Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-1

Chapter 3: BAffected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences 

3.1 OVERVIEW OF CHANGES FROM DRAFT TO FINAL EIS 

• The tables of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities were updated. 

• Changes in resource analyses are noted at the beginning of each resource section. 

3.2 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter describes the affected environment, methodology for analysis, and the direct, indirect and 

cumulative effects of the alternatives. The resource summaries focus on those aspects of the physical, 

biological, and human environment most likely to be affected by the alternatives. More detailed 

information on certain resources can be found in the resource specialist’s reports in the project record. 

3.2.1 DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS 

Direct effects are caused by an action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are caused 

by an action and occur later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable 

(40 CFR 1500-1508). Direct and indirect effects analysis for each alternative and each resource area 

are based on the factors outlined in alternative descriptions of the alternatives provided in Chapter 2. 

3.2.2 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Cumulative impacts on the environment result from the incremental impact of actions when added to 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. For each resource, an analysis area was 

identified and used to adequately measure cumulative effects of the proposed alternative. Unless 

otherwise stated, the cumulative effects area, or the geographic scope, is the District. 

3.2.2.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities 

Past Actions are addressed by the Council on Environmental Quality1

 (CEQ) in the following manner, 

“Generally, agencies can 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.” 2

 

Past actions include activities such as grazing, timber harvest, mining and exploration, recreational 

camping, prescribed burning, and small product removal (i.e., post and poles, and firewood). 

Present Actions are typically ongoing activities and are treated similarly to past actions. Anticipated 

future changes in these activities are included under reasonably foreseeable actions. 

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions are those which are formal proposals or decisions not yet 

implemented at the time of the analysis. Activities that add to the effects of designated travel routes 

 

1

 CEQ is the agency responsible for promulgation of regulations and guidance for the National Environemental Policy Act. 2 CEQ’s June 24, 2005 Memo
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-2 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

include wildfires, timber harvesting, fuel reduction, livestock grazing, and recreational uses (hunting, 

hiking, motorized recreation, etc.). These activities will continue to influence the landscape. 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities with the most potential to cumulatively impact 

resources are shown in the following two tables and are considered in various manners within each of 

the resource analyses in this chapter. An extensive catalog of past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable activities for the Sioux Ranger District can be found in Appendix F. 

Table 3-1. Reasonably Foreseeable Activities 3

Project Name Type of Project 

Mid-Rivers Special Use Permit Amendments #1 and #2 Special Use Management 

Grand Electric Co-Op Special Use Permit Re-Issuance Special Use Management 

Carter County Radio Equipment Building Special Use Permit Special Use Management 

Butte Pipeline Radio Equipment Special Use Permit Special Use Management 

West River Telephone Special Use Permit Re-Issuance Special Use Management 

Wickham Gulch Campground Toilet Replacement Recreation Management 

Slim Buttes Integrated Vegetation Management Vegetation Management 

Reva Gap, Ekalaka Park, and Macnab Pond Toilet Replacement Recreation Management 

Black Hills Travel Management Planning Travel Management 

Dakota Prairie Grasslands Travel Management Planning Travel Management 

Ashland Travel Management Planning Travel Management 

Geothermal Leasing Analysis Minerals Management 

Table 3-2. Past and Present Activities Considered in Cumulative Effects 

Project Name Type of Project 

Riley CERCLA Mineral Management 

Recreational Use – hunting, camping, viewing, etc. Recreation Management 

Weed Treatment – District-wide Weed Management 

Vegetative and Fuels Treatments Fuels Management 

Permitted Grazing (~125,500 suitable acres) Grazing Management 

1992 Sioux Ranger District Fuels Management Project Fuels Management 

2002 Kraft Springs Fire Fire Management 

2003 Kraft Springs Fire Hazard Abatement and Restoration Project Fuels Management 

2004 Ekalaka Hazardous Fuels Project Fuels Management 

South Dakota Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Walk-In Areas Recreation Management 

South Dakota Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Controlled Hunting Access 

Program 

Recreation Management 

Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Block Management Recreation Management 

2001 Tri-State OHV Decision Recreation Management 

Use of travel routes will continue on privately-owned and public lands within and adjacent to the 

Custer National Forest. Government agencies and local municipalities of Montana and South Dakota 

all use travel routes, and to varying degrees, manage them to different standards and restrictions. 

 

3

 Source: July 2008 Quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA), Custer National Forest. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-3

3.2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Executive Order 12898, “General Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

and Low Income Populations” requires all Federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice into 

their mission. No effects to the well-being and the health of minorities and low income groups were 

identified during scoping and the proposed action would not disproportionately affect minority or lowincome populations. Three Indian Reservations are located within the region. No issues of 

disproportionate distribution of project impacts were found regarding any racial minorities or 

impoverished populations within the project area that might be affected by implementation of this 

project. Minority and low income populations will be treated the same as all with respect to travel 

opportunities. 

3.2.4 NATIVE AMERICAN TREATY RIGHTS 

Many tribes have aboriginal ties and use area within the Custer National Forest, including the Three 

Affiliated and the Great Sioux Nation, Northern Cheyenne, Crow, Assiniboine, Shoshone, Arapahoe, 

and Shoshone-Bannock. The Sioux, Crow, and Gros Ventre have treaty rights under the Fort Laramie 

Treaties to use the National Forests for hunting and gathering. None of the alternatives would affect 

treaty rights. 

3.2.5 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS (40 CFR 1502.16) 

Chapter 3 of this EIS addresses the potential environmental consequences of the alternatives for 

Travel Management on the District. In general, any adverse “environmental” effects can be avoided 

through increased restrictions on human use. However, increased restrictions also limit recreation 

opportunities. The alternatives were created, in part, to address issues and provide a clear basis for 

comparison. Adoption of Sioux Ranger District Travel Management direction does not necessarily 

mean that adverse environmental effects cannot be avoided. However, some resource impacts may be 

determined to be acceptable in light of providing for a variety of recreation uses. No unavoidable 

adverse effects to the various resources that are located within or adjacent to the project area were 

found. Implementation of any of the alternatives is not expected to move any sensitive wildlife 

species toward federal listing or threatened/endangered species to be in jeopardy.

3.2.6 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT TERM USE AND LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY 

(40 CFR 1502.16) 

Chapter 3 of this EIS discusses the potential resource impacts of each of the alternatives including the 

potential consequences to soil, vegetation, water quality and biological diversity. Otherwise human 

travel within the Sioux Ranger District would not be considered a short-term consumptive use such as 

timber harvest or mining. In general travel would not affect the ability of the land to produce 

continuous supplies of other Forest resources. Selection of any of the alternatives considered in this 

analysis is expected to affect the long term productivity of the soil and vegetation resources within 

system route prisms while they are in use. Soil and vegetation function and productivity on roads and 

trails can be recovered if at some future time it is deemed as a need. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-4 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

3.2.7 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES (40 CFR 

1502.16) 

An “irreversible” commitment of resources results from a decision to use or modify resources that are 

renewable only over a long period of time. Non-renewable resources, such as minerals, are an 

irreversible commitment if used. An “irretrievable” commitment of resources refers to resources, 

resource production or the use of renewable resources that are lost because of land allocation or 

scheduling decisions. Proposed actions can result in certain effects to various resources which are 

described throughout Chapter 3 of this EIS. The decision for Sioux District Travel Management 

would not result in any irreversible commitment of resources. The decision for Sioux District Travel 

Management could result in irretrievable commitment of soil and vegetation resources for as long as 

the road or trail exists. 

3.2.8 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CONSERVATION POTENTIAL (40 CFR 1502.16) 

The Forest determined that the action alternatives would not affect energy consumption. People will 

continue to recreate on the District and consume energy for that purpose. The alternatives are not 

anticipated to change the amount of motorized or non-motorized use of the District, and therefore 

there would be no change in the amount of energy consumption due to the alternatives. Use on the 

District is anticipated to increase based on other factors, such as increases in population, but these 

factors would not be influenced by the alternatives. 

3.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES – SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 

The affected environment and environmental consequences (direct, indirect, and cumulative effects) 

for each alternative are organized by issue topic area and are addressed below. 

3.3.1 RECREATION 

 

Overview of Changes from Draft to Final EIS 

• ROS acreages were updated based on refined mapping of the ROS settings. 

• Cumulative effects portion was expanded to include additional present and reasonably 

foreseeable activities. 

• A limited amount of minor edits were made in this section. 

This topic addresses general recreation, which focuses on opportunities for recreational activities and 

potential for travel planning to impact these activities. 

3.3.1.1 Affected Environment – Recreation 

Introduction 

Comments related to recreation on the Sioux Travel Management proposed action could generally be 

categorized as issues associated with the loss of recreation opportunities or activities. Losses of 

opportunities were typically portrayed as loss of opportunities for motorized recreation, hunting, OHV 

use opportunities, non-motorized recreation, and dispersed vehicle camping. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-5

Regulatory Framework 

The Custer Forest Plan identifies both Forest-wide and management area-specific direction for 

recreation management. The Forest-wide goal “is to provide a broad spectrum of recreation 

experience opportunities”. The more specific guidance provided in the management area direction of 

the Plan reflects this goal and represents providing a broad range of differing recreation opportunities. 

Effects Analysis Methodology 

The analysis area for the recreation analysis direct and indirect effects contains all Forest Service 

administered lands within the Sioux Ranger District. 

Motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities were evaluated based on the acres available in 

each Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) setting by season of use, as well as the miles of 

motorized routes available by alternative. 

The ROS under this analysis includes the following settings: rural, roaded natural, semi-primitive 

motorized, and semi-primitive non-motorized. (Full definitions of each of the ROS settings are 

provided later in this section.) For this analysis, the Forest Service began by assigning ROS 

classifications using the National ROS Inventory Mapping Protocol (USDA Forest Service 2003a). 

The protocol assigns a one half mile width along each side of motorized wheeled vehicle routes to 

include in the total acres as the area utilized by motorized activities primarily due to noise. Areas that 

are more than 1⁄2 mile from roads or motorized trails are suitable for a semi-primitive non-motorized 

ROS setting as long as an individual area is equal to or greater than 2,500 acres in size. Areas less 

than 2,500 acres in size are added in with adjacent semi-primitive motorized or roaded natural 

settings, as appropriate. 

This ROS information was used to determine differences between the alternatives in terms of 

opportunities for motorized and non-motorized recreation. 

The miles of designated motorized routes available by alternative were also used to evaluate relative 

differences in the motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities provided by each alternative. 

The Recreation Setting 

The majority of recreation activities occur in conjunction with the motorized travel corridors on the 

District. The majority of the activity occurs during fall and spring hunting seasons. District staff field 

observations indicate that OHV use, and in particular ATV use, is relatively low outside of hunting 

seasons. 

Public feedback and staff input during the Forest’s Recreation Facilities Analysis, finalized in May 

2008, indicated that local communities have a strong connection to recreation opportunities provided 

by the District. This connection appears to include a general connection with the District as well as 

site-specific connections with locations such as Ekalaka Park Campground, Macnab Pond, and Reva 

Gap. 

There are no areas identified in the Forest Plan that are dedicated to non-motorized use and there are 

no non-motorized or motorized trails on the District. 

District staff experience and public input did not indicate any significant conflicts exist between types 

of recreational activities on the District. Those seeking non-motorized hunting experiences did 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-6 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

indicate some difficulty in finding these opportunities. They indicated that escaping from motorized 

disturbances could be challenging on the District. 

Motorized Recreation 

Existing system road mileages by type of restriction are shown in Chapter 2, Tables 2-1 and 2-2. The 

table shows there are 399 miles of system road open at least part or all of the year in the analysis area. 

National Forest system roads are only open to highway legal vehicles. Currently, Forest staff have 

observed unlicensed off-highway vehicle use on forest system roads by recreation visitors and 

permittees. While riding on forest system roads with unlicensed vehicles is not uncommon, it is not 

consistent with state and federal regulations. Under specific circumstances, system roads can be 

designated as motorized mixed use to all use by both licensed and unlicensed vehicles. However, 

there are currently no motorized mixed use routes on the District. 

There are currently no motorized system trails on the District. Motorized system trails allow 

operation of all off-highway vehicles, licensed or unlicensed. 

Implementation of the 2001 Tri-State OHV decision restricted motor vehicles to existing routes 

(USDA Forest Service 2001), whether system or non-system routes. Some OHV opportunities on the 

District are located on existing non-system routes. Non-system routes are those that were not 

designed, constructed, identified, or managed as a part of the forest transportation system. State motor 

vehicle laws do not address vehicle licensing requirements for non-system routes.

Off-Route Motorized Travel 

There are no designated cross-country vehicle areas on the District. 

Dispersed Vehicle Camping 

The 2001 Tri-State OHV decision and subsequent regulations implemented in 2001 allow motorized 

travel up to 300 feet off existing motorized routes but only to access dispersed campsites. Dispersed 

vehicle camping occurs along routes throughout the District. Heaviest use occurs during the fall 

hunting seasons. 

Hunting 

Big-game hunting is the primary recreation activity on the District. Turkey hunting is also an 

important activity on the District, but because the use numbers are highest during big-game hunting, 

this season will be used as the indicator for determining if there are potentially significant effects. 

The primary hunting seasons for the Montana portion of the District are archery deer/elk (early Sept. 

to mid-October) and general deer/elk (late October to November 30); and archery deer/antelope (midAugust to October 31), general antelope (early to mid-October), and West River deer (November) in 

South Dakota portion. The State of South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks (GFP) administer hunting 

within South Dakota, while the State of Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MTFWP) administer 

hunting within Montana. Motorized routes provide hunters with access, with some hunters using this 

access to seek areas more removed from motorized influences, while other hunters may choose to hunt 

along or near motorized routes. 

The South Dakota portion of the District falls within the 35A, 35B, and 35C West River deer hunting 

units and antelope hunting units, which coincides with the Harding County administrative boundaries. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-7

This area also includes private, state, and other Federal lands. The District is a relatively small 

percent of the hunting units. 

The Montana portion of the District is within FWP’s hunting district 705. This hunting district is 

generally bounded by the Powder River on the west, Montana/Wyoming state line on the south, 

Montana/South Dakota state line on the east, and Highway 12 on the north. This area also includes 

private, state, and other Federal lands. The District is a relatively small percent of the hunting units. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

Forest Service recreation management is guided by the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), 

which models outdoor recreation opportunities and activities by natural resource setting. The Forest 

Service published an ROS Users Guide in 1981 along with an updated Primer and Field Guide in 

1990. A National ROS Inventory Mapping Protocol was implemented in 2003. ROS has been used 

by the Forest Service nationwide for recreation planning and management to provide opportunities 

and settings consistent with public expectations to realize a desired set of experiences. 

Within the District, ROS settings vary from areas dominated by roads classified for highway vehicle 

use (Rural and Roaded Natural), to areas through which high clearance roads and motorized trails pass 

(Semi-primitive Motorized), to areas away from the sights and sounds of civilization (Semi-primitive 

Non-motorized). The following are definitions and examples of each setting on the District: 

“Rural” settings are characterized by a highly modified natural environment where the sights and 

sounds of humans are readily evident. This ROS setting is available to both non-motorized and 

motorized recreation. Quiet trails and opportunities for solitude would be hard to find during 

much of the year. 

“Roaded Natural” settings extend about one-half mile on each side of a road used by standard 

highway-type vehicles. All roads used by the public or permittees, and all roads used by private 

landowners outside the Forest boundary were considered as affecting the recreation setting. Nonmotorized recreation is available within this setting. Quiet areas and opportunities for solitude 

would be hard to find during the summer and fall. Forest development roads and well-used 

private roads typically are examples of roaded-natural corridors. 

“Semi-Primitive Motorized” settings extend about one-half mile on each side of a road or trail 

where high clearance vehicles or motor vehicles are legal to be used. The lack of vegetative 

screening or the influence of intervening ridges may allow the zone to be wider or narrower than 

one-half mile. This ROS setting is available to both non-motorized and motorized recreation. By 

definition, quiet areas and the opportunity for solitude would not occur in this setting during the 

time of year the routes are open to motorized travel. 

“Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized” settings denote areas where stock, hiking, and/or bicycling are 

the predominant modes of travel (motor vehicles would not be legal to operate in this setting and 

motorized travel corridors would be at least one half mile in distance). The lack of terrain 

screening or vegetative screening may occasionally allow the sights and sounds of humans within 

three miles to influence the setting. The area does not meet the size, distance, or lack of human 

disturbance criteria established for “primitive” settings. By definition, this would be a primary 

area for quiet areas and an appropriate setting to provide opportunities for solitude. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-8 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

District ROS Settings 

Added together, the data in the following table shows that 100% of the analysis area is influenced by 

motorized use based on ROS settings under the No Action Alternative during the current season of 

use. Outside of the season of use (SOU), the analysis area has 76% motorized settings and 24% nonmotorized settings. 

Table 3-3. No Action ROS Settings by Acres and Percent 4

Acres (Percent) 

ROS Setting Season of Use 

12/1 to 10/15 

Outside Season of Use 

10/16-11/30 

Rural 2,986 (2%) 2,986 (2%) 

Roaded Natural 55,222 (31%) 55,222 (31%) 

Semi-Primitive Motorized 119,488 (67%) 76,668 (43%) 

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized 0 (0%) 42,820 (24%) 

Recreational Use 

Recreation Activities – National Visitor Use Monitoring 

The Custer National Forest conducted a National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) survey in 2001-

2002 with the data resulting from the survey compiled and made available in 2003. The NVUM 

protocol is designed to be repeated every 5 years. Locations for surveys are established by the Forest 

based on field observation of potential sites to interview visitors about their activities as they exit the 

forest, a trail, or developed recreation site. The survey dates, times and places are assigned on a 

random basis and capture a range of use levels at different sites and areas across the Forest. The 

schedule is assigned to the Forest by the national NVUM working group. 

The relatively high recreational use on the Beartooth Ranger District resulted in selection of only a 

handful of NVUM surveys on the Sioux and Ashland Districts. The result is that the data generated 

from this effort is relatively representative for the Beartooth District, but does not appear to be 

representative of recreational activities on either the Sioux or Ashland Ranger Districts. 

Consequently, NVUM data is not helpful in conducting site-specific analysis for the District, but can 

be useful in identifying national and regional trends. 

Hunting 

It is difficult to determine exactly how many hunters use the District during big-game hunting season, 

or how many may be on the District at any one time. FWP issues unlimited permits for general and 

archery deer in the area. In the past three years, hunter surveys estimate that there were 4,500-5,200 

deer hunters in hunting unit 705 (MTFWP 2008). They issue 300 general permits for elk for the 705 

hunting district. The actual number of hunters on the District is presumably some fraction of the total 

permits issued, because District lands are only a portion of the hunting unit. 

South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks staff believes that the current number of hunting license in 35A, 

B, and C are the maximum number of licenses that can be issued without degrading hunter experience 

(SDGFP 2008a). The current number of licenses (2008) for deer is 1,188 in 35A, 756 in 35B, and 

1,728 in 35C. For antelope, the number of licenses is 1,512 in 35A/E and 1,566 in 35B/F. They also 

estimate that approximately 60-70% of the licensed deer hunters use the South Dakota portion of the 

 

4

 Calculations were based on National Forest system lands within the District boundary. Acres were derived from GIS mapping. All 

numbers were rounded to the nearest whole percent. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-9

District, or 2,203 to 2,570 hunters (SDGFP 2008b). Similarly, they estimate that only a small fraction 

of the antelope hunters use the District, preferring to use adjacent grassland prairie settings on private 

land for hunting. 

The opening weekend of big-game hunting seasons typically have the highest number of hunters on 

the District. Deer hunters typically camp and hunt on the District, while antelope hunters typically 

just camp on the District. 

Recreation Trends 

Recreational OHV use in Montana grew by 40% in the last decade and is expected to continue to grow 

(MTFWP 2000). Similarly, the analysis area in both Montana and South Dakota has experienced 

additional use over the last decade based on District staff field observations. 

The Forest Service produced a national report on OHV use titled Off- Highway Vehicle Use on 

National Forests: Volume and Characteristics of Visitors, Special Report to the National OHV 

Implementation Team - 5 August 2004. Data used in this analysis came from the National Visitor Use 

Monitoring (NVUM) program. The research methodology for this program is documented in a 

General Technical Report (English et al 2002). The first sampling cycle occurred from January 1, 

2000 to September 30, 2003. During that period, on-site surveying occurred on nearly 23,000 sample 

days around the country. Over 90,000 visitors finishing a recreation visit were interviewed about their 

activities, experiences, length of stay, and demographic characteristics. The survey data shows that 

OHV use is a specialized use of forests and not a major recreational use for most forests. Slightly 

more than 2,000 of surveyed visitors indicated OHV use was a primary activity, and a little less than 

5,400 indicated participation in OHV activity during their visit. 

Nationally, about 2.5% (5.2 million visits) of the 205 million recreational visits to National Forest 

have OHV use as their primary activity5. A slightly larger percentage (3.1%) has OHV use as a 

secondary activity. That is, about 6.3 million visitors reported participating in OHV use, but not as 

their primary activity. These would include people who engaged in OHV riding during their visits, 

but who came to the forest primarily for some other activity. 

The total numbers of National Forest visits that have OHV use as either a primary or secondary 

activity is about 11.5 million. The estimates of primary OHV use visitation are similar for most 

National Forest regions (range 12 – 16% of the national total), except Region 1 (includes the Custer 

National Forest) and 10 (Alaska). Only 5% (about 274,000 visits) of the total primary OHV use for 

all National Forests occurs on forests in Region 1. None of the visitors surveyed in Region 10 

indicated that OHV use was their primary recreational activity. 

Trends in Other Recreation Activities 

Recently, a decline in overall participation in outdoor activities has been noted, attributed partially to 

the growth of leisure choices now available such as the Internet and satellite TV (Roper 2003). 

 

5

 Percentages presented here include visitors who did not provide information on their primary and/or secondary recreation activities. 

Using just those who did provide that information as a base yields primary OHV use at 3.0%, and those listing OHV as a secondary 

activity at 3.5%. (English: Off- Highway Vehicle Use on National Forests: Volume and Characteristics of Visitors, Special Report to 

the National OHV Implementation Team - 5 August 2004) 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-10 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

Despite this recent trend, with increasing population and growth in income, outdoor recreation 

participation is expected to grow (Cordell et al 1999). 

