51

11

10

29

57

56

25

55

66

69

68

33

54

61

70

18

19

60

04

03

02

01

23

59 24

A

We

Babbington -

North Wolf 1

Wildcat -

North Wolf 1

We

6052

MYSTIC RANGE PROJECT

Porcupine Range Allotment

±

03/02/2010

0.5 0.25 0 0.5 1

Miles

Existing Improvements

"K Spring Head Works

/5 Vertical Well

[

 ́ Storage Tank

UT Water Tank

?> Pond/Reservoir

! ! ! ! ! Pipeline

* * * Fence

" Cattleguard

Proposed Alt C Improvements

[

 ́ Storage Tank

UT Stock Tank

! ! ! ! ! Proposed Pipeline

* * * Proposed Fence

" Proposed Cattleguard

¬Ï Proposed Corral

Other Symbols

Allotment Boundary

Pasture Boundary

Private Land

Management Areas

5.1 Resource Production Emphasis

5.4 Big Game Winter Range Emphasis
*

* *** *

** * **

*

** * *

"

?>

?>

UT

UT

?>?>

?>

?>

?>

?> UT

?> ?> ?>

?> ?> ?>

?> ?>?>

?>

?>?>

?>?>?>

?>

?>?>

UT

UT

UT

"K "K

"K

"K

"K

"K

*

*

* *

*

*

*

*

** *

*

*

* * *

*

* **

* * * *

*

* *

* *

* * * * **

* *

* * *

*

* *

*

*

** * * ** *

* * *** * **

* * * * * *

*

* * *

*

*

*

*

*

*

** * * **

*

*

* **

*

*

*

* * *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* * * * * * * * * *

*

*

*

* * * * *

*

*

* * * * * **

*

* * * * * **

** *

** * *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

*

*

*

* ** * * * * * *

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

¬Ï

R04E R05E

R04E R05E

T01N T01N

T01S T01S

2 5

6

4 1

7

3

8

9

3 1 4 2 6

5

11

14

26

33

20 23

35 32

30

29 25

34 36 31

18

19

27

24

17 16

21

13 15

28

12

22

10

6Ð231.1

6Ð530

6Ð249

6Ð606

6Ð249

6Ð245

Ð6

389.1F

6Ð331

6Ð530.1A

6Ð389

243

6Ð675.1

6Ð250

6Ð389.1G

6Ð242

6Ð244

6Ð143

Ð6

FH 17

6Ð245.1A

6Ð643

675.1A

244.1A

141.2A

6Ð675.2

6Ð249.3A

428.1A

249.3B

6Ð249.2A

6Ð677

6Ð231.1A

428.1B

6Ð241

6Ð182

6Ð530.1D

6Ð231.1

6Ð245.1G

6Ð530.1C

6Ð249.2F

389.1C

6Ð249.2D

6Ð245

6Ð249.3F

6Ð249.2G

Ð6

289.1F

6Ð249.3D

6Ð249

428.1F

6Ð249.2E

6Ð245.1B

6Ð530

6Ð245.1F

6Ð245

389.1P

389.1O

6Ð249.3E

675.1D

428.1N

6Ð249.2B

428.1C

6Ð143.1A

6Ð245.1D

6Ð675.1A

6Ð606.1A

428.1E

249.1F

428.1D

6Ð249.2C

249.3I

6Ð675.1

231.1E

389.1L

6Ð231.1

428

249.1F

6Ð530

249.3A

6Ð249

6Ð181 6Ð249.2A

6Ð249

6Ð606

428

Queen Bee

Pasture

Slate Creek

Pasture

Nugget

White Earth

Pasture

52 37

15

50

11

54

14

27

36

31

32

45

51

41

39 40

03

06 33

02

05

07 10

43

34

09

08

12

04

28

032

90

Private

Private

een Bee

e Creek

Pasture

ite Earth

Redfern

Holding

Pasture

ngrazed

023

MYSTIC RANGE PROJECT

Redfern Range Allotment

03/19/2010 ±

Range Improvements

?> Pond/Reservoir

UT Water Tank

"K Spring Head Works

* * Fence

¬Ï Corral

" Cattleguard

Management Areas

3.7 Late Successional Forest Landscape

5.1 Resource Production Emphasis

5.4 Big Game Winter Range Emphasis

Proposed Alt C Improvements

UT Proposed Stock Tank

* * Proposed Fence

" Proposed Cattleguard

Other Symbols

NFS Ungrazed

Private Land

Boundary Lines

Allotment Boundary

Pasture Boundary

0.5 0.25 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles
"