A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2004) report indicates that overall hunting participation decreased 

nationally between 1991-2001, although big-game hunting participation generally remained level and 

turkey hunting increased. Big-game hunting in Montana reflected this trend, but in South Dakota the 

report indicates that big-game hunting increased. 

Studies sponsored by FWP and the Forest Service concur with these trends (USDA Forest Service, 

2005). However, they also indicate that demand for big-game hunting opportunities is expected to 

exceed supply for opportunities beginning in 2010. This suggests that current hunting levels in 

Montana are expected to level off in the near future (since supply will be at maximum). As indicated 

previously, South Dakota hunting on the District is expected to be level (permits are at the maximum) 

for the foreseeable future. 

Motorized Congestion 

The Forest is unaware of any existing data that specifically assess whether motorized congestion on 

the District is impacting recreation experience. Motorized congestion has not been viewed by the 

Forest or District personnel as a particular problem in the past. Throughout the District, the highest 

use occurs on weekend days during fall hunting seasons. Since motorized use of the District is 

anticipated to continue to increase in the future, primarily as a result of population growth, the quality 

of future motorized experiences may potentially be affected by motorized congestion in the future, but 

it has not been identified or perceived as an issue at this time. 

3.3.1.2 Environmental Consequences - Recreation 

The following tables provide a summary of the ROS settings by acres and miles for each alternative. 

These are used to form the analytical basis for comparing the alternatives. 

Table 3-4. ROS Setting by Alternative (Percent/Acres) 

Alternative A Alternative B No Action 

ROS Setting 

Yearlong Season of Use 

12/1-10/14 

Outside 

Season of Use 

10/15-11/30 

Season of Use 

12/1-10/14 

Outside 

Season of Use 

10/15-11/30 

Rural 2% (2,986) 2% (2,986) 2% (2,986) 2% (2,986) 2% (2,986) 

Roaded Natural 31% (54,512) 30% (53,213) 30% (53,253) 31% (55,222) 31% (55,222) 

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized 61% (109,312) 62% (110,510) 33% (59,768) 67% (119,488) 43% (76,668) 

Semi-Primitive 

Non-Motorized 6% (10,948) 6% (10,948) 35% (61,690) 0% (0) 24% (42,820) 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-11

Table 3-5. Summary of Miles 6

 of System Roads and Motorized Trails Designated for Public 

Motorized Use by Alternative

Alternative A Alternative B No Action 

Route Designation Yearlong 

Season of 

Use 

12/1-10/15 

Outside 

Season of 

Use 

10/16-11/30 

Season of 

Use 

12/1-10/15 

Outside 

Season of 

Use 

10/16-11/30 

Road – Highway legal vehicles only 70 159 109 399 251 

Road – All types allowed (motorized 

mixed use) 

116 57 45 0 0 

Motorized Trail – All motor vehicles 

allowed 

280 84 27 0 0 

Total 466 300 184 399 251 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Recreation 

Alternative A 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

The above table indicates the District would primarily be in motorized settings, year-round - 94% - 

under this alternative. 

There is no season of use associated with this alternative, so there would not be an annual change in 

ROS settings under this alternative. 

Motorized Recreation Miles 

There would be 466 miles of roads and trails available for motorized recreation opportunities. 

Motorized Opportunities 

Implementation of this alternative would maximize the opportunities for motorized recreation on the 

District. It provides the greatest number of miles of routes designated for public motorized use, and 

includes the greatest number of miles of motorized trail. This would be expected to increase the 

opportunities for motorized recreationists compared the other alternatives. In addition, this alternative 

would be attractive to users that are seeking semi-primitive motorized types of experiences given the 

number of motorized trails. 

Motorized users have the greatest opportunity to be able to find the type of motorized experience they 

are seeking under this alternative than either Alternative B or No Action Alternative, based on the 

miles of routes available, variety of vehicle use designations available, and absence of any season of 

use. 

This alternative would provide a considerable amount of opportunities to operate licensed and 

unlicensed motor vehicles on the District. Families and those desiring to operate unlicensed motor 

vehicles would find opportunities for extended day trips and motorized loop experiences. 

 

6 Comparison between tables may not be exact due to rounding error. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-12 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

Based on miles of routes, this alternative would be expected to provide more opportunities for persons 

with disabilities or limited mobility to access the District than the other alternatives. 

 

Non-Motorized Opportunities 

The quality of the outdoor experience for those seeking non-motorized recreational activities would 

have the greatest potential to be diminished under this alternative. However, District staff field 

observations indicate that recreational use is low during the majority of year, so finding nonmotorized experiences may not be a cause for concern other than during big-game hunting seasons – 

the season of heaviest visitor use. 

Dispersed Vehicle Camping 

This alternative would provide more dispersed vehicle camping opportunities than the other 

alternatives being analyzed. Compared to no action, there would be an additional 67 (12/1-10/15) to 

215 (10/16-11/30) more miles of motorized routes that would provide potential dispersed vehicle 

camping locations. 

Hunting 

This alternative provides the maximum opportunity to hunters who desire to scout, access, and 

retrieve their game by motorized means. Big-game hunters who prefer this approach would not be 

expected to be displaced under this alternative. 

Hunters seeking opportunities to hunt without disturbance by motorized vehicles could expect to have 

more difficulty doing so under this alternative when compared to the No Action Alternative or 

Alternative B. This alternative would have the most potential to displace hunters interested in nonmotorized hunting opportunities. If displaced, the ROS settings suggest that there is a low probability 

of hunters finding non-motorized hunting opportunities anywhere else on the District under this 

alternative. 

Alternative B 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

The motorized settings under this alternative would be in essentially the same amounts as the 

Alternative B for the majority of the year. The notable difference between Alternative A and B is the 

proposed season of use in Alternative B. From October 16 to November 30, the main big-game 

hunting season, ROS settings on the District would shift more towards non-motorized settings. The 

District would consist of 61,690 acres in semi-primitive non-motorized settings, nearly 20,000 more 

acres in semi-primitive non-motorized settings than the No Action Alternative during this same time 

period. These acres are distributed across the Long Pines, North Cave Hills, and Ekalaka Hills land 

units. 

Motorized Recreation Miles 

There would be 300 miles of roads and trails available for motorized recreation opportunities. During 

the big game hunting season, motorized season of use designations would reduce the number of miles 

of roads and trails available for public use to 184 miles. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-13

Motorized Opportunities 

Implementation of this alternative would provide the least amount of miles for motorized recreation of 

all the alternatives. However, unlike the No Action Alternative, this alternative would provide many 

miles of motorized trails and mixed motorized use roads for the operation of unlicensed vehicles. 

Because of the lack of specific user information and numbers, it is difficult to say if the reduced 

number of miles would result in displacement of motorized users. District staff field observations 

indicate that visitor use is low outside of big-game hunting seasons. Consequently, it is likely that the 

only real potential to displace motorized users is during the big-game hunting season. 

Based strictly on miles of routes, this alternative would be expected to provide fewer opportunities for 

persons with disabilities or limited mobility to access the District than the other alternatives. It is 

difficult to assess the degree of this impact given the absence of user data for the District. 

This alternative would provide considerable opportunities to operate both licensed and unlicensed 

motor vehicles on the District. Families and those desiring to operate unlicensed motor vehicles 

would find opportunities for extended day trips and motorized loop experiences, although not as many 

as would be provided under Alternative A. 

Non-motorized Opportunities 

The quality of non-motorized experiences has the greatest potential to be improved under this 

alternative, especially for those interested in non-motorized recreation opportunities during big-game 

hunting seasons. The areas created by the season of use designation will give visitors several new 

areas to seek out non-motorized opportunities. 

District staff field observations of low visitor use outside of the big-game hunting seasons suggests 

that opportunities for non-motorized experiences for the majority of the year are readily available. 

Thus the change in miles of roads and motorized trails proposed under this alternative, and the 

resulting change in ROS settings, may end up enhancing non-motorized experiences during a portion 

of the year when those opportunities are already relatively abundant, although not necessarily 

reflected in ROS mapping. 

Dispersed Vehicle Camping 

This alternative would provide fewer dispersed vehicle camping opportunities than the other 

alternatives being analyzed. Compared to no action, there would be 99 fewer miles of motorized 

routes that would provide potential dispersed vehicle camping locations during the season of use, and 

67 fewer miles outside of the season of use. 

There is uncertainty about how this may actually impact recreational use, since there is limited visitor 

use information for the District. Those individuals accustomed to using a dispersed vehicle camping 

site adjacent to a route that is proposed to not be designated may feel a sense of loss. It is difficult to 

ascertain whether visitors may or may not find, or perceive to find, it harder to locate a dispersed 

vehicle camping location. 

Hunting 

Hunters seeking opportunities to hunt without disturbance by motorized vehicles would have the best 

chance of doing so under this alternative, when compared to Alternative A and the No Action 

Alternative. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-14 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

This alternative provides the fewest opportunities for hunters who desire to scout, access, and retrieve 

their game by motorized means. This alternative would have the highest potential to displace hunters 

interested in these hunting opportunities. If hunters are displaced, they may be able to find similar 

opportunities elsewhere on the District since 65 percent of the District would remain in motorized 

settings under this alternative. 

South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks staff generally believes that changes proposed in this alternative 

may not result in a net loss of hunters. Their impression is that if some hunters are displaced by the 

proposed actions in this alternative, they are likely to be replaced by other hunters looking for the 

opportunities created by the proposed actions (SDGFP 2008a). Recreation trend information for 

Montana and South Dakota, cited in the Trends in Other Recreation Activities section above, supports 

the assumption that the types of changes proposed would not be likely to affect the overall total hunter 

numbers given the strong demand for big-game hunting opportunities. 

No Action Alternative 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

The above table indicates the District would be entirely in motorized settings during the season of use 

on the District. 

From October 16 to November 30, the main big-game hunting season, ROS settings on the District are 

76% motorized (134,876 acres) and 24% non-motorized (42,820 acres). The non-motorized setting 

acres are all found within the Long Pines land unit in Montana. 

Motorized Recreation Miles 

There would be 399 miles of roads and trails available for motorized recreation opportunities. During 

the big game hunting season, motorized season of use designations would reduce the number of miles 

of roads and trails available to 251 miles. 

Motorized Opportunities 

The miles designated for public motorized use include routes for which the Forest Service has no legal 

right-of-way for public access. This could have a couple of implications. First, the actual miles of 

roads available to the public may in effect be less, since some of these system roads may not be 

accessible. There are 21 miles of routes with no legal right-of-way for public access included in this 

alternative. The public may or may not be able to access them with motor vehicles, and would need to 

have permission from landowners to be able to use them. This could lead to confusion and may 

encourage inadvertent motorized trespassing on private lands. 

Under this alternative, motorized users may not find opportunities for the types of motorized 

experiences they are accustomed to on the District. This is primarily because there would be no 

opportunities to operate unlicensed motor vehicles on the District; all motor vehicles would need to be 

licensed to operate on District roads. 

Individuals may find that routes they had grown accustomed to using over the last few years are no 

longer available for motorized use since only existing system roads would be designated for public 

motorized use and no non-system routes would be designated. However, it is likely, based on the total 

miles to be designated, that visitors could find similar motorized experiences and opportunities on the 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-15

District. The situation would be expected to be similar for District visitors with disabilities or limited 

mobility seeking motorized opportunities. 

 

Non-motorized Opportunities 

The District has no non-motorized ROS settings during the majority of the year, but the low visitor 

use observed by District staff suggests that visitors may still be able to find non-motorized 

opportunities. The season of use designation on the Montana portion of the District provides nonmotorized recreation opportunities during the big game season. 

 

Dispersed Vehicle Camping 

There would be 67 to 215 fewer miles of roads available under no action, than under Alternative A, 

but 67 to 99 more miles than under Alternative B, depending on the time of year. Visitors are 

generally believed to be able to find adequate dispersed vehicle camping locations to meet their needs 

under the existing condition, and most likely would still be able to find ample opportunities under no 

action. However, individuals that have a connection to a particular dispersed camping location may 

feel a sense of loss. 

Hunting 

This alternative provides numerous opportunities to hunters who desire to scout and retrieve their 

game by motorized means. Hunters in South Dakota seeking opportunities to hunt without 

disturbance from motorized vehicles may have difficulty doing so under this alternative given the 

limited number of acres in non-motorized ROS settings on land units in that state. 

Cumulative Effects - Recreation 

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities 

The Forest Service reviewed recent travel management and other decisions that have potential to 

impact motorized and non-motorized users of the Sioux Ranger District, along with past and ongoing 

activities. Field observations by District staff indicate that the predominant users of the South Dakota 

portion of the District are from South Dakota. Similarly, the majority of users of the Montana portion 

of the District are from Montana. Discussions with attendees at the public meetings and field contacts 

during hunting season indicate that primary users of the District, hunters, largely come from western 

South Dakota and eastern Montana. Based on this information, it is reasonable to assume that 

activities that impact either travel management or the recreation opportunities provided on the District 

or other public and private lands in the vicinity of the District, i.e. northwestern South Dakota and 

southeastern Montana, have the greatest potential to cumulatively impact the primary District visitors’ 

motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities. 

The following are past, present, or reasonably foreseeable activities that have affected or have the 

potential to affect motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities on or in the vicinity of the 

District. 

2001 Tri-State OHV Decision (Forest Service) 

The 2001 Tri-State OHV Decision prohibited cross-country vehicle use on Forest Service lands within 

Montana, North Dakota, and parts of South Dakota. The ROD for the 2001 Tri-State OHV Decision 

indicates that cross-country motor vehicle travel for the Custer National Forest and Dakota Prairie 

Grasslands was reduced by 64% and 100%, respectively. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-16 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

2003 Tri-State OHV Decision (Bureau of Land Management) 

The 2003 Tri-State OHV Decision prohibited cross-country vehicle use on Bureau of Land 

Management lands within Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The ROD for the 2003 TriState OHV Decision indicates that cross-country motor vehicle travel for the Miles City and South 

Dakota Field Offices was reduced by 40% and 98%, respectively. 

Blackhills National Forest 

The Blackhills National Forest is currently conducting forest-wide travel management planning. They 

have distributed a proposed action, but have not distributed a draft environmental document. Since 

the Blackhills has not yet identified a preferred alternative for their proposal, it would be speculative 

to attempt to identify what their final decision regarding travel management may be. Therefore, 

information for the Blackhills National Forest will not be considered in this cumulative effects 

analysis. 

Dakota Prairie Grasslands 

The Dakota Prairie Grasslands (DPG) completed travel management planning for the Grand River and 

Cedar River National Grasslands in September, 2007. This portion of the DPG contains those lands in 

South Dakota. The decision resulted in a net reduction of 6 miles of system roads or approximately a 

1.5% reduction in motorized routes compared to their existing system miles before the decision. 

Large Fire Events 

The 2002 Kraft Springs Fire in the Long Pines land unit and subsequent timber salvage harvest 

resulted in the loss of a significant amount of wildlife cover. A Forest Order was executed that closed 

certain roads in the Long Pines during the big-game hunting season, October 15 to November 30, for 

wildlife security due to the loss of wildlife cover. This affected 148 miles of routes. 

Ashland Ranger District Travel Management Planning 

Motorized travel management planning is currently being evaluated on the Ashland Ranger District. 

The Forest expects a May 2009 decision on Ashland travel management planning. The preferred 

alternative would result in approximately 117 fewer miles (17% less) of system roads designated for 

public motorized use for the majority of the year compared to no action, and an additional 27 fewer 

miles during big-game hunting season. In terms of motorized ROS settings, 82% of the Ashland 

District would be in motorized ROS settings for the majority of the year and 78% during big-game 

hunting season under the preferred alternative versus 90% in motorized ROS settings year-round 

under the No Action Alternative. 

South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks Walk-In Management and Controlled Hunting Access Program 

The GFP has two programs for contracting with private landowners to obtain hunter access on private 

lands. The Walk-In Management program allows walk-in hunting access only, and includes as many 

or more acres in Harding County as there are National Forest land acres. The Controlled Hunting 

Access Program (CHAP) allows the hunting access to be prescribed in more detail by the landowner. 

There is only one CHAP area in Harding County. All of these areas receive frequent hunter use. 

Hunters generally tend to prefer National Forest lands for deer hunting, although they do also make 

use of the private lands for deer hunting, and tend to prefer the private lands in the State’s programs 

for antelope hunting since they usually provide better antelope habitat. The specific lands under these 

programs can vary from year to year, but the acreage under contract generally stays about the same 

from year to year. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-17

Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Block Management 

FWP works with private landowners to obtain hunter access on private lands, known as the Block 

Management Program. FWP Region 7 contained approximately 3.5 million acres under Block 

Management in 2008. Carter County, the county containing all of the District’s lands in Montana, 

contained approximately 230,000 acres under Block Management. Lands enrolled in the Block 

Management Program can vary from year to year, but generally do not tend to fluctuate dramatically. 

The type of access permitted on lands under Block Management is determined by the landowner. 

Generally, landowners restrict motor vehicle use to existing routes on the property or require hunters 

to use designated parking areas and then access the property on foot. In some cases, the number of 

hunters is controlled in addition to the access. All of the areas are receive considerable hunter use, 

and many hunters have indicated that they hunt on both Block Management areas and National Forest 

lands. 

Timber Harvest Activities 

There have been a number of timber harvests or vegetative management activities on the District in 

the past. Most of these activities included creation of temporary roads that were only used during the 

project and then closed. Some of these projects also included construction and/or decommissioning of 

system roads. 

The Forest identified 21 timber harvest/vegetative management activities dating back to 1982 on the 

District. It was clear that the older the activity was, the less influential the activity appeared to be in 

terms of potential cumulative effects. For example, the older a project was the more potential there 

was for subsequent activities, decisions, and forest use to have altered the network of routes on the 

landscape envisioned in these earlier decisions. 

The IDT used the three most recent decisions for this assessment, and determined that decisions prior 

to this appeared to have little, if any, identifiable influence on the current transportation system. The 

three decisions are the 2004 Ekalaka Hazardous Fuels Project, the 2003 Kraft Springs Fire Hazard 

Abatement and Restoration Project, and the 1992 Sioux Ranger District Fuels Management project. 

The Kraft Springs project did not include any new road construction elements or any road 

decommissioning. The Ekalaka Hazardous Fuels and District Fuels Management projects both 

included road construction and road decommissioning. Each of the projects resulted in essentially 

equal amounts of road additions (construction) and road deletions (decommissioning). The result is 

that there was no substantive change to the transportation system mileage as a result of these 

activities. 

Net Cumulative Effects 

The above information suggests that the 2001 Tri-State OHV Decision substantially changed motor 

vehicle use with respect to cross country vehicle travel in the area evaluated for cumulative effects 

(see above for description). The alternatives under consideration in this analysis do not include any 

actions that would further change cross-country vehicle use; therefore no cumulative effects from the 

proposed alternatives are anticipated specifically related to cross-country vehicle use. However, in 

terms of overall motorized and non-motorized opportunities, the 2001 Tri-State OHV Decision had a 

significant impact on reducing motorized opportunities and increasing non-motorized opportunities. 

The above information also indicates that three activities contribute to or may potentially contribute to 

the majority of changes in recreation opportunities available to visitors that use the District: the 2001 

Tri-State OHV Decision, the post-Kraft Springs Fire seasonal road closure in the Long Pines, and the 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-18 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

proposed travel management changes on the Ashland Ranger District. All other identified activities 

appear to only consist of minor, largely negligible, changes to motorized and non-motorized 

recreation opportunities. 

The alternatives in this analysis represent the following changes in miles of motorized routes 

compared to the No Action Alternative, a key measurement in determining opportunities: 

• Alternative A would increase motorized route miles by 67 miles (17%) during the majority of 

the year and by 215 miles (86%) during the big-game hunting season compared to no action. 

• Alternative B would decrease motorized route miles by 99 miles (24%) during the majority of 

the year and by 67 miles (27%) during the big-game hunting season, compared to no action. 

Alternative A would cumulatively lessen the impact of the above activities on motorized recreation 

opportunities, while decreasing the non-motorized opportunities that they would create. The most 

dramatic gain in motorized opportunities would occur during the big-game hunting season since all 

designated roads would remain available for public motorized use. In addition, a number of other 

routes would be added to the system expanding the network of motorized routes available for public 

motorized use. 

Alternative B would contribute to the cumulative decrease in miles of routes/motorized opportunities 

when taken in combination with the 2001 Tri-State OHV decision, seasonal road closure in the Long 

Pines, and the Ashland Ranger District preferred alternative. Conversely, non-motorized recreation 

opportunities would cumulatively expand. 

3.3.1.3 Conclusion - Recreation 

The following conclusions are based on the indicators identified in Chapter 2 related to Recreation 

resources and the analysis in this section. 

1) Concerns related to the loss of motorized recreation opportunities. 

Alternative A best responds to concerns related to opportunities for motorized recreation and 

motorized hunting access, including providing the most miles of system road and motorized trails 

(466 miles), and yielding 94% of the District in motorized settings, year-round. 

The remaining alternatives respond to this issue to lesser and varying degrees than Alternative A. 

The No Action Alternative ranks second most responsive. This alternative provides the second 

most miles of motorized routes, and unlike Alternative A, a season of use would make several 

motorized routes unavailable during big-game hunting season, reducing opportunities for 

motorized hunting scouting, access, and retrieval. Alternative B would provide both the fewest 

miles of motorized routes and fewest acres in motorized ROS settings. 

2) Concerns related to the loss of non-motorized opportunities. 

Alternative B best responds to concerns related to opportunities for non-motorized recreation, 

especially non-motorized hunting experiences in South Dakota. During the fall hunting season, 

this alternative would provide the most acres in semi-primitive non-motorized ROS settings 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-19

(61,690 acres or 35% of the District) and there would only be 184 miles of routes designated for 

public motorized use. 

The remaining alternatives respond to this issue to a lesser degree than Alternative B. The No 

Action Alternative has several more miles of roads than Alternative B, but does provide nonmotorized ROS settings during big-game hunting season (42,820 acres or 24% of the District). 

Alternative A would provide the least amount of non-motorized acres in ROS settings – only 6% 

compared to 35 % for Alternative B and 24% for no action, during the big-game hunting season. 

3) Concerns related to opportunities for off-highway legal vehicle operation. 

Alternative A best responds to concerns related to opportunities for unlicensed off-highway 

vehicle operation, including providing the most miles of motorized mixed use roads and motorized 

trails. There would be 396 combined miles of motorized mixed use roads and motorized trails on 

the District. 

The remaining alternatives respond to this issue to a lesser degree than Alternative A. In 

descending order of responsiveness, they are: 

Alternative B (72 to 141 miles, depending on the time of year) 

No Action (0 miles) 

Consistency with Laws, Regulations, and Policy 

The recreation goal in the Custer National Forest Management Plan is to “provide a broad spectrum of 

recreation experience opportunities”. All alternatives are consistent with the Custer National Forest 

Management Plan direction. 

3.3.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Overview of Changes from the Draft to the Final EIS 

 Refined effects analysis based on WO direction and final alternative descriptions.

 Added the no action alternative to the Summary table.. 

 Results of the historic road analysis have been included. 

Regulatory Framework 

This section contains information on Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Properties. 

Cultural resource is a broad term that refers to cultural properties and traditional life way values. A 

cultural property may be the physical remains of archeological, historical and architectural sites and/or 

a place of traditional cultural use. Traditional life way values refer to the connection between the 

landscape and a groups’ traditional beliefs, religion or cultural practice. 

Since these resources are nonrenewable and easily damaged, laws and regulations exist to help protect 

them. These include the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Archeological Resources 

Protection Act (ARPA), the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) and the Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). Sacred and culturally important 

places fall under this purview of the NHPA, AIRFA and the Sacred Lands Executive Order (Executive 

Order 13007). Native American graves are protected under NAGPRA. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-20 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

The NHPA and its implementing regulations require that federal agencies take into account the effects 

of their undertakings on historic properties and provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

with an opportunity to comment on those undertakings. The term “historic property” refers to any 

prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure or object included in, or eligible for inclusion 

on, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 

The Forest Service has been directed to satisfactorily address the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and other related statutes involving cultural resource management and historic preservation 

which apply for such projects. As stated in the Custer National Forest (CNF) Management Plan "The 

goal of cultural resource management is to maintain and enhance historic and prehistoric cultural 

resource values." (USDA Forest Service 1986: 4). In 1995, the CNF became a participant in the 

Montana Programmatic Agreement (MTPA) between the Montana State Historic Preservation Office 

(MTSHPO), the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation and the Northern Region of the Forest 

Service regarding the management of cultural resources on National Forest lands in Montana. Goals 

of the MTPA are to extend beyond the narrow-scoped management perspective of the 1970s and 

1980s that focused upon “site identification/recordation and avoidance or mitigation” to a more 

informative approach of “cultural resources stewardship”. A similar programmatic agreement 

(SDPA) was negotiated and signed with the South Dakota State Historic Preservation Office 

(SDSHPO) Both agreements were updated in 2001 to reflect the changes in National Historic 

Preservation Act Section 106 regulations. 

Compliance with the NHPA is being conducted as directed in the USDA Forest Service Policy for 

NHPA compliance in Travel Management: Designated Routes for Motor Vehicle Use prepared by the 

Forest Service in consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (USDA Forest 

Service 2005). Under this direction, three specific travel management proposals are considered 

undertakings: 1) construction of a new road or trail; 2) authorization of motor vehicle use on a route 

currently closed to vehicles; and 3) the formal recognition of a user-developed (unauthorized) route as 

a designated route open to motorized vehicles. Existing system roads, including those used only for 

administrative use, are described under the No Action Alternative. This alternative is presented for 

comparative purposes since the effects of their current designation on cultural resources is not 

considered an undertaking under this policy. Category three applies to the Sioux Travel Management 

undertaking. The terms and conditions of the MTPA and the SDPA will be followed when usercreated (unauthorized) routes are designated as routes open to motorized vehicles. 

American Indians and Alaskan Natives are recognized as people with distinct cultures and traditional 

values. They have a special and unique legal and political relationship with the Government of the 

United States as defined by history, treaties, statues, executive orders, court decisions and the U.S. 

Constitution. There is an emphasis on government-to-government relationships with federally 

recognized tribes, including consultation in order to identify rights and concerns during the 

development of plans, projects, programs and activities (USDA Forest Service 1997). 

The 1992 amendments to NHPA specify that properties of traditional religious and cultural 

importance to an ethnic group referred to as traditional cultural properties (TCPs) may also be 

determined eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. Under NHPA, effects to “cultural resources of 

traditional religious and cultural importance” must be considered. A location or site has cultural 

value if its’ significance to American Indian beliefs or customs “has been ethnohistorically 

documented and if the site can be clearly defined” (Parker and King 1990:15-27). Locations of 

natural features significant in the mythology, cosmology, and history of a Native American group are 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-21

potentially eligible to the National Register. Sites “where Native American religious practitioners 

have historically gone, and are known or thought to be today, to perform ceremonial activities in 

accordance with traditional rules of practice”(Parker and King 1990:1) are also potentially eligible 

properties. In carrying out its responsibilities under Section 106, a federal agency is required to 

consult with any Indian tribe that attaches religious and cultural significance to such properties (16 

USC 470a(d)(6)(A) and (B)) when any federal undertaking might affect them. 

Federal agencies must also consider American Indian traditional use, belief system, religious practices 

and lifeway values as directed by the Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA), the 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and the American Indian 

Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA). Contemporary use sites for traditional or cultural purposes are 

provided protection under AIRFA. When management activities might limit current religious 

activities, restrict access to important ethnographic resources, alter sacred sites, or affect Indian 

burials, AIRFA stipulates the need for consultation with Indian tribes. Additionally, rights reserved 

under treaties may possess an inherent measure of resource protection. The Fort Laramie Treaties of 

1851 and 1868 apply to the Sioux District. Reserved resource rights and privileges associated with 

these treaties and other Indian agreements include activities such as hunting and gathering access to 

forest resources. 

Under the USDA Forest Service Policy for NHPA compliance in Travel Management (2005), Forests 

are to consider roads, trails or areas that may be associated with TCPs that are important to tribes, or 

to other ethnic and social groups. Forests are to cooperate with tribes or other ethnic and social 

groups that ascribe traditional use to a property or area and this cooperation and consideration is to 

extend throughout the NHPA compliance process for this undertaking. 

The study area is located within territories used and still used by a number of tribes, including the 

Crow, the Assiniboine, the Hidatsa, Mandan, Arikara, the Northern Cheyenne, and the Great Sioux 

Nation. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and the 

Rosebud Sioux Tribe have issued tribal resolutions identifying sacred lands under Executive Order 

13007 for the Slim Buttes, North Cave Hills, and South Cave Hills. 

Coordination with pertinent Tribes has been ongoing through public meetings, agency meetings, letter 

correspondences and meetings which outlined the proposed project specifics and requested any 

concerns that they may have regarding cultural resources or traditional cultural properties. This 

coordination effort is intended to insure that any tribal concerns or comments are addressed 

throughout the NEPA process in regards to ARPA, AIRFA, NAGPRA , NHPA and/or Bulletin 38 

issues. 

3.3.2.1 Affected Environment – Archaeological Resources and Tradition Cultural Properties 

The CNF is developing a management plan for motorized public access on the Sioux District 

(District) in Carter County, Montana and Harding County, South Dakota. The District consists of 

approximately 163,107 federally administered acres composed of eight isolated “island” land units—

the Chalk Buttes, Ekalaka Hills and Long Pine Hills in Montana and the East and West Short Pine 

Hills, the North and South Cave Hills, the Slim Buttes and a small portion of the Long Pine Hills in 

South Dakota. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-22 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

The District is located on the eastern periphery of the Ponderosa Pine Parkland which is part of the 

Northwestern Plains Region. The Montana units are part of the Little Missouri River and the Powder 

River watersheds while the South Dakota units are part of the Grand River and the Moreau River 

watersheds. The District has been described in general as “...land parcels that rise above the 

surrounding prairies like islands in the ocean.” (USDA Forest Service 1976: 1). The units themselves 

are characterized as a “...severe landscape of deep, narrow canyons, massive shale, limestone, and 

sandstone cliffs, and isolated flat-topped mesas capped with ponderosa pine forests” (Beckes and 

Keyser 1983: 211). Grassland parks, woody draws and numerous springs are scattered throughout 

the units. 

Human occupation within and around the District spans over 10,000 years and the eight District units 

may be considered “oases” in their attractive character that offered food, habitat, shelter and water to 

humans and animals alike. Three cultural periods—including Paleo-Indian, Plains Archaic and Late 

Prehistoric—are represented within the prehistoric time period. 

The earliest time period, the Paleo-Indian, is characterized by a human population heavily dependent 

on hunting of now extinct fauna such as giant bison and mammoth. Large lanceolate projectile points 

are common diagnostic indicators of this period. Evidence of Paleo-Indian occupation on the District 

is limited. 

The Archaic Period, saw a warming trend referred to as the Altithermal Climatic Episode which was 

related to modern flora and fauna and saw a shift to a more diversified economy. Big game hunting 

was supplemented with the processing of plant resources. A variety of large projectile points, 

including both lanceolate and notched, are diagnostic indicators of this period. The Archaic Period is 

well represented on the District by surface collected and excavated site recovered artifacts. 

The Late Prehistoric Period is marked by the appearance of the bow and arrow on the Northwestern 

Plains. An increased specialization toward upland living and the utilization of open prairie resources, 

most importantly bison, characterizes this period. A variety of smaller projectile points, along with 

the presence of pottery, are diagnostic indicators of this period. The Late Prehsitoric Period is well 

represented on the District, both as surface collected and excavated site recovered artifacts. 

The Historic Period is usually associated with Euro-American activities such as exploration, military 

excursions, mining, ranching, trapping and homesteading but occupation by Native American tribes 

predates the Euro-Americans influx into the area. Arapaho, Arikara, Crow, Cheyenne, Hidatsa, 

Kiowa, Kiowa-Apache, Mandan, Eastern Shoshone and Sioux lived or traveled through the area long 

before contact with Euro-Americans and considered the area encompassing the District as their 

territory. 

Not only did the area offer a variety of sustenance resources—such as food, water and shelter—to 

Native Americans but specific units on the District held special traditional significance for certain 

tribes. All five units in South Dakota are considered connected as “...traditional landmarks for 

hunting and gathering, a focal point for eagle trapping ceremonies that are central to the traditional 

practices of the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara: a part of a seasonal traditional round as one of the 

buffalo home buttes; connected to the Wind Cave in the sacred Black Hills, and a wintering ground 

and safe haven for the Sioux.” (USDA Forest Service 2004: 3.3-8). The rock art of the North Cave 

Hills Unit is attributed to spiritual power, oracles to predict the future, depictions of traditional 

ceremonies or vision quest activities (USDA Forest Service 2004: 3.3-9). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-23

The Slim Buttes have been culturally important to the Sioux, Hidatsa and other tribes as sources for 

plant and mineral pigments and are considered especially sacred due to the proximity of the 1876 Slim 

Buttes Battle site. Sioux tribal members still visit the area, to honor those who lost their lives, and 

believe many of their people may have been buried in the nearby Slim Buttes following the battle. 

A possible burial and eagle-trapping pit, cairns, stone circles and rock art in the East and West Short 

Pine Hills Units and the South Cave Hills Unit are considered TCP. 

The Chalk Buttes/Blue Earth Hills, are called “where the white stone stands” (Tallbull et al. 1996) and 

have long been considered “...a gathering place for spirits and a place for prayer, fasting and vision 

quests.” to the Northern Cheyenne and Sioux (Deaver 1996: 1, 42). These opportunities for eagle 

trapping, fasting, blue clay and red paint procurement and the solitude for a variety of ceremonial 

events were only a few unique qualities the area offered and are only a few of the reasons they are 

considered TCP. 

Concurrent with early 1900s homesteading era within and around the District the Cave Hills, Ekalaka, 

Long Pines, Short Pines and Slim Buttes Forest Reserves were created in between 1904-06. In 1908 

these forest reserves were consolidated and became the Sioux National Forest of Region 2. Shortly 

afterward this forest was reassigned to Region 1. In 1920 the Sioux National Forest became the Sioux 

District of the Custer National Forest. The Forest Service brought a whole new realm of government 

sponsored activities including logging, livestock grazing, building/road development, fire suppression 

and recreation. 

The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) played a significant role on the District during the 1930s, 

especially in the construction or improvement of the road infrastructure. Capitol Rock, Foster, Old 

Exie, Plum Creek, Riley Pass, Rimrock-Carter, Snow Creek, Speelmon Creek, Stagville Draw and 

Wickham Gulch are only a few of the roads constructed or reconstructed by the CCC on the District. 

In addition to the establishment of two CCC camps—one in the Ekalaka Hills Unit and one in the 

Long Pine Hills Unit—the CCC constructed Ekalaka Park Campground in the Ekalaka Hills Unit, 

Wickham Gulch Campground in the Long Pine Hills Unit, Picnic Spring Campground in the North 

Cave Hills and Deer Draw Campground in the Slim Buttes. Tri Point Lookout Tower, the only steelframe fire lookout on the District, was assembled and erected by the CCC on a ridge in the Long Pine 

Hills Unit. The CCC were responsible for reconstructing the Camp Crook Ranger Station and were 

involved with fenceline, range improvement (dams, springbox headworks/cedar tanks and reservoirs) 

and telephone line construction. 

Previous Investigations 

One of the first archaeological investigations conducted on the District occurred in 1908, the same 

year as the creation of the Sioux National Forest. Ethnographer George F. Will, from the Harvard 

University Peabody Museum, visited and described cairns and conical timber lodges in the Slim 

Buttes Unit and described in detail the character of Ludlow Cave in the North Cave Hills Unit (Will 

1909: 257-265). In 1920 William H. Over, director of the South Dakota State Museum, conducted 

excavations in Ludlow Cave and, although his methods were primitive, the artifact collection 

represents one of the most unique assemblages of personal Native American offerings left at a sacred 

place that has since been determined a TCP. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-24 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

Ludlow Cave has been well known by the local, and distant, public and has been a visitor destination 

point for over one hundred years. Vandalism to the cave interior—consisting of date, figure, initial 

and name inscriptions—is a common problem that has been ongoing since the late 1800s and 

continues up through the present. On occasion, screens have been observed in the cave—evidence of 

illegal digging into the cave floor. 

A long-term investigation of a cairn complex site located near a main road in the Long Pine Hills was 

conducted by an amateur archaeologist and members of the Carter County Geological Society from 

1934-1940. This research documented nearly eighty cairns, long considered to be Indian graves. 

Their final conclusions stated that the cairns were definitely man-made and of considerable age but 

were not human graves, caches, fireplaces or tipi circles. The possibility of a ceremonial significance 

was offered but not proven (Nielsen 1941: 87). Unfortunately, even during this early history of the 

District these researchers observed vandalism that had occurred to this site and remarked that “...we 

were some fifty odd years too late to get authentic information for quite a number of the mounds or 

graves showed evidence of having been tampered with.” (CCGS 1940: 2). Monitoring at this site 

within the past ten years has observed continued vandalism of the cairns in the form of dismantling. 

Formal cultural resource investigation on the District began in 1977 and has continue to the present in 

support of Facility/Road, Fuels, Heritage, Land, Mineral, Range and Range Recission, Special Use 

Permit, Timber and Vegetation Projects. 

Rock art investigations on the District began in the late 1970s with an intensive reconnaissance of the 

North Cave Hills Unit. Forty-two petroglyph sites were recorded (Keyser and Sundstrom 1984: 3) 

which set the stage for additional investigations involving CNF archaeologists, rock art experts and 

Passport-In-Time (PIT) volunteers during the past thirty years. Over seventy rock art sites, containing 

several hundred figures, have been recorded in the North Cave Hills Unit. Many of these rock art 

panels have been interpreted as to their possible age, ethnicity and meaning. A draft district 

nomination—identifying 212 archaeological sites—is currently in preparation for the North Cave 

Hills Archaeological and Traditional Use District. At least 75 sites listed on the NRHP or considered 

contributing resources within this nomination are rock art sites. Investigations have extended beyond 

the North Cave Hills Unit to reveal the presence of Native American rock art in the Ekalaka Hills Unit 

and in the Long Pine Hills Unit. 

A comprehensive prehistoric overview of the District was completed in 1983 (Beckes and Keyser 

1983) followed by a broader prehistoric cultural resource overview of southeastern Montana 

completed in 1988 (Deaver and Deaver 1988) that included the three units in Carter County. 

Documentation of CCC structures on the District began in the early 1980s but their historic 

significance was not acknowledged until almost fifteen years later. Camp Needmore, presently a 

public recreational facility in the Ekalaka Hills Unit, was constructed by the CCC and served as one of 

two main camps on the District during the 1930s. Within the past ten years the other CCC camp, a 

fire lookout tower, several roads, reservoirs, campgrounds and stocktanks have been located and 

recorded. In addition to these structure types, several CCC inscriptions have been located on the 

District. Most of these inscriptions were carved into sandstone cliffs, but one consists of pencil or 

dark marker written on the surface inside a galvanized steel culvert along one of the main roads in the 

Long Pine Hills Unit. The contribution made to the District by the workforce members of the CCC is 

evident in the number of structures still present and functioning. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-25

Lightning Spring—a stratified, multi-component site located in the North Cave Hills Unit and dating 

to the McKean Phase of the Archaic Period—was tested in 1980 and again in 1991. This site has 

provided one of the most complete prehistoric records of the Middle Archaic through Late Prehistoric 

Period on the District. 

In 1984 a Tongue River Silicified Sediment (TRSS) quarry, known as the East Short Pines Quarry, 

was investigated. Results of this study provided insight into this Late Prehistoric Period TRSS 

procurement site and its role in a broader utilization overview on the Northwestern Plains. 

In 1995 an ethnographic overview of the District was completed. This overview identified culturally 

sensitive sites defined as “Cultural resources associated with traditional Indian ceremonies, cultural 

practices and important events in tribal history...” and include “...burials, rock art, stone circles of 

greater than 7m in diameter, monumental rock features, fasting structures, eagle catching pits, sweat 

lodges, wooden structures, Sun Dance lodges and grounds, offering and prayer locales and historic 

battle sites.” Ninety-seven culturally sensitive sites were identified on the District by this 1995 

overview (Deaver and Kooistra-Manning 1995: 4.80-4.88). Additional culturally sensitive sites have 

been recorded on the district since this overview was completed. 

A cultural assessment of the Chalk Buttes Unit and surrounding area was conducted in 1996 involving 

traditional Elders from the Assiniboine, Northern Cheyenne and Sioux Tribes in order to 

“...document the cultural and continuing significance of the Chalk Buttes area for the tribes and for 

the Custer National Forest that has stewardship responsibilities for the area.” (Deaver 1996: 1). This 

week-long encampment allowed the Elders to visit, reconnect with and share stories about the area 

through traditional activities such as fasting, blue clay and plant collecting, offerings, sweats and 

blessing ceremonies. The isolated character of the Chalk Buttes, with few access roads, has been a 

factor in retaining its original integrity and promotes a ceremonial and spiritual tie with the Elders. As 

a Traditional Cultural Property, the Chalk Buttes should be “...preserved, taken care of and 

respected...” and public access should be limited (Deaver 1996: 43). 

At least two large-scale wildfires have occurred in the Long Pine Hills Unit within in the past twenty 

years. The 1988 Brewer Fire consumed over 51,000 acres and at least 44 new historic or prehistoric 

sites were recorded during inventory of over 5300 acres. The 2002 Kraft Spring Fire consumed over 

40,000 acres and at least 74 new historic or prehistoric sites were recorded during inventory of over 

4200 acres. Both of these wildfires resulted in improved ground surface visibility and exposure of 

many cultural sites. 

During the late 1990s Dr. Linea Sundstrom began compiling an "ethnogeographic gazetteer" that lists 

places across the landscape that were recognized as sacred or otherwise of special significance. This 

gazetteer, which includes the entire District, provides basic information about places that may need 

special consideration during land use decisions. 

As mentioned above, several PIT projects have been conducted on the District for over ten years. 

While most of these volunteer investigations have focused on rock art inventories and monitoring, 

several other archaeological site types have been recorded and tested. In addition, interviews with 

local ranchers have provided insight into the history of the area. A site stewardship program was 

initiated several years ago that brought in the assistance of local interested individuals to monitor 

conditions of rock art site in the North Cave Hills Unit and to document changes, due to natural or 

human causes, as well as to document the locations of new sites. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-26 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

In 2004 the Sioux Ranger District Oil & Gas Leasing EIS was released. This document, representing 

a multi-year endeavor of research gathering in Harding County, focused on the identification of 

“...federal lands with federal mineral rights and determining whether or not they should be made 

available for oil and gas exploration, development, and production...” (USDA Forest Service 2004: 

1-1). Through research and consultation meetings, the project area was found to contain historic 

properties, traditional cultural properties, a proposed National Historic District for the North Cave 

Hills Archeological and Traditional Use Area, culturally sensitive sites and three sacred sites/cultural 

landscapes—the North Cave Hills, South Cave Hills and Slim Buttes Units. 

Methodology 

At present, there are over 1000 recorded prehistoric or historic sites on the District represented by 

bison kills, cairns, recreational campgrounds, prehistoric campsites (containing bone, ceramic, firecracked rock and/or stone artifacts), drive lines, fasting beds, fire lookouts, historic and prehistoric 

petroglyphs, homesteads, lithic artifact scatters, a medicine wheel, quarries, ranger stations, range 

improvements (livestock tanks, reservoirs), roads, rock shelters, stone circles, and many sites 

associated with the CCC. 

Following the direction provided in the 2005 USDA Forest Service Policy for NHPA Compliance in 

Travle Management Designated Routes for Motor Vehicle Use, the effects analysis focused on the 

three specific categories: 1) the construction of a new road or trail; 2) the authorization of motor 

vehicle use on a route currently closed to motorized vehicles; and 3) the formal recognition of a userdeveloped (unauthorized or non-system) route as a designated route open to motor vehicles. Under 

this direction existing or formally established system roads and trails that are already open to motor 

vehicles will not be evaluated since their current designation is not considered an undertaking. Upon 

comparison of the categories with the proposed changes in the Sioux Travel Management plan, 

category three was found to apply and will be addressed as the undertaking. The terms of the MTPA 

and the SDPA will be followed when designating motor vehicle use on user-developed 

(unauthorized) routes. 