"

?>

?>

*

*

** * * *

*

*

*

*

*

*

* * *

*

* ***

*

*

** * * *

* * *

*

* * ** * * * * *

* *

* * * *

*

* * *

*

*

* * **

*

*

*

* * *

* * * * *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* * * *

*

* * *

"K

! !1

! !1

"

"

"

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

** * * * *

* * * * * * * * * *

*

*

*

* * * *

*

*

*

*

"K

"K

T01N T01N

R03E

R03E

4 3

9

2

11

28

16

27

15

26

21 22

14

23

10

6Ð188

6Ð187

6Ð429

6Ð181

6Ð132

6Ð187.2C

Ð6

FH 17

6Ð187.2B

6Ð187.2D

6Ð443

6Ð188.1C

6Ð188.1A

6Ð187.2D

188.1G

6Ð187.2E

6Ð188.1B

607.1A

6Ð429.1B

188.1D

607.1C

607.1D

6Ð188

587

6Ð188.1F

6Ð188.1E

607.1B

6Ð187

607.1E

181.1A

181

6Ð188.1A

6Ð429

607.1A

Rimmer

Pasture

Grandad

Pasture

619003

619003

05

04

619006

619061

15

MYSTIC RANGE PROJECT

Rimmer Range Allotment

Range Improvements

?> Pond

"K Spring

* * Fence

" Cattleguard

Management Area

5.1 Resource Production Emphasis

±

Boundary Lines

Allotment Boundary

Pasture Boundary

Private Land

03/19/2010

0.5 0.25 0 0.5 1

Miles

Proposed Alt C Improvements

"K Proposed Spring Improvement

* * Proposed Fence

" Proposed Cattleguard

! !1

Proposed Trail Gate
"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

?>

?>

?>

?>UT ?>UT

?> ?>

?> ?>

?>

?> ?> ?>

?> ?>?> ?>

U?>T ?>

?> ?> ?> ?>

"K

"K

"K

"K

"K "K "K "K

"K "K

"K "K "K

"K "K "K

!

! !

!