To determine the number of historic properties within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) as defined 

by each alternative, existing system and non-system roads and trails proposed to be converted to 

system roads and trails were intersected with the GIS site database of recorded and known cultural 

resource sites located within a 600 foot wide corridor (300 feet on either side of the route centerline). 

This 600 foot wide corridor is in accordance with the 2001 decision to allow motorized wheeled crosscountry travel to access dispersed vehicle camping sites (USDA Forest Service 2001) and it defines 

the Area of Potential Effect when analyzing both direct and indirect effects under each alternatives. 

In addition, a historic map of the District dating to 1957 was compared with the APE maps in an effort 

to define roads and trails that may be historic and deserving of further analysis as potential historic 

properties. A sample of these potentially historic roads were ground truthed and no structural features 

(bridges, culverts, stonework) or association was found. Any future proposals to change these routes 

would be evaluated in terms of their potential historic significance. Historic reference material, on file 

at the CNF, was also used to identify roads that had been constructed or reconstructed by the CCC 

during the 1930s. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-27

In 1999, the Custer National Forest identified sites that met the national criteria for “priority heritage 

assets. Priority asset sites are those sites that have had a significant value investment; and/or are 

eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); and/or are considered “at 

risk” due to substantial effects to site integrity. Presently on the District, there are 133 sites on this list 

that are monitored on a five-year cycle. Fifty-five sites within the APEs for the alternatives A and B 

were identified as priority asset sites (Table 3.6). 

Table 3-6. Priority Asset Sites Within the APE for 

Alternative A and Alternative B

Site ID Site Type 

24CT0010 stone features 

24CT0275 lithic scatter 

24CT0309 stone feature 

24CT0411 Tri Point Lookout 

24CT0429 cemetary 

24CT0556 cairn, lithic scatter 

24CT0559 Camp Needmore CCC Camp 

24CT0562 historic homestead 

24CT0631 CCC road (Dugan Draw) 

24CT0634 CCC road (Rimrock-Carter) 

24CT0713 CCC road (Capitol Rock) 

24CT0714 CCC road (Plum Creek) 

24CT0715 CCC road (Snow Creek) 

24CT0716 CCC road (Speelmon Creek) 

24CT0792 Wickham CCC Campground, road, petroglyphs 

24CT1320 Ekalaka Campground 

24CT1342 CCC road (J P Smith) 

24CT1344 CCC road (Stagville-Ekalaka Park) 

24CT1346 CCC road 

24CT1348 lithic scatter, pottery 

39HN0027 stone circle 

39HN0030 Riley Pass 

39HN0055 lithics, bone FCR 

39HN0056 stone circle 

39HN0153 stone circle 

39HN0157 lithic scatter 

39HN0158 stone circle 

39HN0163 lithic scatter 

39HN0167 petroglyph 

39HN0182 stone circle 

39HN0192 lithic scatter, stone circle 

39HN0221 lithic scatter 

39HN0225 stone circle 

39HN0314 lithic scatter 

39HN0315 lithic scatter 

39HN0320 quarry 

39HN0436 ranger station 

39HN0447 Red Cross homestead 

39HN0448 historic grave 

39HN0461 lithic scatter 

39HN0516 petroglyph, rock shelter 

39HN0569 Summit Spring 

39HN0595 lithic scatter 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-28 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

Table 3-6. Priority Asset Sites Within the APE for 

Alternative A and Alternative B

Site ID Site Type 

39HN0598 lithic scatter 

39HN0776 petroglyph 

39HN0778 Petroglyph 

39HN0790 Petroglyph 

39HN0792 Petroglyph 

39HN0793 Petroglyph 

39HN0794 Petroglyph 

39HN0842 Petroglyph 

39HN0882 CCC Camp 

39HN2168 CCC road (Plum Creek) 

There are at least 24 CCC constructed or reconstructed roads within the APE for all alternatives. Ten 

roads have been formally recorded and are recommended for nomination to the NRHP These CCC 

roads are summarized in the following table. 

Table 3-7. CCC Constructed Roads Located Within The APE

Land Unit Road ID Name (site number)

3116 Capitol Rock Road (24CT713)

3117 Snow Creek Road (24CT715)

3118 Plum Creek Road (24CT714/39HN2168)

31181/3118A Long Pines CCC Camp Road (39HN882) 

Long Pine Hills

3818 Speelmon Creek Road (24CT716) 

3104 Rimrock - Carter Road (24CT631) 

3108 Oliver Springs Road (24CT1346) 

3811 Dugan Draw Road (24CT634) 

3813 Stagville – Ekalaka Park Road (24CT1344) 

Ekalaka Hills

3814 J T Smith Road (24CT1342) 

At least 72 recorded cultural resource sites within the APEs could be identified as cultural resources of 

traditional religious and cultural importance, referred to here as culturally sensitive sites. Few of these 

sites have been formally evaluated for site eligibility for nomination to the NRHP. Culturally 

sensitive sites and TCPs often consist of, or include, archaeological sites. Specific classes of sites 

identified as culturally sensitive require the protection of site setting as well as the visible remains. 

These sites include vision quest markers, cairns, eagle trapping pits, rock imagery, and certain types of 

stone circles. While specific sites within the APE have not been identified by the tribes as culturally 

sensitive or TCPs for this analysis all recorded culturally sensitive sites are treated as if they are 

potentially TCPs. 

Along with the recorded culturally sensitive sites described above are four traditional cultural 

property/ethnographic “landscapes” described earlier which include the Chalk Buttes, the North Cave 

Hills, the South Cave Hills, and the Slim Buttes. The characteristics of the ethnographic landscape 

that contribute to the use of a traditional cultural property (TCP) may include visual setting, qualities 

of spiritual reflection, renewal and sanctuary; natural setting; and unique ecosystem. The physical 

environment provides a basis upon which the integral relationships to the TCPs depend. Maintenance 

of the setting and its relationship with the surrounding lands become vital to the preservation of these 

sites and to the cultural landscape. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-29

With the final selection of one of the alternatives any potential adverse effects to sites may require 

review in order to determine what actions are needed that will reduce, remove or mitigate the effects. 

Where appropriate, cooperation with interested tribes will occur during these site reviews. Under the 

protocol of the Montana and South Dakota Programmatic Agreements, all of these sites will be 

monitored for change in site condition and the results of these monitors will be reported to the 

Montana and South Dakota SHPO as part of the annual report. 

3.3.2.2 Environmental Consequences – Archaeological Resources and Tradition Cultural 

Properties 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Prehistoric and historic cultural resources are a nonrenewable resource. Significant cultural resources 

have many values including their potential to provide scientific information on human cultural history, 

interpretive and educational value, values associated with important people and events of significance 

in our history, and often an aesthetic value such as a prehistoric petroglyph or a historic landscape. 

Information present at a site, in the form of artifacts, features or simply its intact, undisturbed 

character can be used to increase our knowledge and understanding of past life ways, but only if this 

information is retrieved under controlled methods. For Native American groups and other traditional 

culture groups archaeological and historic sites often have importance for religious and ceremonial 

purposes or simply as locations for traditional uses significant in a particular group’s ongoing cultural 

identity. 

An effect, according to 36 CFR 800.9(a) of the NRHP, may include an alteration to the historic 

property’s characteristics of location, setting or use. Adverse effects are defined as those that may 

diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling or 

association and include but are not limited to 1) physical destruction, damage or alteration of all or 

part of the property; 2) alteration of the character of the setting when that character contributes to the 

property’s qualification for the National Register and 3) introduction of visual, audible or atmospheric 

elements that are out of character with the property or that alters its setting. The number of historic 

properties that may potentially be adversely affected by each alternative is the measure used to 

compare the alternatives. 

Recreational motorized use, especially that of four-wheel drive and other off-highway-vehicles (OHV) 

has seen an ever-increasing trend since the 1960s. Numerous studies beginning during the early 

1970s have documented the detrimental impacts of OHV use on archaeological sites by means of 

direct or indirect effects (Lyneis et al. 1980: 14; USDA Forest Service 2001: 55; USDA Forest 

Service 2002: 33). According to the studies, more roads result in more access to areas and increased 

effects to cultural resources. In comparing the motorized travel system on the District from 1957 

there are only a few recognized road additions during a span of nearly thirty years. Since the 1980s 

the number of roads has at least tripled on some of the units. 

 

A direct effect occurs when the action of the undertaking itself affects the cultural resource. Direct 

effects may be described as the breaking, crushing and scattering of cultural material when motorized 

vehicles are driven across or through sites. Soil compaction from wheel pressure and soil erosion 

processes may occur following removal of protective ground cover (i.e. vegetation and ground litter). 

Not only is there soil compaction and erosion as the ground surface becomes exposed, but the ground 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-30 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

surface may become deflated. These types of site damage are especially apparent where concentrated 

and/or repeated vehicle travel occurs that causes rutting. Sites that consist of surface artifacts or 

features, or that contain intact subsurface cultural materials, are especially prone to damage and losses 

of valuable information due to motorized vehicle travel (ASPPN I-18 1992). 

Actions associated with travel management which could have the potential to adversely affect 

prehistoric and historic cultural properties include increases in the type, intensity and duration of trail, 

road or land use. Of particular concern is the increase through the years of non-system roads and 

trails. The majority of these travel ways has been, and continues to be, created without engineering 

design and without input from a variety of other resource specialists, including archaeologists. 

Attempts to use these roads during inclement weather or when the roads are impassible may result in 

either deep/severe rutting or in the creation of parallel tracks along the initially established road. This 

action exposes buried cultural material and often churns up the matrix so that artifacts loose their 

context. Often, sites associated with these non-system travel ways are discovered by chance, exposing 

them to archaeologists and public visitor alike. Site damage has already occurred or is ongoing. 

Visually, as these non-system routes increase in number they become unsightly and may become 

permanent scars on the landscape. 

Actions that have the potential to benefit cultural properties include decreases (but not necessarily 

closure or obliteration) in the type, intensity or duration of trail and road use where cultural properties 

are present or where the character of the historic route can be maintained or restored through a travel 

management decision. Motorized use on, and its effects to, roads must also consider the age of roads 

and whether or not they represent cultural resources. For example, in the 1930’s the CCC workforce 

built and/or improved at least 24 roads on the District. Ten of these roads are considered historic 

properties because most of the original alignments and stone work is still intact and in use. In many 

cases continued use and maintenance of these and other historic roads have a favorable effect to the 

property, preserving the qualities that make the road eligible for the NRHP. Discontinued use of the 

road could result in less maintenance and could threaten the preservation of the road. Any proposed 

changes by the Forest Service to the historic CCC roads would require evaluation and consultation 

with the MT and SD SHPO. 

In accordance with the MTPA and SDPA, all non-system routes proposed to be designated as system 

roads or trails will require inventory This additional inventory will add to the historical record on the 

District and provide new information on the recent past. 

An indirect effect is not caused by the action itself but is the secondary result of the undertaking. 

Increased site access may result in a greater chance for looting. Soil compaction, soil erosion and 

artifact displacement could result from foot, horse and motor vehicle traffic associated with dispersed 

camping. 

An example of an indirect effect to sites involves the improved or increased access that a road may 

offer to a motorized vehicle user. In the past, where vehicle access to sites may have been nonexistent or limited, so too was the degree of site damage, artifact theft and vandalism. Studies have 

shown that increased access to public lands display a concurrent increase in the amount of vandalism 

of cultural resources (ASPPN I-13, 1989). The ability to access distant areas, relatively quickly and 

with relative ease, via motorized vehicles can result in subsequent looting or vandalism. Highly 

visible structures are more prone to visits due to their attractive nature as destination points. Large 

numbers of people, along with inappropriate behavior, can alter or damage the very attributes that 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-31

make the structure important or attractive as a destination. These behaviors include trampling 

(leading to erosion or feature damage), theft, wall or feature damage and other types of vandalism. 

Sites that contain features, such as cairns, stone circles or historic buildings, may become damaged 

through acts of theft or vandalism. Motorized vehicles can easily transport equipment (i.e. shovels, 

screens, hammers, crowbars, high-powered rifles) used to damage or vandalize sites, especially rock 

art. These same vehicles can be used in theft to remove large items of value, whether this is 

weathered logs or lumber from a historic building or old mining equipment. These types of damage 

lessen the sites’ integrity and are irreversible. 

Vandalism at two sites—Ludlow Cave in the North Cave Hills Unit and at a cairn complex site in the 

Long Pine Hills Unit—has been mentioned above but there are other indirect effect examples of site 

vandalism near roads on the District. At a rock shelter near Ludlow Cave an inscribed shield figure 

was hacked out of the sandstone wall with an axe during the 1980s, destroying at least three adjacent 

shield figures in the process. In 2000 an individual with a Colorado mule team organization inscribed 

a logo next to a Native American rock art panel and nearby artifact collectors have dug and screened 

at two lithic and bone artifact scatters. A site discovered in 2002 near a road in the Long Pine Hills 

Unit contained a large, low-profile cairn that had been recently vandalized. Several sandstone nodules 

had been removed and a large hole had been dug in the center of the cairn. 

Dispersed vehicle camping may result in indirect effects to cultural resources possibly due to 

inadvertent activity by recreationists. Campers may not recognize cultural features such as lowprofile cairns, alignment features or stone circles and may displace feature stones without knowing the 

difference. This may be the case in the South Cave Hills Unit where a stone circle located near a road 

was recently dismantled to construct a nearby campfire ring. A low-profile cairn near a road in the 

Slim Buttes Unit may be threatened with the same type of vandalism due to the fact that it is located 

in an area commonly used for dispersed vehicle camping activity. However, recent monitoring of this 

location has not detected any disturbance. 

Beneficial indirect effects may include reduction in type and amount of traffic into the more remote 

areas through a decision to not designate certain routes for motorized use. Should cultural properties, 

and especially culturally sensitive sites, be located along a road or be crossed by a road, reducing the 

type and amount of traffic to the site may limit additional site disturbance and help preserve the site. 

Designating new roads and/or trails would require more archaeological inventory and environmental 

assessments which may result in the identification of more TCPs and/or more information on the 

distribution of culturally significant plant, animal, mineral and fossil resources. This information 

could be useful to traditional Indian Communities. It is possible that non-system routes converted to 

system roads and trails can increase or ease access to traditionally significant ceremonial or gathering 

places. However, increasing or easing of access to traditionally significant ceremonial or gathering 

areas would make them available for all. There is the potential to decrease the seclusion and quiet 

necessary for many traditional cultural practices. 

Alternative A 

Direct Effects 

Under this alternative, at least 346 recorded cultural resource sites are located within the APE 

corridor, of which 150 cultural resources are located along and within the routes covered by the 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-32 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

specific travel management proposals for Alternative 3. As described above, some of these proposals 

have the potential to cause detrimental effects, such as designating routes that may increase the type, 

intensity and duration of trail, road or land use where significant cultural resources may occur. This 

may be the case for the designation of non-system routes proposed to be system roads or motorized 

trails. Other proposals may beneficially affect some cultural resources by decreasing the type, 

intensity or duration of trail and road use. This may be the case for proposals to add non-sytem routes 

for administrative use only. For this alternative, removal of dispersed camping oppurtunities along 

some routes in the North Cave Hills is considered a beneficial effect. 

Most of these sites consist of lithic artifact scatters with intact subsurface cultural material and the 

direct effects consist of vehicle-caused rutting or down-cutting of the routes that pass through the 

sites, exposure of cultural deposits, and loss of valuable archaeological information. Table 3-8 further 

describes the cultural resources that may be affected, and which action may affect these resources. 

Appendix C further describes the number and locations of routes considered under this alternative. 

Table 3-8. Alternative B Effects on Cultural Resources by Type of Action. 

Type of Proposed Action For 

Alternative A 

Cultural 

Resources 

within APE 

Priority 

Asset Sites 

Culturally 

Sensitive Sites 

Number of cultural resources within the 600 foot 

corridor of all designated motorized routes 346 38 97 

Actions with Potential to Increase Effects 

Number of sites located within the 600 foot 

corridor for Non System routes Proposed to be 

System Roads or Motorized Trails 

81 19 20 

Actions with Potential to Decrease Effects 

Number of cultural resources located within the 

600 foot corridor for Non-System Routes 

Proposed for Administrative Use 

0 0 0 

Number of cultural resources located within the 

600 foot corridor for System Roads proposed for 

Administrative Use 

31 8 10 

Number of cultural resources located within the 

600 foot corridor for System Roads Not proposed 

to be Designated for Public Motorized Use 

0 0 0 

Number of cultural resources located within the 

600 foot corridor for Dispersed Vehicle Camping 

Proposed Changes 

38 5 9 

Nineteen priority asset sites are located within the APE corridor that could be physically damaged by 

the addition of non-system routes Twenty sites are considered culturally sensitive sites and, while 

the direct effects include the same for lithic scatters, the possibility of dislodging stones from cairns, 

stone circles, and stone features would damage their physical character as well as their traditional 

qualities. Permitting dispersed vehicle camping within 300 feet of designated roads and trails may 

affect some of these sites identified if this activity occurs frequently at the same locations. However, 

monitoring during the past seven years has not revealed any adverse effects to cultural resources as a 

result of dispersed vehicle camping. The removal of dispersed camping along several of the routes in 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-33

the North Cave Hills may reduce the effects to 38 sites, five of which are priority assets and nine of 

which are culturally sensitive sites. 

Under this alternative, six cultural resource complexes may be threatened by the proposed addition of 

motorized roads and trails. The Molstad Complex consists of several culturally sensitive sites, a 

historic homestead and a cemetery that could be affected by adding and designating routes for public 

motorized use. In the Long Pine Hills Unit a unique concentration of cairns, at least one fasting bed, 

and several stone circles could be affected by adding and designating routes for public motorized use. 

The Burditt Spring and North Slick Creek areas contain lithic artifact scatter sites that are near, or are 

bisected by, roads. A large cairn adjacent to Road 3049 and northwest of the Wickham Campground 

was vandalized six years ago and a nearby spur road courses directly through a stone circle site. 

Proposed motorized vehicle access into an area near the Plum Creek Road could threaten to disturb a 

unique complex of 21 stone circle sites, consisting of over 70 features. In the North Cave Hills Unit 

proposed motorized use of FS 38500 could promote increased public access and threaten a variety of 

sites, several of which have already suffered irreparable vandalism. 

Four CCC roads would be added to the motorized trail system. No change in maintenance and 

standard for these CCC roads is anticipated based upon maintenance guidance for roads and trail 

found in FSH 7709.59 and FSH 2309.18. Nine historic roads would also be converted to the 

motorized trail system and 3 historic roads would be added to the road system. These historic roads 

would be formally recorded and evaluated, adding to our knowledge of the historic road system on the 

District. 

The conversion of several system routes to administrative use may reduce effects to thirty-one sites. 

Indirect Effects 

By adding numerous non-system routes to the system, access to the more remote areas of the district 

would increase. As studies have shown, increased access often leads to increased vandalism and theft 

to cultural resources. The 81 sites located along the non system routes proposed for conversion to 

system roads or motorized trails could be exposed to vandalism and illegal artifact collection. 

Designating dispersed vehicle camping within 300 feet of these routes could also affect these sites. 

Effects include discovery of sites and illegal collection of artifacts or possibly the dismantling of 

sensitive site features—such as cairns or stone circles—as intentional acts of vandalism or for the 

construction of campfire rings. 

Overall, Alternative A increases access to a number of remote areas within the Chalk Buttes, North 

Cave Hills, and Slim Buttes cultural landscapes. Increased access or ease in access to formerly remote 

traditionally significant ceremonial or gathering areas will then be available to all, potentially 

decreasing the privacy, seclusion and quiet necessary for many traditional cultural practices. 

Designation of non-system routes to system roads and/or trails may increase accessibility to remote 

areas which have been used for prayer and fasting activities where seclusion is required. Increased 

access often increases the opportunity for site vandalism and illicit artifact collection. Due to the 

relative remoteness of the units, development of roads near the units opens up large areas for this 

illicit activity. Increased access may also affect the twenty culturally sensitive sites by infringing on 

the isolated character surrounding these sites. 

In certain instances, adding routes to the road or trail system would provide interpretation 

opportunities to the public for certain types of cultural resources such as CCC camps and roads, ranger 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-34 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

stations and historic cemeteries. Designating several non-system routes under this alternative 

provides an oppurtunity for interpretation of the many CCC built roads, reservoirs and camps in the 

APE. 

Alternative B 

Direct Effects 

Under this alternative, at least 252 recorded cultural resource sites are located within the APE 

corridor, of which 106 cultural resources are located along and within the routes covered by the 

proposed actions. As with Alternative A, some of the proposals may be considered to have detrimental 

effects on cultural resources such as the designation of non-system routes to system routes or 

motorized trails, while others, such as the designation of non-system routes for administrative use, 

may be considered to have a beneficial effect on cultural resources. Most of these cultural resources 

consist of lithic artifact scatters with intact subsurface cultural material which could be affected by 

vehicle-caused rutting or down-cutting from use of the routes. Six priority asset sites are located 

within the APE corridor and could be physically damaged by the addition of nonsystem routes. No 

sites considered culturally sensitive would be adversely affected by the actions proposed under this 

alternative. Table 3-9 further describes the cultural resources and effects by the proposed actions. 

Table 3-9. Alternative B Effects on Cultural Resources by Type of Action. 

Type of Proposed Action For 

Alternative B 

Cultural 

Resources 

within APE 

Priority 

Asset Sites 

Culturally 

Sensitive Sites 

Number of cultural resources within the 600 foot 

corridor of all designated motorized routes 252 35 68 

Actions with Potential to Increase Effects 

Number of sites located within the 600 foot 

corridor for Non System routes Proposed to be 

System Roads or Motorized Trails 

8 6 0 

Actions with Potential to Decrease Effects 

Number of cultural resources located within the 

600 foot corridor for Non-System Routes 

Proposed for Administrative Use Only 

1 1 0 

Number of cultural resources located within the 

600 foot corridor for System Roads proposed for 

Administrative Use Only 

58 13 24 

Number of cultural resources located within the 

600 foot corridor for System Roads Not proposed 

to be Designated for Public Motorized Use 

0 0 0 

Number of cultural resources located within the 

600 foot corridor for Dispersed Vehicle Camping 

Proposed Changes 

39 7 9 

One historic road is proposed for addition to the motorized trail system and will require inventory and 

evaluation. Three CCC roads, Plum Creek, Snow Creek and Speelmon Creek, will be converted to 

system trails; however no change in maintenance and standard is anticipated based upon maintenance 

guidance for roads and trail found in FSH 7709.59 and FSH 2309.18. Three historic roads would be 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-35

added to the road system. These historic roads would be formally recorded and evaluated, adding to 

our knowledge of the historic road system on the District. 

Effects from dispersed vehicle camping within 300 feet of designated roads and trails could affect a 

number of sites identified within the APE under Alternative B. These effects include vehicle rutting 

on sites or damage to artifacts or features due to being driven over. However, monitoring during the 

past seven years has not revealed any adverse effects to cultural resources as a result of dispersed 

camping. The removal of dispersed camping along several of the routes in the North Cave Hills may 

reduce the effects to 39 sites, seven of which are priority assets and nine of which are culturally 

sensitive sites. 

Under this alternative, effects to the Molstad Complex sites; the Long Pine Hills concentration of 

cairns, fasting beds, and stone circles complexes; North Slick Creek areas lithic artifact scatter sites; 

Plum Creek complex; and sites along FS 38500 in the North Cave Hills may be reduced since the 

system designation has been changed to administrative use only and no addition of non-system 

(unauthorized) motorized routes are to be designated. 

Indirect Effects 

Eight recorded sites would potentially be adversely affected by adding non-system routes to the 

system for public motorized use. The addition of non-system motorized routes to the system opens up 

access to areas previously considered somewhat remote and, as studies have found, could increase the 

occurrence of vandalism and site theft. This can have detrimental effects to culturally sensitive sites 

where site integrity and setting are important values to protect. 

The proposed action under Alternative B would reduce or eliminate effects to 97 recorded cultural 

resource sites. Not only would individual sites be protected and preserved under Alternative B but 

surrounding pristine cultural landscapes would indirectly benefit. In the Chalk Buttes Unit cultural 

landscapes—including the Molstad Complex consisting of several culturally sensitive sites, a historic 

homestead and a cemetery; a concentration of cairns, at least one fasting bed, and several stone 

circles—would be protected. In the Long Pine Hills Unit cultural landscapes—including the North 

Slick Creek lithic artifact scatter; a large vandalized cairn adjacent to Road 3049, a spur road coursing 

through a stone circle site and a unique complex of 21 stone circle sites consisting of over 70 

features—would be protected. In the North Cave Hills Unit a cultural landscape near road 38500—

containing cairns, lithic artifact scatters, petroglyphs, rock shelters and stone circles would be 

protected. 

In certain instances, adding routes to the road and trail system may provide interpretation 

opportunities to the public for certain types of cultural resources such as CCC camps and roads, ranger 

stations and historic cemeteries. Even with fewer CCC related sites within the APE for Alternative B, 

there remains the opportunity to interpret the CCC system roads. 

No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative sets a baseline by considering the existing system road and trail system as 

defined by the CNF Forest Plan, Plan amendments, and all existing Forest Orders. There are currently 

311 cultural resources recorded within the 600 foot corridor along the system roads. The CCC built at 

least 10 system roads on the District that are still in use. Maintenance of these historic properties as 

roads has added years to their preservation and protection. Monitoring of the priority assets within the 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-36 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

corridor has not revealed any significant detrimental effects from road use or dispersed camping 

activities. 

Direct Effects 

Under this alternative, no new historic information would be gained since no non-stystem routes 

would be designated. The CCC built system roads would continue to be maintained and protected 

through their identification as system roads. No new potential CCC routes or historic roads would be 

recorded, however, and added to the system. 

Indirect Effects 

The remote location for three of the NRHP prehistoric locations and limited access under this 

alternative minimizes the potential disturbance of the sites. The culturally sensitive sites would not be 

subjected to increased access since non-system routes would not be added to the system. 

Cumulative Effects 

There are a number of ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities on the District that have the 

potential to effect cultural resources, such as the Riley Pass CERCLA effort, geothermal leasing, fuels 

treatments, and special use permitting. Mitigation of the potential effects associated with these 

activities and site protective measures will continue to be employed in consultation with Montana and 

South Dakota SHPOs. Monitoring site conditions will continue in support of travel management as 

well as these other Forest undertakings. 

Additional inventory in response to this and future undertakings will add to the understanding of the 

area prehistory and history. 

3.3.2.1 Conclusion – Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Properties 

In overall comparisons, Alternative A consists of the highest count of cultural resource sites that may 

be affected due to the designation of non-system routes to system roads or motorized trails, and the 

increase of dispersed vehicle camping activities. Alternative B strikes a balance between adding to 

our knowledge of the area through additional inventory, while protecting and preserving the highest 

number of recorded cultural resource sites, culturally sensitive sites, priority asset sites, historic and 

CCC roads and cultural landscapes. The following table compares the action alternatives. 

Table 3-10. Summary of Cultural Resource Sites, Priority Asset Sites, and Culturally Sensitive 

Sites within the APE by Alternative. 

Type of Resource Alternative A Alternative B No Action 

Alternative 

Total Number of Cultural Resource Sites 

within the APE 346 252 311 

Number of Priority Assets Sites within the 

APE 38 35 76 

Number of Culturally Sensitive Sites 

within the APE 97 68 30 

For all alternatives, compliance with the NHPA through the MT PA and the SD PA is required, and 

includes monitoring of sites for travel management effects. Cultural resource monitoring will be 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-37

implemented within the Project Area in order to assess the effectiveness of this project relative to the 

protection and preservation of significant heritage resources. This cultural resource monitoring 

program will be based upon an adaptive management approach that may necessitate specific changes 

if site disturbances are observed. Should detrimental effects be identified, site evaluative testing and 

formal consultation with the Montana SHPO or the South Dakota SHPO to identify measures to 

reduce, remove or mitigate these effects will be necessary. These monitoring results will be presented 

in the Annual Heritage Reports required by the MT PA and SD PA. 

3.3.3 WILDLIFE 

Overview of Changes from the Draft to the Final EIS 

 Changes made reflect minor mileage changes to Alternative B. 

 Additional narrative was added to clarify analysis results and address comments received on 

the DEIS. 

Introduction 

Public concerns relative to wildlife can be summarized into two primary issues: 1) changes to habitat 

quality, and 2) effects to wildlife behavior. Habitat concerns include fragmentation, loss, 

connectivity, and availability of security habitat. Wildlife behavior effects include disturbance, 

displacement, and responses to noise. Effects for both issues are discussed in general terms in the 

General Wildlife section as well as in specific species sections relative to those species. Winter overthe-snow travel (i.e. snowmachines, cross-country skiing, etc.) is not part of the current District travel 

plan process and thus is not discussed. However, winter wheeled motorized vehicle use was 

considered during analysis. 

The District provides habitat for a variety of wildlife species including federally threatened species, 

ungulates, carnivores, small mammals, resident and migratory birds, amphibians, and reptiles. Travel 

routes can affect the way many animals use an area because they may bring humans and their 

associated disturbances into wildlife habitat. The following table displays threatened, endangered, 

sensitive, and management indicator species on the District, plus other species identified during the 

public scoping process. 

Table 3-11. Wildlife Analysis Table

Species Name Basic Habitat Description and 

Occurrence in Project Area 

Included 

in EIS 

Rationale and Other 

Information 

Effects 

Determination

for 

Alternative B7

Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species 

Black-footed 

Ferret 

(Mustela 

nigripes) 

Live within large complexes (6,000 

to 7,500 acres) of occupied prairie 

dog colonies (>100 acres) and 

complexes. Ferrets depend on prairie 

Analysis 

in EIS. 

Species does not occur in 

project area and an 

adequate preybase of blacktailed prairie dogs is not 

NE 

 

7

 Options for effects determinations are: For federally listed species NE = No effect; NLAA = May effect – not likely to adverse affect; 

LAA = May effect – likely to adversely affect; and BE = Beneficial effect. For Forest Service sensitive species NI = No impact; MIIH

= May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to Federal listing or loss of viability; WIFV = Likely to result in a trend to 

Federal listing or loss of viability; and BI = Beneficial impact. For management indicator species: + = Positive effect; 0 = Neutral effect; 

and - = Negative effect. For other species of concern: NE = No effect. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-38 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

Table 3-11. Wildlife Analysis Table

Species Name Basic Habitat Description and 

Occurrence in Project Area 

Included 

in EIS 

Rationale and Other 

Information 

Effects 

Determination

for 

Alternative B7

(Endangered) dog colonies for food, shelter and 

denning. The Montana side of the 

Sioux Ranger District does not 

support any Prairie dog colonies and 

the South Dakota side has about 1 

acre of black-tailed prairie dog 

colonies. Black-footed ferrets are not 

known to be present. 

located in or near the 

project area. 

Forest Service Sensitive Species 

American 

peregrine falcon 

(Falco 

peregrinus 

anatum) 

Cliff habitat over 200’ high with 

suitable ledges for nest construction. 

Not known to occur in the project 

area. 

No further 

analysis 

will be 

conducted. 

Not in project area NI 

Baird’s sparrow 

(Ammodramus 

bairdii) 

Prefers native prairie but structure is 

more important so may nest in tame 

grasses. Species present in project 

area. 

Analysis 

in EIS. 

Included in Migratory Birds 

discussion 

NI

Bald Eagle 

(Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus) 8

Riparian habitats, forested areas 

along rivers and lakes, wetlands, and 

major water bodies. May use 

uplands and game winter range 

during winter. Nesting sites usually 

in large forested areas near large 

water bodies. The project area used 

primarily as winter foraging habitat. 

No known nest sites. 

No further 

analysis 

will be 

conducted. 

Little nesting habitat and no 

known nests in project area. 

Bald eagle presence on 

District is primarily during 

winter, and winter over-thesnow travel is not part of 

the current District travel 

plan process. 

NI

Black-backed 

woodpecker 

(Picoides 

arcticus) 

Primary habitat is recently burned 

forested areas, secondary habitat is 

spruce/fir forests. Habitat present in 

project area and species is known to 

be present. 

Analysis 

in EIS. 

Included in Migratory Birds 

discussion 

NI

Blue-gray 

gnatcatcher 

(Polioptila) 

Open stands of juniper and limber 

pine with intermixed sagebrush. 

Habitat is not present in the project 

area. 

No further 

analysis 

will be 

conducted 

Not in project area. NI

Burrowing owl 

(Athene 

cunicularia) 

Open grasslands, nesting and 

roosting in burrows dug by mammals 

or owls. Species is associated with 

prairie dogs burrows in the project 

area. Habitat present in project area 

and species is known to be present. 

No further 

analysis 

will be 

conducted. 

No increased access to 

occupied black-tailed 

prairie dog habitat is 

proposed in any alternative. 

The District supports less 

than 1 acre of prairie dogs. 

NI 

Greater sage 

grouse 

(Centrocercus 

urophasianus) 

Sagebrush with intermixed 

grasslands. No leks are located in 

project area. Brood-rearing and 

winter habitat maybe present but the 

species is not known to occur in the 

project area. 

No further 

analysis 

will be 

conducted. 

No increased access to 

habitat is proposed in any 

alternative. 

NI

 

8 Bald eagle delisted effective August 8, 2007 and subsequently managed as a Forest Service Sensitive Species.
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-39

Table 3-11. Wildlife Analysis Table

Species Name Basic Habitat Description and 

Occurrence in Project Area 

Included 

in EIS 

Rationale and Other 

Information 

Effects 

Determination

for 

Alternative B7

Grizzly Bear 

(Ursus arctos)

9

Remote, well connected forested 

generalist. Species is not present in 

the project area. 

No further 

analysis 

will be 

conducted 

Not in project area. NI

Harlequin duck 

(Histrionicus 

histrionicus) 

Inhabit fast moving, low gradient 

clear mountain streams. Species is 

not present in the project area. 

No further 

analysis 

will be 

conducted 

Not in project area. NI

Loggerhead 

Shrike (Lanius 

ludovicianus) 

Grassy pastures that are well grazed, 

nest in shrubs or small trees, 

preferably thorny such as hawthorn. 

Species and habitat are present in 

project area. 

Analysis 

in EIS. 

Included in Migratory Birds 

discussion 

NI

Long-billed 

curlew 

(Numenius 

americanus) 

Open grasslands or prairie usually 

near water. No habitat in project area. 

No further 

analysis 

will be 

conducted. 

Not in project area. NI

Long-eared 

myotis (Myotis 

evotis) 

Use a variety of habitats but are 

strongly associated with coniferous 

forests. Species present in project 

area. 

Analysis 

in EIS. 

Included in Bats discussion. 

Primary concern is 

disturbance at roosting sites 

and hibernacula. 

MIIH 

Long-legged 

myotis (myotis 

volans) 

Primarily a coniferous-juniper forest 

bat found at moderate elevations 

(>6000ft) but may also inhabit 

riparian cottonwood bottoms and 

desert areas. Species present in 

project area. 

Analysis 

in EIS. 

Included in Bats discussion. 

Primary concern is 

disturbance at roosting sites 

and hibernacula. 

MIIH 

Pallid bat 

(Antrozous 

pallidus) 

Arid deserts and grasslands with rock 

outcrops. Species may be present in 

project area. 

Analysis 

in EIS. 

Included in Bats discussion. 

Primary concern is 

disturbance at roosting sites 

and hibernacula. 

MIIH

Spotted bat 

(Euderma 

maculatum) 

Desert to montane coniferous forests. 

Species present in project area. 

Analysis 

in EIS. 

Included in Bats discussion. 

Primary concern is 

disturbance at roosting sites 

and hibernacula. 

MIIH

Townsend’s 

big-eared bat 

(Corynorhinus 

townsendii) 

Cave and cave-like structures along 

with forested foraging habitat. 

Species present in project area. 

Analysis 

in EIS. 

Included in Bats discussion. 

Primary concern is 

disturbance at roosting sites 

and hibernacula. 

MIIH

Black-tailed 

prairie dog 

(Cynomys 

ludovicianus) 

Relatively flat grasslands with 

diggable soils, throughout the central 

plains. Species present in project 

area. 

See blackfooted 

ferret 

analysis, 

no further 

analysis 

for prairie 

dogs will 

No increased access to 

habitat is proposed in any 

alternative. 

NI 

 

9 Grizzly bear delisted effective April 30, 2007 and subsequently managed as a Forest Service Sensitive Species as directed 

in “Final Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Yellowstone Ecosystem, Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, 

March 2003.”
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-40 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

Table 3-11. Wildlife Analysis Table

Species Name Basic Habitat Description and 

Occurrence in Project Area 

Included 

in EIS 

Rationale and Other 

Information 

Effects 

Determination

for 

Alternative B7

be 

conducted. 

White-tailed 

prairie dog 

(Cynomys 

leucurus) 

Xeric sites with mixed stands of 

shrubs and grasses from the Bighorn 

Basin in Montana to Utah. Species is 

not present in project area. 

No further 

analysis 

will be 

conducted. 

Not in project area. NI

Wolverine 

(Gulo gulo) 

Remote subalpine and spruce/fir 

forested areas. Species is not present 

in project area. 

No further 

analysis 

will be 

conducted. 

Not in project area. NI

Greater shorthorned lizard 

(Phrynosoma 

hernandesi) 

Areas with short, sparse grass or 

sagebrush; flats with pebbly or stony 

soil; and rock outcrops. Species may 

be present in project area. 

Analysis 

in EIS. 

Included in General 

Wildlife Species discussion. 

Primary concern is direct 

mortality while crossing 

roads. 

MIIH

Milk Snake 

(Lampropeltis 

triangulum) 

Open sagebrush/grasslands, usually 

in or near rocky areas. Species may 

be present in project area. 

Analysis 

in EIS. 

Included in General 

Wildlife Species discussion. 

Primary concern is direct 

mortality while crossing 

roads.

MIIH

Western hognosed snake 

(Heterodon 

nasicus) 

Sagebrush/grassland; arid areas with 

gravelly or sandy soil. Species 

present in project area. 

Analysis 

in EIS. 

Included in General 

Wildlife Species discussion. 

Primary concern is direct 

mortality while crossing 

roads.

MIIH

Management Indicator Species 10

Northern 

Goshawk 

(Accipiter 

gentilis) (H) 

Mature forest generalist. Species 

present in project area. 

Analysis 

in EIS. 

Included in Migratory Birds 

discussion 

0 

White-tailed 

deer (odocoileus 

virginianus) (H, 

K) 

Grassland to montane conifer forest. 

Species present in project area. 

Analysis 

in EIS 

under elk 

section. 

Analysis for elk serves as 

surrogate for white-tailed 

deer because they occupy 

the same habitats in the 

project area and elk have 

more restrictive habitat 

requirements. Impacts of 

travel are expected to be 

similar for the two species. 

0 

Ruffed grouse 

(Bonasa 

umbellus) (H) 

Primary habitat includes dense early 

seral staged forests dominated by 

aspen, secondary habitat includes 

other dense deciduous or conifer 

woodland areas. Species is not 

present in project area. 

No further 

analysis 

will be 

conducted. 

Not in project area. 0

Western 

kingbird 

(Tyrannus 

verticalis) (H) 

Open or partially open country with 

scattered trees, including agricultural 

lands. Habitat not present in project 

area. 

No further 

analysis 

will be 

conducted. 

Not in project area. 0

 

10 H = Habitat Indicator Species; K = Key Species 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-41

Table 3-11. Wildlife Analysis Table

Species Name Basic Habitat Description and 

Occurrence in Project Area 

Included 

in EIS 

Rationale and Other 

Information 

Effects 

Determination

for 

Alternative B7

Bullock’s 

(Northern) 

oriole (Icterus 

bullockii) (H) 

Open deciduous woodland and 

riparian areas. Habitat present in 

project area. Species presence 

unknown. 

Analysis 

in EIS. 

Included in Migratory Birds 

discussion 

0

Yellow warbler 

(Dendroica 

petechia) (H) 

Brushy riparian especially with 

willows. Species present in project 

area. 

Analysis 

in EIS. 

Included in Migratory Birds 

discussion 

0

Ovenbird 

(Seiurus 

aurocapillus)

(H) 

Mid-late successional, closedcanopied deciduous or 

deciduous/conifer forests with 

limited understory. Species present 

in project area. 

Analysis 

in EIS. 

Included in Migratory Birds 

discussion 

0

Spotted 

(Rufous-sided) 

towhee (Pipilo 

maculatus) (H) 

Shrubby riparian areas, woody 

draws, and woodland undergrowth. 

Species present in Pryors Unit. 

Analysis 

in EIS. 

Included in Migratory Birds 

discussion 

0

Brewer’s 

sparrow 

(Spizella 

Breweri) (H) 

Strongly associated with sagebrush, 

but also uses other areas with 

scattered shrubs and short grasses. 

Species present in project area. 

Analysis 

in EIS. 

Included in Migratory Birds 

discussion 

0

Sharp-tailed 

grouse 

(Tympanuchus 

phasianellus)

(H, K) 

Mosaic of dense grass and shrubs 

with forbs for nesting, woody 

riparian areas in winter. Species 

present in project area. 

Analysis 

in EIS. 

Included in Migratory Birds 

discussion 

0

Yellowstone 

Cutthroat trout 

(Oncorhynchus 

clarkii bouvieri)

(H, K) 

Upper Yellowstone and Upper Snake 

River drainages. Species is not 

present in project area. 

No further 

analysis 

will be 

conducted. 

Not in project area. 0

Elk (Cervus 

canadensis)(K) 

Grassland to forested alpine areas. 

Species present in project area. 

Analysis 

in EIS. 

Main concerns are potential 

for displacement due to 

recreational travel, and 

vulnerability during hunting 

season. 

0

Golden eagle 

(Aquila 

chrysaetos)(K) 

Open hilly to mountainous areas. 

Habitat and species present in project 

area. 

Analysis 

in EIS. 

Included in Migratory Birds 

discussion 

0

Merlin (Falco 

columbarius)(K) 

Patchy shrub/grassland habitats with 

large trees to support nesting 

(secondary nester). Habitat and 

species present in project area. 

Analysis 

in EIS. 

Included in Migratory Birds 

discussion 

0

Mule deer 

(Odocoileus 

hemionus) (K) 

Rugged grassland to forested alpine 

areas. Species present in project area. 

Analysis 

in EIS 

under elk 

section. 

Analysis for elk serves as 

surrogate for mule deer 

because they occupy the 

same habitats in the project 

area and elk have more 

restrictive habitat 

requirements. . Impacts of 

travel are expected to be 

similar for the two species. 

0 

Bighorn sheep Remote, steep, rugged terrain, such No further Not in project area. 0
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-42 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

Table 3-11. Wildlife Analysis Table

Species Name Basic Habitat Description and 

Occurrence in Project Area 

Included 

in EIS 

Rationale and Other 

Information 

Effects 

Determination

for 

Alternative B7

(Ovis 

Canadensis) (K) 

as mountains, canyons, and 

escarpments where precipitation is 

low and evaporation is high. Species 

is not present in project area. 

analysis 

will be 

conducted. 

Pronghorn 

antelope 

(Antilocapra 

Americana) (K) 

Rolling grasslands to mixed 

sagebrush shrublands. Species 

present in project area. 

No further 

analysis 

will be 

conducted. 

No increased access to 

habitat is proposed in any 

alternative. 

0

Potential effects of the alternatives on the following species and/or their habitats are analyzed in 

detail: black-footed ferret; bats (includes long-eared myotis, long-legged myotis, Pallid bat, spotted 

bat, and Townsend’s big-eared bat); big game (includes elk, white-tailed deer and mule deer); 

migratory birds (includes Baird’s sparrow, black-backed woodpecker, loggerhead shrike, golden 

eagle, merlin, Northern goshawk, Bullock’s oriole, yellow warbler, ovenbird, spotted Towhee, 

Brewer’s sparrow and sharp-tailed grouse); and general wildlife species (includes greater short-horned 

lizard, milk Snake, Western hog-nosed snake and other focal species). 