* * **

*** * ** * * *

*

*

*

*

*

*

* *

*

*

*

* *

*

*

** * *

*

*

*

* * * * *

*

** *

* * * *** * * * * * ** * * * *

* * *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* **

* * * * *

* *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

**

* * ** * * * *

* * * *** *

*

* * * * *

**

*

*

*

*

* *

*

*

*

* *

* *

*

* *

*

* *** * *

*

* ** *

*

*

*

"K

"K

"K

"K

?>?>

"K

T01N T01N

R03E

R03E

R04E

R04E

7

8 9 11

33

20

36 32

29

35

27 25

24

12

30 26

22

34

17

31

14

19

16

21 23

28

13 18

6Ð231.1

6Ð429

6Ð331

6Ð188

6Ð241

6Ð242

6Ð182

Ð6

FH 17

6Ð245

6Ð530

6Ð427

6Ð181

6Ð187

6Ð443

Ð6

331.1A

187.2D

Ð6

182.1C

187.2L

Ð6

182.1B

Ð6

241.1A

Ð6

443.1B

Ð6

241.1C

Ð6

182.1A

6Ð188

Ð6

231.1A

6Ð182.1L

Ð6

331.1B

187.2E

6Ð443

6Ð241

182.1H

187.2C

187.2G

427.1B

Ð6

241.1B

182.1E

Ð6

443.1A

182.1F

Ð6

182.1M

182.1D

01

245.1F

187.2N

245

1

24

6Ð429

187.2O

6Ð429

24

187.2F

6Ð331

6Ð231.1

187.2P

6Ð182

188.1F

6Ð231.1

Ð6

FH 17

6Ð442

6Ð181

181

181

Mystic

Pasture

Whitetail

Pasture

Hay Draw

Slate School Pasture

Pasture

West

School

Pasture

45 25

57

40

04

63

05

23

24

34

64

06

47 17

27

07 14

15

50

51

58

16

09

38 56 36

18

12

02

44 13

66

48

11

10

621022

621062

Slate

School Pasture

70

68 26

67

621065

MYSTIC RANGE PROJECT

Slate Prairie Range Allotment

±

Range Improvements

?> Pond/Reservoir

UT Water Tank

"K Spring Head Works

* * * Fence

! ! ! ! ! Pipeline

" Cattleguard

Other Symbols

Allotment Boundary

Pasture Boundary

Private Land

Management Areas

5.1 Resource Production Emphasis

5.4 Big Game Winter Range Emphasis

03/19/2010

Proposed Alt C Improvements

"K Proposed Spring Improvement

?> Proposed Pond Improvement

* * * Proposed Fence

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles
¬Ï

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

**

*

**

*

*

*

*

*

*

* * * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * * *

**

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* *** * * **

* *

*

*

*

*

*

* *

*

*

*

*

* * * * * **

*

*

*

* * *

*

** * *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*** *

* ** *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* *

* *

*

*

*

* * ** *

* * *

*

* *

*

** * **

*

*

** * ** **

* **

* * *

*

*

*

* * * * * *

*

* *

*

*

*

*

* * *

** *

!

?>

UT

?>

"K

"K

"K

?>?>?>

?>

?>

?>

?> ?> ?>

?>

?>?>?>

?>

?>

?>

¬Ï

¬Ï

¬Ï

* * *

*

*

*

*

* * * * * **

*

*

/

T01N

T01N

T01S

T01S

R03E

R04E

R04E

R04E R05E

R05E

R03E R04E

8 9

7

3 1 4 2 6

1 5

6

11

23

33

14 15

36 35 32

29

34

25

16

36

30

31

13

24

10 12

19

18

Ð6

FH 17

6Ð331

6Ð242

6Ð231

6Ð389

6Ð254

6Ð249

6Ð389.1F

6Ð389.1A

6Ð300

6Ð389.1G

6Ð386

6Ð619

6Ð331.1A

6Ð426.1A

6Ð389.1A

6Ð614

6Ð389

6Ð331.1B

6Ð389.1B

6Ð 6Ð389.1N 389.1I

53

6Ð389.1F

6Ð254.1A 

188

6Ð389

6Ð254

249

1I

6Ð389.1A

Ð6

FH 17

6Ð304

6Ð254

6Ð447

6Ð231

Ð6

FH 17

6Ð331

Lena

Pasture

Tigerville

Pasture

Redfern

Pasture

Deer Park Pasture

West Side

Pasture

Marshall

Pasture

01

39

49

48 47

46

41

07

58

10

06

11

05

53 61

55

54

12

37

13

62

05

63

28

000

000

000

624059

61

624

Private

621035

Private

624043

P

Private

7021

Private

Private

624022

62403

Private

61401

Marshall

Corrals

MYSTIC RANGE PROJECT

Tigerville Range Allotment

± 03/02/2010

0.5 0.25 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

Existing Improvements

"K Spring Head Works

?> Pond/Reservoir

UT Water Tank

! ! ! ! ! Pipeline

* * * Fence

" Cattleguard

¬Ï Corral

Proposed Alt C Improvements

/ Proposed Spring Exclosure

* * * Proposed Fence

¬Ï Proposed Corral

Management Area

5.4 Big Game Winter Range Emphasis

Other Symbols

Allotment Boundary

Pasture Boundary

NFS Ungrazed

Private Land