The list of federally Threatened and Endangered species for the Custer National Forest and counties 

encompassed by the Sioux Ranger District was verified through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 

July 2008 (USFWS 2008). The bald eagle was delisted effective August 8, 2007. The only listed 

species for the Sioux Ranger District is the black-footed ferret. 

Applicable background information regarding specific species biological requirements, and general 

effects including effects of roads and recreation on wildlife, were taken from the Beartooth Travel 

Management FEIS, Gallatin National Forest Travel Plan FEIS, the Helena National Forest North Belts 

Travel Plan Wildlife Report, Effects of Recreation on Rocky Mountain Wildlife – A Review for 

Montana, and other literature as cited. 

3.3.3.1 Affected Environment – Threatened And Endangered Species Black-footed Ferret 

Regulatory Framework – Black-footed Ferret 

The black-footed ferret was listed as a federally endangered species under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) in March 1967. The recovery plan for the black-footed ferret (USFWS 1988) established the 

national recovery objectives where are to: increase the captive population of ferrets to 200 breeding 

adults by 1991; establish a prebreeding census population of 1,500 free-ranging breeding adults in 10 

or more different populations with no fewer than 30 breeding adults in each population by the year 

2010; and encourage the widest possible distribution of reintroduced animals throughout their historic 

range (Federal Register Vol. 61, No. 55, March 1996). So far, reintroduction attempts have occurred 

in Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, Colorado, and Utah. In January 2002, the Conservation Plan 

for Black-tailed and White-tailed Prairie Dogs in Montana was approved and implemented in 

Montana (MTFWP 2002). The overall goal of the plan is to “provide for management of prairie dogs 

populations and habitats to ensure long-term viability of prairie dogs and associated species” which 

included black-footed ferrets (MTFWP 2002). In 2003 an annual rule regulating prairie dog shooting 

on public lands was implemented by the State where prairie dogs could not be shot on public lands 

from March 1 thru May 31 (MTFWP 2003). The no shooting rule was permanently remanded in 2007 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-43

so prairie dog shooting on most public land remains open. On January 24, 2008, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service reintroduced 8 black-footed ferrets on the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation. 

The nearest release site was about 80 miles from the Sioux Ranger District in Montana and over 100 

miles from the closest release site in South Dakota (Cheyenne River Indian Reservation). 

Affected Environment – Black-footed ferret 

Black-footed ferrets are intimately tied to prairie dog colonies throughout their range. Research from 

ferret-occupied prairie dog colonies indicates that the most important attribute of ferret habitat is the 

distribution and abundance of prairie dogs. Ferrets are therefore limited to the same open habitat used 

by prairie dogs: grasslands, steppe, and shrub steppe (MTNHP 2008). To support a viable population 

of ferrets, a prairie dog colony complex of 2500-3000 ha (6,200-7,400 acres) composed of individual 

colonies at least 12 ha (30 acres) in size, with the majority 50 ha (125 acres) or larger, is needed 

(Forrest et al., 1988, p. 28). Miller et. al. (1996) found that females with young have never been 

found on prairie dog colonies less than 49 ha (121 acres). No black-footed ferrets have been 

documented on the Ranger District since the 1930s. 

Currently there is one known active black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) colony (< 1 acre) 

on the Sioux Ranger District. The distribution of prairie dog colonies and acreages on adjacent lands 

is unknown but is thought to be limited based on the Conservation Plan for Black-tailed and Whitetailed Prairie Dogs in Montana (2002). 

 

The colony acreage on NFS lands is grossly inadequate to support black-footed ferrets. As of August 

12, 2004 the USFWS removed the black-tailed prairie dog as a candidate for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act. The black-tailed prairie dog is considered as a USFS Northern Region 

Sensitive species. 

3.3.3.2 Environmental Consequences – Threatened And Endangered Species: Black-footed 

Ferret 

Direct and Indirect Effects – Black-footed Ferret 

The presence of roads and trails represents a direct loss of habitat that has already occurred, and their 

use can pose a direct threat of black-footed ferret mortality from vehicles. However, black-footed 

ferrets are not known to occur in the area and the project area does not support an adequate preybase 

of prairie dogs to support ferrets. Indirectly, the impacts of roads include increased access for prairie 

dog shooters that could have a negative impact on prey density. 

Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Direct habitat loss would not increase under any alternative because construction of new routes is not 

proposed. None of the alternatives analyzed in detail propose increased access to potential blackfooted ferret or black-tailed prairie dog habitat. All of the alternatives provide the same amount of 

access to the one active prairie dog town 

Vehicle-related black-footed ferret mortality is unlikely given the relatively low speeds and traffic 

volumes on National Forest system roads and the lack of ferrets and adequate habitat. 

No vegetation treatment is proposed with this analysis and the components of available habitat would 

not change. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-44 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

Alternative A, Alternative B and No Action Alternative. 

The availability of black-footed ferret habitat would be effectively the same under Alternatives A, B, 

and the No Action. 

Cumulative Effects – Black-footed Ferret 

Based on the past and current vegetation management on the District, including timber harvest, 

livestock grazing, prescribed fire, the invasive species program, and other vegetation projects, 

grassland/shrub steppe vegetation conditions provide some habitat for black-footed ferret and their 

preferred prey species, black-tailed prairie dogs. The impacts of different types of dispersed 

recreation including the outfitter/guide program; hunting; recreational shooting; fire suppression; and 

the lands, minerals, and non-recreation special use programs on the District have been minor. Given 

that anticipated direct and indirect effects to black-footed ferrets and their habitats from any of the 

alternatives is small, cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities is 

also expected to be small. 

Consistency with Laws, Regulations, and Policy 

All alternatives are consistent with the laws, regulations, policy, the Custer National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan, Federal, Regional, and state direction in Montana and South Dakota, and 

the conservation Plan for Black-tailed and White-tailed Prairie dogs in Montana (2002). 

Determination of Effects – Black-footed Ferret 

Implementation of the proposed Federal Action would have No Effect On The Black-Footed Ferret Or 

Their Habitat. This determination is based on the following rationale: 1) black-footed ferrets are not 

known to occur in the area; 2) the project area does not support an adequate preybase to support 

ferrets; 3) the amount of occupied black-tailed prairie dog habitat will not grow to an adequate level in 

the near future; 4) direct habitat loss would not increase under any alternative because construction of 

new routes is not proposed; and 5) none of the alternatives propose increased access to potential 

black-footed ferret or black-tailed prairie dog habitat. Implementation of the proposed Federal Action 

May Impact Individuals Or Habitat But Is Not Likely To Cause A Trend To Federal Listing Or Loss 

Of Viability For Black-Tailed Prairie Dogs. This determination is based on the above rationale for 

ferrets along with the fact that prairie dogs will continue to be killed by recreational shooting until the 

States of Montana and South Dakota impose anti-shooting rules. Recommendations for removing, 

avoiding, or compensating adverse effects are not necessary. 

 

3.3.3.3 Affected Environment – Sensitive Species: Bat Species 

Five Forest Service sensitive bat species (Long-eared myotis, long-legged myotis, Pallid bat, Spotted 

bat, and Townsend’s big-eared bat), occur or are thought to occur on the District. 

Although different bat species have specific habitat needs, some generalizations can be made. During 

summer, which is the reproductive season, bats may use various roost sites such as rock crevices, 

caves, talus slopes, snags, buildings, and bridges. Hibernacula are located in underground caverns 

with temperatures above freezing. Deep limestone caverns are particularly important for hibernating 

bats in the Rocky Mountains (Adams 2003). Hibernating bats are especially vulnerable to disturbance 

because when aroused from hibernation, they use winter fat needed to support them until insects are 

available in the spring. A single arousal most likely costs a bat as much energy as it would normally 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-45

expend during two to three weeks of hibernation. Thus, frequently aroused hibernating bats may 

starve before spring (Harvey et al. 1999). 

Most bats are very sensitive to disturbance (Schmidt 2003). Human-caused adverse impacts to bats 

include habitat destruction, direct mortality, vandalism, and disturbance of hibernating and maternity 

colonies. Disturbance to hibernacula and maternity colonies is a major factor in the decline of many 

bat species. Human-caused arousal from hibernation costs bats energy that may lead to starvation 

before spring (Harvey et. al. 1999). The body warmth from a person standing 10 feet below a 

hibernating bat may be enough to stimulate the bat’s arousal (Adams 2003). Disturbance to summer 

maternity colonies may cause parents to drop or abandon their dependent young (Harvey et. al. 1999). 

Activities such as rock climbing or caving may take a toll on nursery colonies (Adams 2003). 

Surveys for hibernacula, colonial roosts, and maternity colonies have not been conducted on the 

District. However, potential habitat for hibernacula and colonial roosting is present on the Unit. In 

addition, documentation of post-lactating females suggests that maternity colonies are also likely to be 

present. Potential effects of the alternatives on bats in the project area were analyzed in terms of miles 

of open motorized routes. The reason for using this method is that the presence of motorized routes 

can facilitate access to caves, thus potentially leading to adverse indirect effects by disturbance of bats 

at hibernacula, roosting, and maternity sites. Miles of open motorized routes are displayed in the 

following table. 

Table 3-12. Public Motorized Use Route Miles by Alternative – Sioux RD 

Alternative Motorized Route Miles 

Alternative A 466 

Alternative B 300 

No Action Alternative 399 

Hibernacula are not expected to be present on the District due to lack of caves. For the same reason, 

colonial roosts and maternity colonies are also not expected to occur. Non-colonial roosting and 

maternity sites are more likely to occur in rock crevices in sandstone, siltstone, and mudstone outcrops 

scattered throughout the District, as well as in tree snags and other habitats. Effects to bats in these 

settings are more likely to be caused by loss of habitat than by human disturbance at any particular 

site. 

3.3.3.4 Environmental Consequences – Sensitive Species: Bat Species 

Direct and Indirect Effects – Bat Species 

The presence and use of roads and trails are not expected to directly affect bats or their habitat. 

However, the presence of motorized routes can facilitate access to bat habitat, particularly to roosting 

or maternity sites, thus leading to adverse indirect effects by disturbance of bats at these sites. 

Alternative A 

Alternative A would have the highest number of open motorized route miles (466) in the project area. 

This alternative would provide the least protection to bat roosting and maternity sites because these 

sites may be more easily accessible than under the other alternatives. Hibernacula are not likely to 

occur on the District so no direct or indirect effects are expected on bats during this period of their life 

cycle when they are most vulnerable. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-46 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

Alternative B 

Alternative B would have the lowest open motorized route miles (300) and thus would provide the 

most protection to bat roosting and maternity sites overall because these sites would be less easily 

accessible than under the other alternatives. This alternative also has 116 route miles with seasonal 

restrictions from December 1 thru October 13. Hibernacula are not likely to occur on the District so 

no direct or indirect effects are expected on bats during this period of their life cycle when they are 

most vulnerable. 

No Action 

This alternative would have 399 miles of open motorized routes and thus would protect bat roosting 

and maternity sites overall more than Alternative A and less than Alternative B. This alternative also 

has 148 route miles with seasonal restrictions from December 1 thru October 13. Hibernacula are not 

likely to occur on the District so no direct or indirect effects are expected on bats during this period of 

their life cycle when they are most vulnerable. 

Cumulative Effects - Bat Species 

Several factors have likely contributed to cumulative effects to bats in the project area which include 

past wildfires and timber harvest. Effects of past timber harvest and fires are hard to assess. Most bat 

species tend to avoid large open habitats when possible. However, many species forage along forest 

edges. Heterogeneous habitats containing open, brushy, and forested areas provide optimal foraging 

conditions because of the presence of extensive habitat edge (Adams 2003). Vegetation across the 

District is comprised of about 50% ponderosa pine forest and 50% grassland/shrub so forest edge 

ecotones dominant the landscape. Since 1988 over 75% of the Long Pines land unit has burned in 

high intensities wildfires where the majority of the fire killed trees were salvage logged. Little of the 

remaining seven land units that make up the Sioux District have been burned in wildfires since 1988. 

Timber harvest has occurred on the District over the last couple of decades in the Ekalaka Hills, Long 

Pines and Slim Buttes land units. The extent that cutting units have regenerated is variable, with some 

naturally regenerated to dense shrub cover, others to seedling and sapling ponderosa pine of varying 

degrees of canopy cover. The combination of vegetative structure and forest edge likely provides 

suitable foraging conditions for bats. 

Current and future cattle grazing can damage sensitive habitats, particularly riparian systems. 

Shoreline damage can lead to erosion that lowers water quality and changes stream flow dynamics. 

Soil damage, particularly along stream and pond shorelines, can suppress vegetation growth and thus 

lower the diversity of insect prey (Adams 2003). Cattle grazing occurs across most of the District and 

will continue in the future. One goal of livestock management on the District is to bring nonfunctioning and functional-at-risk riparian systems up to properly functioning condition. 

Improvement over time of degraded riparian systems would improve foraging and water quality 

conditions for bats and thus reduce adverse cumulative effects. 

Consistency with Laws, Regulations, and Policy 

The National Forest Management Act (36 CFR 219.19) directs federal agencies to manage habitat to 

provide for viable populations of all native and desired non-native fish and wildlife species. The five 

bat species analyzed are native to this area, and are classified as Forest Service sensitive species. 

Sensitive species are those for which population viability is of concern. Direction for management of 

sensitive species is contained in the Forest Service Manual (FSM 2672.1), which states that these 

species must receive special management emphasis to ensure their viability and to preclude trends 

toward endangerment that would result in the need for Federal listing. This analysis considered 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-47

potential for alternative scenarios to have adverse impacts on bats and thus is consistent with the 

above direction. 

Determination of Effects - Bat Species 

Implementation of the proposed Federal Action May Impact Individuals Or Habitat But Is Not Likely 

To Cause A Trend To Federal Listing Or Loss Of Viability For Bat Species. This determination is 

based on the following rationale: 1) hibernacula for the five bat species does not occur in the project 

area; 2) public access to potential roosting and maternity sites is most likely low across the project 

area; 3) the preferred alternative reduces open motorized routes by 205 miles (41% reduction); 4) 

direct habitat loss would not increase under any alternative because construction of new routes is not 

proposed; and 5) none of the alternatives propose increased access to sensitive bat species habitat. 

Recommendations for removing, avoiding, or compensating adverse effects are not necessary. 

3.3.3.5 Affected Environment – Management Indicator Species: Big Game Species 

The elk analysis serves as a surrogate for mule deer and white-tailed deer. The rationale for this is 

based on the large amount of overlap in habitat use and needs between deer and elk on the District; the 

amount of scientific literature available for elk and the effects of roads; and impacts of travel 

management on the District are expected to be very similar for these three species. 

Big Game Habitat Use and Travel 

Many studies have shown that motorized access influences elk habitat use (Lyon 1983,, Frederick 

1991, Lyon and Christensen 2002, Rumble et al. 2005, Stubblefield et al. 2006). Elk have repeatedly 

been shown to avoid habitat adjacent to open roads (Lyon et al. 1985, Millspaugh et al. 2000). 

Declines in habitat use have been reported within 0.25-1.8 miles of open roads (Lyon and Christensen 

2002), but substantial reductions in habitat use are normally confined to <0.5 miles of an open road. 

Many variables influence elk habitat use relative to open roads. 

Observed declines in habitat use adjacent to roads have led to the development of elk habitat 

effectiveness models. Habitat effectiveness refers to the percentage of available habitat that is usable 

by elk outside the hunting season (Lyon and Christensen 1992). The literature contains several 

recommendations for managing open roads within summer elk habitat. Using Lyon’s model for 

habitat effectiveness based entirely on road density (Lyon 1983), Christensen et al. (1993) 

recommended that in areas where elk are one of the primary resource considerations should have 

habitat effectiveness of 50% or greater (open road density <1.9 mi/sq mi). Areas with <50% habitat 

effectiveness (>1.9 mi/sq mi) were expected to make only minimal contributions to elk management 

goals (Christensen et al. 1993). However, the 2005 Montana Elk Management Plan does not contain 

objectives or recommendations for management of open road density within summer elk habitat. 

Most studies involving the effects of motorized uses on elk involved roads with passenger vehicle use 

rather than motorized trails where ATVs and/or motorcycles are used. Therefore, there is very little 

data available to use in assessing the impacts of motorized trails on elk. Wisdom et al. (2004) 

discussed preliminary findings from a controlled experimental study evaluating the effects of ATVs, 

mountain bikes, hiking, and horseback riding on elk and mule deer. Their initial results indicate that 

elk exhibited much higher rates of movement (or greater displacement) and probability of flight 

response from ATVs and mountain bikes compared to horses and hikers. Canfield et al. (1999) and 

Toweill and Thomas (2002) both state that the effects of open motorized trail use are likely similar to 

those resulting from open roads. The two uses are similar in that both allow easier access to areas that 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-48 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

would otherwise be inaccessible without considerable effort using non-motorized transportation. 

Therefore, travel route densities incorporating motorized trails cannot be compared to published 

habitat effectiveness models, but they can be used to compare Travel Plan effects among alternatives. 

As with open road density and habitat effectiveness values, the existing literature does not identify a 

clear link between open motorized route densities and elk population demographics. Therefore, 

conclusions on expected travel management planning impacts will only address disturbance and 

displacement of elk (big game) from suitable habitat and not population responses. 

Big Game Vulnerability and Travel 

Studies have been conducted to determine factors influencing elk vulnerability to hunting and 

management solutions to the problem of low mature bull elk numbers. One of the conclusions was 

that motorized access is one of the major factors influencing elk vulnerability, along with hunter 

numbers, availability of security cover, topography, hunting season structure and length, hunting 

equipment technology and others. Data have consistently shown that elk mortality rates increase with 

increasing open road density, because the number of hunters and their distribution both tend to 

increase with increasing road density (Skovlin et al. 2002, Millspaugh et al. 2000). This is especially 

true for bulls because hunting regulations have traditionally allowed greater opportunity for harvesting 

them compared to cows (Vore and Desimone 1991). 

Motorized access is one of the few factors affecting elk vulnerability that the Forest Service has 

management authority for. Hillis et al. (1991) provided guidelines for managing elk habitat to limit 

elk vulnerability. The key concept was to provide security areas for elk during the hunting season 

where they are less vulnerable to harvest. They defined secure areas as >250 acres in size and >0.5 

mile from an open road, and recommended that they comprise >30% of the analysis unit. Although 

open roads have the largest effect on elk vulnerability, restricted roads also have an impact because 

they provide easier access for hunters using non-motorized transportation (Skovlin et al. 2002). Lyon 

and Burcham (1998) found that elk hunters are likely to use closed roads to access areas farthest from 

open roads. The Hillis guidelines for secure areas included a recommendation to minimize closed 

roads within elk security areas, but did not provide standards for accomplishing this (Hillis et al. 

1991). The 30% secure habitat level should be viewed as the minimum necessary to avoid excessive 

bull elk mortality during the hunting season, realizing that more may be necessary in some districts 

due to variables such as topography, vegetation cover, and hunting pressure. Elk security habitat and 

open motorized route density by alternative are displayed in the following table. 

The Montana Final Elk Management Plan gives population objectives and general habitat 

management strategies for each Elk Management Unit (EMU) (MTFWP 2005). Habitat objectives 

stated in the plan for the Custer Forest EMU (the EMU encompassing all of the District in Montana) 

are to work cooperatively with private and public land managers to maintain and improve existing elk 

habitat. The Custer Forest EMU is located in Big Horn, Treasure, Rosebud, Custer, Fallon, Powder 

River, and Carter Counties in southeastern Montana. The Custer Forest EMU encompasses 14,378 

square miles of land where about 45% (6,400 square miles) provides elk habitat. About 25% of the 

EMU falls on public land with the rest falling on private property. Approximately 2.4% of the 

suitable elk habitat in the EMU falls within the Sioux Ranger District. About 63% of the current elk 

distribution is on private lands. State big game managers estimate that approximately 800 to 1000 elk 

are present in the EMU. Elk numbers are currently managed based on the level of landowner 

tolerance to elk depredation on private lands. The State is currently trying to maintain 500 posthunting season elk in the EMU. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-49

3.3.3.6 Environmental Consequences – Management Indicator Species: Elk 

Direct and Indirect Effects – Big Game Species 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

All alternatives meet the access management recommendations (see Big Game Habitat Use and Travel 

section above) for elk in the project area, except for the Ekalaka Hills, Long Pines, and South Cave 

Hills land units under Alternative A. Open motorized route densities, in all of the other land units 

would range from 0.40 to 1.83 mi/sq mi which are below Christensen et al’s.(1993) recommendation 

to manage roads at <1.9 mi/sq mi for areas where elk are one of the primary resource considerations. 

Secure elk habitat in the project area (see Big Game Vulnerability and Travel section above) would 

range from 0% to 65%, where most of the land units would be below the 30% minimum 

recommended by Hillis et al. (1991). Elk habitat within the project area for all alternatives would be 

categorized as year-round habitat with no distinct areas for seasonal use (e.g. winter range).

Table 3-13. Percent Elk Security Habitat and Vulnerability by Alternative.

Alternative A Alternative B No Action 

Land Unit 

Elk 

Security 

(Security 

during 

Seasonal Route 

Closures) in 

Percent 

Open 

Motorized 

Route 

Density 

(Open Route 

Density during 

Seasonal Route 

Closures) in 

Mi. / Sq. 

Mi. 

Elk 

Security 

(Security 

during 

Seasonal Route 

Closures) in 

Percent 

Open 

Motorized 

Route 

Density 

(Open Route 

Density during 

Seasonal Route 

Closures) in 

Mi. / Sq. 

Mi. 

Elk 

Security 

(Security 

during 

Seasonal Route 

Closures) in 

Percent 

Open 

Motorized 

Route 

Density 

(Open Route 

Density during 

Seasonal Route 

Closures) in 

Mi. / Sq. 

Mi. 

Chalk Buttes 50 (NA) 1.16 (NA) 57 (57) 0.70 (0.70) 36 (36) 0.99 (0.99) 

Ekalaka Hills 11 (NA) 2.21 (NA) 26 (43) 1.27 (0.90) 8 (8) 1.83 (1.83) 

Long Pines 6 (NA) 1.93 (NA) 28 (65) 1.11 (0.44) 8 (64) 1.74 (0.40) 

East Short Pines 34 (NA) 1.19 (NA) 44 (44) 0.69 (0.69) 13 (13) 1.22 (1.22) 

West Short Pines 0 (NA) 1.76 (NA) 0 (0) 1.76 (1.76) 0 (0) 1.76 (1.76) 

North Cave Hills 7 (NA) 1.60 (NA) 24 (35) 1.14 (0.85) 11 (11) 1.42 (1.42) 

South Cave Hills 7 (NA) 1.95 (NA) 17 (17) 1.25 (1.25) 7 (7) 1.55 (1.55) 

Slim Buttes 30 (NA) 1.12 (NA) 34 (48) 0.94 (0.66) 32 (32) 0.82 (0.82) 

NA=Not Applicable 

Since elk analysis is used as a surrogate for mule deer and white-tailed deer, effects described for elk 

would also apply to deer. 

Alternative A 

Alternative A would have the highest open motorized route density and would provide the lowest elk 

security cover by land unit. Overall, recommendations for access management and for elk 

vulnerability would not be met by this alternative. 

Alternative B 

Alternative B would have the lowest open motorized route density and would provide the highest elk 

security cover by land unit. Four of the eight land units that provide the majority of the big game 

habitat on the District would have road closures during the hunting season. By limiting the season of 

use, big game vulnerability would be lowered (see previous table). Overall, recommendations for 

access management and for elk vulnerability would be met by this alternative. 

 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-50 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

No Action 

This alternative would have open motorized route densities and security cover in between Alternative 

A and B. Overall, recommendations for access management would be met for elk under this 

alternative. Management recommendations for elk vulnerability would not be met by this alternative 

except in the Chalk Buttes and Slim Buttes land units; and also in the Long Pines during the hunting 

season. 

Cumulative Effects – Big Game Species 

Several past and ongoing habitat enhancement activities on the District have improved habitat for elk. 

These activities include thinning and prescribed burning on elk range to improve forage quality and 

availability, and to increase the acreage of available habitat by reducing conifer species that have 

gradually encroached onto year-round range. The long-term aspen regeneration program benefits elk 

by improving forage and cover. Spraying of invasive plant species reduces competition with native 

plants that provide forage for elk. 

Current and future cattle grazing can damage sensitive habitats, particularly riparian systems. Cattle 

grazing occurs across most of the District and will continue in the future. One goal of livestock 

management on the District is to improve vegetative condition in areas that have been degraded by 

past grazing practices. Improvement in the health of native vegetation may benefit elk in the short and 

long term time frames. 

Housing developments on private land adjacent to the Forest are not an issue, at least for the near 

future, because most private lands are large blocks with few owners. 

Density of motorized non-Forest Service roads within the Forest boundary is 0.50 mi/sq mi. for all of 

the alternatives. Contributions of these roads to adverse cumulative effects within the Forest 

boundary are expected to be minimal. 

Consistency with Laws, Regulations, and Policy 

The Custer National Forest Management Plan contains relevant direction for management of big game 

populations. The mitigation measure for key wildlife species, including big game species, relative to 

travel management planning states, “Where necessary to protect wildlife values, access and/or traffic 

will be restricted in key wildlife habitats during critical periods.” In addition, the 2005 Montana Final 

Elk Management Plan provides relevant management direction for elk habitat. This analysis 

considered guidance from the above documents as well as from pertinent literature. 

Determination of Effects – Big Game Species 

Implementation of the proposed Federal Action will have a Neutral Impact On Big Game Species. 

This determination is based on the following rationale: 1) the preferred alternative meets 

recommendations for access management and elk vulnerability; 2) the preferred alternative would 

have the lowest open public motorized use route densities and would provide the highest level of elk 

security cover by land unit; 3) the preferred alternative reduces open motorized routes by 205 miles 

(41% reduction); 4) direct habitat loss would not increase under any alternative because construction 

of new routes is not proposed; 5) limiting the season of use during the hunting season will benefit big 

game species; and 6) the alternatives are consistent with the Montana Statewide Elk Management Plan 

(2005). Recommendations for removing, avoiding, or compensating adverse effects are not necessary. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-51

3.3.3.7 Affected Environment – Migratory Birds 

Regulatory Framework 

Migratory bird species are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703-711). A 

January, 2001 Executive Order requires agencies to ensure that environmental analyses evaluate the 

effects of federal actions and agency plans on migratory birds, with emphasis on species of concern. 

Species of concern include those listed under the Endangered Species Act, Forest Service Sensitive 

Species, and those identified as species of concern by the Montana Natural Heritage Program and the 

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MNHP 2007, MFWP 2007). This discussion 

addresses potential effects of the Travel Plan alternatives on migratory bird species in general, 

including Forest Service Sensitive Species and Management Indicator Species. 

Affected Environment - Migratory Birds 

The following avian Forest Service Sensitive Species are present on the District: Baird’s sparrow, 

Black-backed woodpecker, and Loggerhead shrike. The following birds are Management Indicator 

Species on the District: Golden eagle, Merlin, Northern goshawk, Bullock’s oriole, Yellow warbler, 

Ovenbird, Spotted Towhee, and Brewer’s sparrow. It is difficult to address effects to migratory bird 

species collectively, since travel management actions can have adverse effects on some species, while 

being neutral or benefiting others. However, it would not be practical to attempt to address all 

migratory bird species separately. Therefore, the migratory bird discussion addresses effects of travel 

management actions on bird species and habitat in general, including that for sensitive and 

management indicator species, and resident species Northern goshawk. 

Migratory bird species are a very diverse group and thus occupy all types of habitat available on the 

District, including ponds, streams, wetlands, riparian areas, grasslands, shrub lands, deciduous forest, 

coniferous forest, mixed forest, recently burned forest, rock outcrops, talus, and sheer cliff walls. 

Many migratory bird species use habitat on the District as breeding grounds, while others breed in 

more northern climes and winter here. Some species are habitat specialists and are relatively 

restricted to certain cover types such as wetlands, riparian, forest interior or cliff habitat. Others are 

habitat generalists and can occupy a wide variety of cover types. Some bird species are extremely 

sensitive to habitat modifications and human disturbance, particularly in breeding areas, while others 

are much more tolerant of human intrusions, and might actually benefit from habitat modifications 

resulting from human activities. 

Habitat Alteration 

Travel management can affect habitat fragmentation by dissecting contiguous vegetation types with 

road and trail corridors. Fragmentation effects have been reported to impact bird species in riparian 

habitat and grass/shrub lands (Joslin and Youmans 1999), but most of the attention to this issue has 

been focused on fragmentation of forest habitat. 

Road and trail corridors through continuous forest habitat can lead to increased nest predation rates 

since smaller forest patches may be easier for predators to penetrate, and roads and trails provide 

travel corridors for predators to access forest interior from nearby open habitat (Joslin and Youmans 

1999, Askins 1994). 

Road and trail corridors are relatively permanent features on the landscape, and can result in forest 

fragmentation by creating permanent openings in the forest canopy. Since road and trail corridors 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-52 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

remain in the same location for many years, they can become learned features used by multiple 

generations of predatory and/or parasitic species (Askins 1994). 

Rich et al (1994) studied the impacts of forest fragmentation associated with cleared road corridors on 

bird species in southern New Jersey. They found significantly greater relative abundance of forest 

interior bird species in edge habitat along narrow (approximately 8 m or 26 ft wide) unpaved forest 

roads than along wider (16 m or 53 ft wide) paved secondary roads. No significant differences in 

forest interior bird species abundance was found between narrow unpaved Forest road edges and 

forest interior habitat. Based on these findings, they concluded that forest interior nesters did not 

perceive a difference between forest interior habitat and edge habitat along unpaved forest roads. 

However, although most forest interior nesting species did not appear to avoid edge habitat along 

paved or unpaved forest road corridors, there were differential rates of nest predation and brood 

parasitism along varying widths of road corridors, suggesting that some corridors, particularly wider 

corridors with mowed edges, may be creating ecological traps for some migratory species of forest 

interior nesting songbirds. 

Hutto et al. (1995) examined the rate of bird detections between on-road and off-road point counts in 

Montana. The majority of all species detected were found in both on-road and off-road points. 

However, points along roads less than 10 m (33 ft) wide did not show a difference in number of 

species detected from off-road points, whereas point counts along wider roads detected significantly 

more bird species than found in corresponding off-road points. Most species detected in the on-road 

points were those that typically forage in forest openings and shrubby habitat often present along road 

corridors. Those species detected in greater proportions in off-road points were forest interior 

associates. The most notable differences in number of species detected for on-road and off-road 

points occurred in forested cover types, with closed canopy forest showing the greatest difference, 

followed by open forest, and then early succession forest types. 

Corridor width appears to influence bird species composition and associated nest predation and 

parasitism rates along roadways. Studies that specifically addressed the fragmentation impacts of road 

corridors on bird species (Rich et al. 1994, Askins 1994 and Hutto et al. 1995) generally reported that 

narrow (8-10 m, 26-33 ft) road corridors had few notable impacts on nesting bird species, whereas 

wider corridors, particularly where shoulders were maintained with mowing, had more notable effects 

associated with nest predation and brood parasitism. Roadside vegetation on the Forest is periodically 

managed through brush removal, but only the high use roads receive treatment, and only when the 

need arises (i.e., there is no set schedule for brush removal). Unpaved Forest road edges are rarely 

ever mowed, and therefore do not typically provide the type of grassy roadside vegetation preferred by 

cowbirds and some edge-associated nest predators. 

Disturbance 

The presence of travel facilities on the landscape generally affects bird species through habitat 

modification and associated impacts discussed above. The presence of humans using travel facilities 

typically affects birds through disturbance mechanisms. Knight and Gutzwiller (1995) stated: 

“human occupation and activity are clearly and directly correlated with declines in breeding 

populations of birds.” Human disturbance associated with travel management can elicit both 

physiological and behavioral responses from birds, which can affect reproductive success and 

survival. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-53

Forman et al. (2003) reported that breeding birds seem to be affected by noise disturbance associated 

with traffic on roads and trails. Songbirds appear to be sensitive to very low noise levels. The noise 

level that population densities of woodland birds declined at averaged 42 decibels (dB), with a density 

decline occurring at 35 dB for the most sensitive woodland species. For grassland species, population 

densities declined when noise levels reached an average of 48 dB, with a decline occurring at 43 dB 

for the most sensitive species (Foreman and Alexander 1998). While most studies have shown 

grassland and forest birds to appear adversely affected by traffic noise, other studies have found most 

species to be neutral or to increase in numbers (Kaseloo and Tyson 2004). 

Although noise associated with human travel is certainly a disturbance factor that can influence bird 

behavior, birds are able to adapt and habituate more quickly to mechanical (or motorized) noise than 

to human presence (Knight and Gutzwiller 1995). Therefore, non-motorized use on and off trails may 

be a more severe disturbance factor for some birds than motorized travel restricted to designated 

routes. 

3.3.3.8 Environmental Consequences – Migratory Birds 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Most of the habitat alteration (e.g. modification, loss and fragmentation) associated with District travel 

management has already occurred. The consequences of past habitat change are likely beneficial for 

some bird species and detrimental to others.

Alternative A 

Of the three Alternatives considered, Alternative A represents a maximum for both habitat alteration 

effects and disturbance impacts to migratory bird species. At an average route density across the land 

units of 1.62 mi/sq mi, Alternative A would contain an overall higher motorized travel route density 

as well as total motorized route miles on the District. Adverse effects would be greatest on bird 

species susceptible to changes in habitat and to human disturbance. 

Alternative B and No Action 

Average motorized route densities across the land units under these alternatives would range from1.13 

to 1.42 mi/mi sq. The total number of motorized route miles would be 303 for Alternative A and 399 

for the No Action alternative. Adverse affects to susceptible bird species would therefore be 

essentially the same, but slightly less than under Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects – Migratory Birds 

It is difficult to address cumulative effects to migratory bird species collectively since various 

management actions can have adverse effects on some species, while having no effect or benefiting 

others. It would not be practical to attempt to address all species individually. Therefore, this section 

summarizes cumulative effects of land uses to bird species in general, focusing on activities 

considered to have the greatest impacts on birds. 

Timber harvest and fuel reduction projects on the District have involved removal of understory 

vegetation such as shrubs, young conifers and lower tree branches, as well as removal of mature trees. 

Such manipulation of habitat components can influence survival and reproductive rates of migratory 

bird species by altering cover, forage and predator/prey relationships. Changing habitat structure 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-54 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

through fuel reduction projects could ultimately influence bird species composition in treated areas 

(USDA Forest Service. 2006.) 

 

Large-scale wildfires and human-caused fires have altered bird habitat. Most bird species native to 

this area are adapted to our fire dependent ecosystem. Large-scale high intensity burns are largely 

responsible for maintaining natural forest succession patterns and providing habitat diversity. 

Lightning-caused fires typically occur mid to late summer when most young birds are fledged and are 

capable of rapid and prolonged flight to escape wild fire. Human-caused fire can occur any time of 

year, and prescribed fires on the District are often planned for spring-time ignition in order to use high 

fuel moisture levels, standing water and/or snow to help contain fire within prescribed burn units. 

Spring burns occur during the nesting season when birds are vulnerable, and could result in 

reproductive failure for some individuals. 

Fire suppression has increased the proportion of mature forest on the landscape, potentially to the 

detriment of some grass and shrub nesting bird species. Natural fire regimes are responsible for 

maintaining forest succession patterns and providing habitat diversity. However, past fire suppression 

efforts have resulted in unnatural levels of fuel buildup, which is now having the effect of producing 

proportionately more catastrophic wild fires, and consequently having severe impacts on native 

habitat. 

Livestock grazing can affect migratory birds in a number of ways, such as destruction or disturbance 

of ground and shrub nests, removal of ground cover, and attraction of cowbirds. Grazing on the 

District has lead to degradation of bird habitat in some areas, particularly in certain riparian habitats. 

However, improved grazing standards are helping reduce negative effects. 

Construction, maintenance, and use of campgrounds, picnic areas, and other developed recreation sites 

have altered the vegetation at those sites. Reduction in vegetation, particularly riparian shrubs, has 

likely reduced key nesting habitat for some bird species. Dispersed recreation sites have likely 

resulted in similar impacts as developed campgrounds. 

Projected effects of reasonably foreseeable programs and activities have potential for both positive 

and negative cumulative effects to migratory birds and their habitat. Unmanaged recreation, invasive 

species, unnatural fuel buildup, and loss of open space are four major ecological threats recognized by 

public land management entities. Generally speaking, traditional land management practices are 

trending toward more ecologically sensitive programs. Accordingly, management practices are being 

redesigned to have less negative impacts on the land, while still allowing for the maximum spectrum 

of land uses within the capability of resources. On the other hand, private development is occurring 

adjacent to the Forest boundary, resulting in permanent habitat loss and greater potential for direct 

mortality than most actions predicted to occur on public land (USDA Forest Service. 2006). 

Consistency with Laws, Regulations, and Policy 

Management of migratory bird species and their habitats are governed by a wide variety of authorities. 

Most direction regarding conservation of these species falls under the umbrella of the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act (16 USC 703-712) and an associated Presidential Executive Order. Under this Act, which 

implements various treaties and conventions for the protection of migratory birds, it is unlawful to 

take, kill or possess any migratory birds, except as regulated by authorized hunting programs. 

Executive Order 13186 directs Federal agencies whose actions have a measurable negative impact on 

migratory bird populations to incorporate migratory bird conservation into planning processes and 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-55

take reasonable steps that include restoring and enhancing habitat. The proposed District Travel 

direction has taken migratory bird conservation issues into account through effects analyses, and thus 

is consistent with the above direction. 

Determination of Effects – Migratory Birds 

Implementation of the proposed Federal Action will have a Neutral Impact On Migratory Bird 

Species. This determination is based on the following rationale: 1) the preferred alternative would 

have the lowest open motorized route densities by land unit; 2) the preferred alternative reduces open 

motorized routes by 205 miles (41% reduction); and 3) direct habitat loss would not increase under 

any alternative because construction of new routes is not proposed. Recommendations for removing, 

avoiding, or compensating adverse effects are not necessary. 

3.3.3.9 Affected Environment – General Wildlife 

Focal species are species used as surrogates in assessing ecological integrity (Federal Register Vol 65 

No 218, November 2000). The distribution and abundance of focal species can indicate the integrity 

of the larger ecosystems that they belong to. They also can “play key roles in maintaining community 

structure and processes” (Gaines et al, 2003) and thus can be indicators of species diversity. Focal 

species associated with each wildlife group (as selected by Gaines et al 2003) that are relevant to this 

analysis are shown in the following table. 

Table 3-14. Focal Wildlife Species 

Wildlife Group Focal Species 

Wide-ranging carnivore Mountain lion 

Ungulates Mule deer, elk 

Late-successional-forest associated species Northern goshawk, brown creeper, white-breasted 

nuthatch 

Riparian-associated species Bald eagle, black-capped chickadee 

Primary cavity nesters Three-toed woodpecker 

Grassland/Shrub-Steppe-associated species Greater short-horned lizard, Milk Snake, Western 

hog-nosed snake 

Gaines et al (2003) conducted a literature review to document the effects of roads, motorized trails, 

non-motorized trails, and other linear recreation routes on focal wildlife species. The most common 

interaction identified in the literature relative to motorized roads and trails was displacement and 

avoidance, where animals altered their use of habitats in response to the motorized routes. 

Disturbance at a specific site was also commonly identified and was usually associated with wildlife 

nesting, breeding, or rearing of young. Other frequently reported interactions associated with roads or 

road networks included collisions between animals and vehicles, and edge effects. 

The interactions associated with non-motorized trails were similar to that of motorized trails and 

include displacement, avoidance, and disturbance at a specific site during a critical period. The 

interaction varied depending upon wildlife species, with some more sensitive to motorized trail use 

and others more sensitive to non-motorized trail use. Although both forms of recreation have effects 

on wildlife, motorized trails showed a greater magnitude of effects, such as longer wildlifedisplacement distances, for a larger number of focal species (Gaines et al. 2003). The following table 

details documented effects of roads and trails on wildlife habitat or populations. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-56 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

Table 3-15. Documented Effects Associated with Roads and Trails 

Road- and trail-associated factors Effects of factors Wildlife group affected 

Hunting & trapping Mortality from hunting or trapping as facilitated by 

road and trail access 

Wide-ranging carnivores 

Ungulates 

Poaching Increased illegal take of animals as facilitated by trails 

and roads 

Wide-ranging carnivores 

Ungulates 

Collisions Death or injury resulting from a motorized vehicle 

running over or hitting an animal 

Wide-ranging carnivores 

Late successional 

Riparian associated 

Ungulates 

Negative human interactions Increased mortality of animals owing to increased 

contact with humans, as facilitated by road and trail 

access 

Wide-ranging carnivores 

Late successional 

Ungulates 

Movement barrier or filter Alteration of dispersal or other movements as posed 

by a road or trail itself or by human activities on or 

near a road or trail or network 

Wide-ranging carnivores 

Late successional 

Riparian associated 

Ungulates 

Displacement or avoidance Spatial shifts in populations or individual animals from 

a road or trail or network in relation to human 

activities on or near a road or trail or network. 

Wide-ranging carnivores 

Late successional 

Riparian associated 

Ungulates 

Habitat loss and fragmentation Loss and resulting fragmentation of habitat owing to 

the establishment of roads and trails, road and trail 

networks, and associated human activities 

Wide-ranging carnivores 

Late successional 

Riparian associated 

Ungulates 

Edge effects Changes to habitat microclimates associated with the 

edge induced by roads or trails 

Late successional 

Snag or downed log reduction Reduction in density of large snags and downed logs 

owing to their removal near roads or campsites, as 

facilitated by road access 

Late successional 

Riparian associated 

Primary cavity 

excavators 

Route for competitors or predators A physical human-induced change in the environment 

that provides access for competitors or predators that 

would not have existed otherwise 

Wide-ranging carnivores 

Late successional 

Riparian associated 

Primary cavity 

excavators 

Disturbance at a specific site Displacement of individual animals from a specific 

location that is being used for reproduction and rearing 

young 

Wide-ranging carnivores 

Late successional 

Riparian associated 

Ungulates 

Physiological response Changes in heart rate or level of stress hormones as a 

result of proximity to a road or trail 

Ungulates 

Late successional 

For this analysis, road and trail factors will be grouped and discussed under the topics of Mortality 

and Habitat Modification/Changes to Behavior. 

 

Mortality 

Large numbers of animals are killed annually on roads. The rate of mortality is directly related to 

vehicle speed (Lyon 1985), although road width and traffic volume also affect roadkill rates (Forman 

and Alexander 1998). Since forest roads are not designed for high-speed traffic, direct mortality on 

forest roads is usually not important relative to large mammals (Lyon 1985). Forest carnivores are an 

exception because their large home ranges make them especially vulnerable to road mortality (Baker 

and Knight 2000). Amphibians and reptiles are particularly susceptible on two-lane roads with low to 

moderate traffic (Forman and Alexander 1998). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-57

A study that analyzed over 100 bird and mammal species in England concluded that roadkill rates may 

not affect population size on a national scale (Forman and Alexander 1998). However, rates of 

roadkill mortality can be high enough to reduce population densities at the local level (Forman et al. 

2003). 

The presence of roads can lead indirectly, as well as directly, to wildlife mortality. Roads provide 

human access that can result in hunting, trapping, and poaching. The numbers of miles of designated 

motorized routes on the District are as follows: 

Table 3-16. Public Motorized Use Route Miles by Alternative – Sioux RD 

Alternative Motorized Route Miles 

Alternative A 466 

Alternative B 300 

No Action Alternative 399 

Since small, slow-moving animals are susceptible to mortality even on narrow roads, motorized trails 

were included in the above road mileages. 

Habitat Modification/Changes to Behavior 

Animals may respond either positively or negatively to the presence of a road. Response can occur 

through the mechanisms of shifts in home range, altered movement patterns, altered reproductive 

success, altered escape response, and altered physiological state (Trombulak and Frissell 1999). 

Trombulak and Frissell reference numerous studies that document behavioral changes due to roads. 

Both black bears and grizzly bears shifted their home ranges away from areas with high road densities 

(Brody and Pelton 1989, McLellan and Shackleton 1988). Elk in Montana preferred spring feeding at 

sites away from visible roads (Grover and Thompson 1986). Mountain lion home ranges are in areas 

with lower densities of improved dirt roads (Van Dyke, et al. 1986). In contrast, turkey vultures 

preferentially establish home ranges in areas with greater road densities (Coleman and Frasier 1989), 

probably because of increased carrion resulting from roadkill. 

Roads may also act as barriers to movement, particularly for small mammals and wetland species such 

as amphibians and turtles. Road width and traffic density are major factors contributing to barrier 

effect, whereas road surface is generally a minor factor. Some large mammals, such as wolverine, 

appear to not be affected by the presence of roads as far as home range size and shape is concerned 

(Forman and Alexander 1998). Others including pronghorn antelope (Bruns 1977) and mountain 

lions (Van Dyke et al 1986) seem reluctant to cross roads. 

Knight and Cole (1995a) presented specific effects of recreational activities typically associated with 

roads and trails on wildlife. Backpacking, hiking, and horseback riding elicited flight and/or elevated 

heart rates, and displacement. Motorized vehicles including motorcycles, ATVs, quadricycles, dune 

buggies, amphibious vehicles, and air-cushion vehicles potentially cause disturbance (flight and/or 

stress) and redistribution. 

Noise is one of the major factors in wildlife displacement and habitat loss. Noise can be defined as 

any “human-made sound that alters the behavior of animals or interferes with their normal 

functioning” (Bowles 1995). Some sounds are either higher or lower than what humans and some 

terrestrial animals can hear. Characteristics such as a species hearing ability, ability to escape sound, 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-58 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

habituation to noise, and other factors need to be considered when assessing effects of noise on 

wildlife (Finegold, et al 2004). Kaseloo and Tyson (2004) discuss numerous studies of effects of 

noise on specific species and species groups. Review of the results indicates that apparent affects of 

specific noise levels is quite variable between on species. 

Decibel levels (dB) of some vehicles commonly used on the National Forest include: 1) automobile 

from a distance of 25 feet – 80 dB (Truax 1999); 2) diesel truck from 50 feet – 84 dB (Federal 

Interagency Committee on Noise 1992); 3) motorcycle - 88 to 100 dB (Galen 2007, Truax 1999); and 

4) truck without muffler – 90 dB (Earthlink 2008) Decibel levels for other vehicles pertinent to the 

Sioux Travel Management, including ATV’s, were not found. 

A number of studies have shown that wild ungulates and carnivores increase movement in response to 

aircraft, snowmobiles, construction noise, road traffic, and walking visitors. Large mammals alter 

habitat use for 1-2 days after being disturbed by noise. Large mammals are able to adapt to 

predictable disturbance by avoiding an area during this time period. Mammals will habituate to noises 

without negative consequences, but do not habituate to being hunted, which actually amplifies their 

responses. Mammals can track noise and respond to noise that is approaching directly rather than to 

noise approaching them tangentially. Mammals may also abandon newborn young in response to 

noise. Startled carnivores may kill and eat their own young. Short-term aversive responses in 

mammals vary from mild reactions such as becoming alert to more severe activity such as running 

away while urinating or defecating (Bowles 1995). 

In general, with repeated exposures to either motorized or non-motorized activity, animals habituate 

or adapt both physiologically and behaviorally. Unfamiliar noise is more likely to arouse an animal 

than a harmless, familiar noise. Animals may have one of three responses to noise: attraction, 

tolerance or aversion. Mild responses may be difficult to detect. If mammals are repeatedly exposed 

to the same noise stimulus without negative associations, responses decline rapidly. Vertebrates can 

track the direction of movement and typically respond more strongly to direct approaches than to 

tangential passes (Knight and Gutzweiler 1995). 

Some species do respond positively to the presence of roads and trails. Routes may increase habitat 

for some species that prefer edges. New microhabits may be created along roads, such as at bridges 

that bats may use for roosting. Habitat enhancements may occur along roads, such as perches for 

raptors, increased forage from planted species, and carrion from road kills (Forman et al 2003). 

To analyze the general effects of motorized routes on wildlife, a one kilometer buffer on each side of a 

route was used as suggested by Ruediger (1996). This is considered the “virtual footprint” (Forman et 

al. 2003) of the route on the land. This is an average, but the true impacts of routes vary significantly 

with terrain, vegetation, amount and types of use on the route, species-specific behavior, and other 

factors. Only Forest Service motorized routes on the District were analyzed. The percent of the 

District untouched by the two kilometer cooridor along motorized routes is referred to as “core”. The 

results are shown in the following table. The percent of the District outside the two km footprint is 

the area where wildlife generally is undisturbed by travel routes and the activities that accompany 

them. Research has been conducted on the specific response of some wildlife species to motorized 

routes. Refer to other analyses for species such as black-footed ferrets and elk. These analyses are 

tailored to the species, with reviews of species-specific research, while the analysis presented here is 

very general. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-59

Table 3-17. Percent of Sioux Ranger District That is Core Habitat for Wildlife

Land Unit Alternative A Alternative B No Action 

Chalk Buttes 45 52 31 

Ekalaka Hills 10 21 7 

Long Pines 5 21 6 

East Short Pines 28 37 8 

West Short Pines 2 2 2 

North Cave Hills 8 19 9 

South Cave Hills 6 14 7 

Slim Buttes 27 30 26 

In general, effects of motorized roads and trails on most wildlife species are negative (Boyle and 

Samson 1985). The effects may vary by wildlife species and by individual. Effects also vary by the 

type of activity occurring on the road or trail. Seasonal closures of routes may offer some benefit to 

wildlife. Some routes were selected for seasonal closures during important times of year for a 

particular species, particularly big game. If motorized routes are closed when and where these 

activities occur, animals can function with less energy expenditure and more efficiency. 

3.3.3.10 Environmental Consequences – General Wildlife 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Mortality: Approximately 57 miles of higher speed unpaved roads (maintenance level 3) are on the 

District. These roads are rated for passenger vehicles with speeds up to 35 miles per hour. No 

changes are proposed for higher speed unpaved roads. The potential for animal mortality caused by 

collision with vehicles on maintenance level three roads would be the same under all alternatives. 

Habitat Modification /Changes to Behavior: Ruediger (1996) estimates that displacement of some 

species, or indirect habitat loss due to roads, may average 1 km on each side of a highway in a 

forested area and up to 3 km on each side in open habitats. For the affected area for general wildlife, 

we assumed a 1 km buffer on each side of both motorized and non-motorized routes, recognizing that 

this is probably an overestimate of some effects and an underestimate of others in all alternatives. 

The percent of the project area available as core habitat varies by alternative and land unit (see 

previous table. 

Alternative A 

Mortality: This alternative has the highest number of open motorized route miles and thus the 

greatest potential for mortality, particularly of small, slow moving animals such as reptiles. 

Habitat Modification /Changes to Behavior: The potential for habitat modification and changes to 

behavior would mostly likely be the highest for this alternative since 466 miles of public motorized 

routes are available. 

Alternative B 

Mortality: With the lowest open motorized route miles (300), this alternative has the lowest potential 

for leading to wildlife mortality and supports the highest percentage of core habitat. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-60 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

Habitat Modification /Changes to Behavior: The potential for habitat modification and changes to 

behavior would mostly likely be the lowest for this alternative since it provides the lowest amount, 

300 miles, of public motorized routes. 

No Action 

Mortality: The open motorized route miles, and thus the potential for mortality, would be less than 

Alternative A but higher than Alternative B. This alternative provides the lowest amount of Core 

Habitat. 

Habitat Modification/Changes to Behavior: The potential for habitat modification and changes to 

behavior would mostly likely be the second highest for this alternative since 399 miles of public 

motorized routes are available. 

Cumulative Effects – General Wildlife 

Mortality: Most of the mortality that occurs to wildlife species occurs on high speed, paved routes 

such as highways. Mortality on these types of roads can be significant for some species at some times 

of year. This is a cumulative effect that adds to effects on National Forest System routes. 

Habitat Modification /Changes to Behavior: The analysis of indirect habitat loss or displacement was 

presented for public Forest Service motorized routes on the Sioux Ranger District only. There is also 

a cumulative effect of private, county, state and federal roads on the National Forest or adjacent lands 

that were not considered in this analysis. The impacts to wildlife on private land and displacement of 

wildlife from private land are a cumulative effect that is likely to continue to increase. 

There are cumulative effects of the human activity associated with the use of roads and trails. There 

are also effects of the activities that humans do when they use roads and trails, including hunting, 

fishing, trapping, firewood cutting, viewing wildlife, etc. All of these activities can potentially disturb 

wildlife, and some can cause direct mortality (Knight and Cole 1995). Hiking, biking, fishing, ATV 

use, horseback riding, dispersed camping, and other recreational activities are projected to increase 

sizably over the next ten to twenty years. This will gradually add to cumulative impacts over time. 

Dispersed recreation has increased on the Forest, and the appreciation for nonconsumptive uses of 

wildlife has also increased. Increased human use of the Forest displaces wildlife and can degrade 

habitat. Recreational residence sites remove wildlife habitat and may displace wildlife in those areas. 

Outfitter/guides offer non-consumptive wildlife activities as well as take many hunters into the Forest. 

Outfitter/guiding is regulated and probably is less impact to wildlife than non-outfitted activities 

(USDA Forest Service 2006). Conservation easements on private lands outside the Forest protect 

habitat and are beneficial to wildlife. 

The presence of hiking and riding areas has led to the availability of habitat that is non-motorized and 

where wildlife is relatively undisturbed by large numbers of people. 

Livestock grazing will continue on the District. Improved range management practices and 

monitoring of range condition are expected to improve wildlife habitat. Control of noxious weeds is 

important for maintaining high quality wildlife habitat and will continue in the future. Efforts to 

restore native vegetation to the landscape or enhance species that are declining are beneficial to 

wildlife. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-61

Future improvements of FS roads and motorized routes may increase the impact of these facilities to 

wildlife by encouraging greater use. Other routes would be closed to public use, which would benefit 

wildlife in general. 

An increase in dispersed recreation in which many of the dispersed users are interested in wildlife may 

actually be somewhat detrimental to the resource they wish to see, photograph, or hunt. Additional 

education of the public on their wildlife resource is important so that wildlife habitat is protected as 

are the animals that use it. Increasing public use will decrease the ability of wildlife to fully occupy 

available habitat, and some species are more likely to be affected than others. 

Consistency with Laws, Regulations, and Policy 

The wildlife goal in the Custer National Forest Management Plan is to “manage and/or improve key 

wildlife and fisheries habitats, to enhance habitat quality and diversity, and to provide wildlife and 

fish-oriented recreation opportunities.” Forest Service Manual 2672.4 requires review of “all Forest 

Service planned, funded, executed, or permitted programs and activities for possible effects on 

endangered, threatened, proposed, or sensitive species.” All alternatives are consistent with the Custer 

National Forest Management Plan and Forest Service Manual direction. 

Determination of Effects – General Wildlife 

Implementation of the proposed Federal Action will have a Neutral Impact On General Wildlife 

Species And May Impact Individuals Or Habitat But Is Not Likely To Cause A Trend To Federal 

Listing Or Loss Of Viability For Reptile Species. This determination is based on the following 

rationale: 1) the preferred alternative would have the lowest number of open motorized routes (303); 

2) the preferred alternative reduces open motorized routes by 205 miles (41% reduction); 3) direct 

habitat loss would not increase under any alternative because construction of new routes is not 

proposed; 4) the preferred alternative supports the highest percentage of core habitat; and 5) even with 

the proposed travel plan modifications some wildlife mortality will continue to occur across the 

District’s road system. Recommendations for removing, avoiding, or compensating adverse effects 

are not necessary. 

3.3.3.11 Conclusion - Wildlife 

Wildlife effects analysis was conducted based on regulatory framework for threatened, endangered, 

sensitive, management indicator, and other species of concern. Conservation strategy standards and 

guidelines and literature-based recommended guidelines were also considered. Analysis for blackfooted ferret was based on motorized route density and potential effects on black-tailed prairie dog 

colonies. Analysis for elk was based on both motorized route density and secure habitat. Relative 

comparisons of available habitat and/or motorized route density were also conducted between 

alternatives for species and groups lacking conservation strategies, standards, or guidelines. The 

following outlines effects determinations for wildlife species. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-62 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

Table 3-18. Wildlife Effects Determinations F

11

Species Name Alternative A Alternative B No Action 

Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species 

Black-footed Ferret 

(Mustela nigripes) (Endangered) NLAA NLAA NLAA

Forest Service Sensitive Species 

American peregrine falcon 

(Falco peregrinus anatum) NI NI NI 

Baird’s sparrow (Ammodramus bairdii) NI NI NI

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 12 NI NI NI

Black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) NI NI NI

Blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila) NI NI NI

Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) NI NI NI

Greater sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) NI NI NI

Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) F

13 NI NI NI

Harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) NI NI NI

Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) NI NI NI

Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) NI NI NI

Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) MIIH MIIH MIIH

Long-legged myotis (myotis volans) MIIH MIIH MIIH

Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) MIIH MIIH MIIH

Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) MIIH MIIH MIIH

Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus 

townsendii) 

MIIH MIIH MIIH

Black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) MIIH MIIH MIIH

White-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys leucurus) NI NI NI

Wolverine (Gulo gulo) NI NI NI

Greater short-horned lizard (Phrynosoma 

hernandesi) 

MIIH MIIH MIIH

Milk Snake (Lampropeltis triangulum) MIIH MIIH MIIH

Western hog-nosed snake (Heterodon nasicus) MIIH MIIH MIIH

Management Indicator Species F

14

Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) (H) 0 0 0

White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)(H, K) 0 0 0

Ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) (H) 0 0 0

Western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis) (H) 0 0 0

Bullock’s (Northern) oriole (Icterus bullockii) 

(H) 0 0 0

Yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia) (H) 0 0 0

 

11 Options for effects determinations are: For federally listed species: NE = No effect; NLAA = May effect – not likely to adverse 

affect; LAA = May effect – likely to adversely affect; and BE = Beneficial effect. For Forest Service sensitive species: NI = No impact; 

MIIH = May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to Federal listing or loss of viability; WIFV = Likely to result in a trend 

to Federal listing or loss of viability; and BI = Beneficial impact. For management indicator species: + = Positive effect; 0 = Neutral 

effect; and - = Negative effect. For other species of concern: NE = No effect. 12 Bald eagle delisted effective August 8, 2007 and subsequently managed as a Forest Service Sensitive Species. 13 Grizzly bear delisted effective April 30, 2007 and subsequently managed as a Forest Service Sensitive Species as directed in “Final 

Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Yellowstone Ecosystem, Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, March 2003.” 

14 H = Habitat Indicator Species; K = Key Species 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-63

Table 3-18. Wildlife Effects Determinations F

11

Species Name Alternative A Alternative B No Action 

Oven bird (Seiurus aurocapillus) (H) 0 0 0

Spotted (Rufous-sided) towhee (Pipilo 

maculatus) (H) 0 0 0

Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella Breweri) (H) 0 0 0

Sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus)

(H, K) 0 0 0

Elk (Cervus canadensis) (K) 0 0 0

Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) (K) 0 0 0

Merlin (Falco columbarius) (K) 0 0 0

Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) (K) 0 0 0

Bighorn sheep (Ovis Canadensis) (K) 0 0 0

Pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra Americana) (K) 0 0 0

3.4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES – OTHER ISSUES 

3.4.1 WATER QUALITY, FISHERIES, AND AQUATICS 

Overview of Changes from the Draft to the Final EIS 

 Changes involved additional narrative to clarify analysis results and address comments 

received on the DEIS. 

 Changes were also made in a few watershed risk categories and action risk categories. Two 

low risk watersheds were changed to moderate; South Fork Grand River- Sand Creek and 

Snow Creek. The action risk category for season of use changed from an action that decreases 

risk to an action that does not change risk. The action risk category for addition of non-system 

roads for public and administrative use changed and is now relative to whether this action is 

compared to the existing condition or the no-action condition. See Table 3-22 and discussion 

under the section Relative Route Risks by Action. 

3.4.1.1 Introduction 

This section outlines affected environment and environmental effects of travel management to water 

resources. This section also addresses the impacts of motorized uses on Forest Service Region 1 

sensitive fish and amphibian species, management indicator aquatic species, and aquatic habitat. 

3.4.1.2 Affected Environment – Water Quality 

Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policy 

Federal Clean Water Act requires Federal Agencies to comply with all federal, state, and local 

requirements, administrative authority, process and sanctions related to the control and abatement of 

water pollution (CWA, Sections 313(a) and 319(k)). The Act gives authority to individual States to 

develop, review, and enforce water quality standards under Section 303. This section also requires the 

States to identify existing water bodies that do not meet water quality standards, and develop plans to 

meet them. These plans are commonly called TMDLs, an acronym for total maximum daily load. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-64 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

Federal Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 sets policy to define why the national forests were 

established and how they should be administered relative to outdoor recreation, range, timber, 

watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes. [T]hat some land will be used for less than all of the 

resources; and harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources, each with the other, 

without impairment of the productivity of the land, with consideration being given to the relative 

values of the various resources, and not necessarily the combination of uses that will give the greatest 

dollar return or the greatest unit output (16 USC 2 (I); Sec 528). 

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MTDEQ) has classified all waters within the 

Montana portion of the analysis area as C-3 waters. The beneficial uses associated with this 

classification include; bathing, swimming, and recreation; growth and propagation of non-salmonid 

fishes and associated aquatic life, waterfowl, and furbearers. The quality of these waters is naturally 

marginal for drinking, culinary and food processing purposes, agricultural and industrial water supply. 

Degradation which will impact established beneficial uses will not be allowed. (Administrative Rules 

of Montana (ARM) 17.30.611 2008). 

The Montana Surface Water Quality Standards require that land management activities must not 

generate pollutants in excess of those that are naturally occurring, regardless of the stream’s 

classification. Under ARM 17.30.623 (2) (f) “No increases are allowed above naturally occurring 

concentrations of sediment, settleable solids, oils, or floating solids, which will or are likely to create a 

nuisance or render the waters harmful, detrimental, or injurious to public health, recreation, safety, 

welfare, livestock, wild animals, birds, fish, or other wildlife.” Naturally occurring is defined in ARM 

17.30.602 (19) as: “the water quality condition resulting from runoff or percolation, over which man 

has no control, or from developed lands where all reasonable land, soil and water conservation 

practices have been applied”. Reasonable land, soil and water conservation practices are similar to 

Best Management Practices (BMPs). BMPs are considered reasonable only if beneficial uses are fully 

supported. BMPs are further discussed under the section Soil and Water Conservation Practices. 

Riparian and stream conditions are assessed by MTDEQ to determine the level of beneficial uses 

support. Streams that do not fully support their uses do not fully meet water quality standards. The 

status of water quality assessment and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) development of streams 

are identified in a biennial report from MTDEQ (2006). The 2006 Montana 305(b)/303(d) Water 

Quality Assessment Database lists three streams within the analysis area where one or more uses are 

impaired and a TMDL is required (Category 5). Refer to Table 3-21 for more detail on these streams. 

The State of Montana has the authority to develop TMDLs. On streams with multiple ownerships, the 

Forest Service cooperates with the State and other adjacent landowners in the development process. 

Additionally, the fact that a particular stream is listed does not preclude management activities from 

occurring. Montana Code Annotated (MCA) 75-5-703(10)(c), states: (10) Pending completion of a 

TMDL on a water body listed pursuant to MCA 75-5-702: (c) new or expanded non-point source 

activities affecting a listed water body may commence and continue their activities provided those 

activities are conducted in accordance with reasonable land, soil, and water conservation practices 

(MCA 2008). 

Beneficial use classification for all streams in the South Dakota portion of the analysis area is fish and 

wildlife propagation, recreation, and stock watering waters (category 9, South Dakota Administrative 

Rules (SDAR), Surface Water Quality Standards, 74:51:03:01 (SDAR 2008)). The criteria of 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-65

parameters for fish and wildlife propagation, recreation, and stock watering waters and their allowable 

variations that are provided in the following table: 

Table 3-19. Criteria for Fish and Wildlife Propagation, Recreation, and Stock Watering 

Waters (74:51:01:52)

Parameter Criteria Unit of Measure Special Conditions

< 750 mg/L 30-day average Total alkalinity as calcium carbonate < 1313 mg/L daily maximum 

< 2,500 mg/L 30-day average Total dissolved solids < 4,375 mg/L daily maximum 

< 4,000 micromhos/cm 30-day average Conductivity at 25°C < 7,000 micromhos/cm daily maximum 

< 50 mg/L 30-day average Nitrates as N < 88 mg/L daily maximum 

pH > 6.0 - < 9.5 units see § 74:51:01:07 

Total petroleum hydrocarbon < 10 mg/L see § 74:51:01:10 

Oil and grease < 10 mg/L see § 74:51:01:10 

The most applicable surface water quality standards for streams in South Dakota include: 

“Compliance with criteria for beneficial use. A person may not discharge or cause to be discharged 

into surface waters of the state pollutants which cause the receiving water to fail to meet the criteria 

for its existing or designated beneficial use or uses” (SDAR 74:51:01:02). “Biological integrity of 

waters. All waters of the state must be free from substances, whether attributable to human-induced 

point source discharges or nonpoint source activities, in concentrations or combinations which will 

adversely impact the structure and function of indigenous or intentionally introduced aquatic 

communities” (SDAR 74:51:01:12). “Antidegradation of waters of the state. The antidegradation 

policy for this state is as follows (SDAR 74:51:01:34): (1) The existing beneficial uses of surface 

waters of the state and the level of water quality that is assigned by designated beneficial uses shall be 

maintained and protected; (2) Surface waters of the state in which the existing water quality is better 

than the minimum levels prescribed by the designated beneficial use shall be maintained and protected 

at that higher quality level; (3) The board, or secretary, may allow a lowering of the water quality to 

levels established under the designated beneficial use if it is necessary in order to accommodate 

important economic or social development in the area in which the waters are located; (4) Surface 

waters of the state which do not meet the levels of water quality assigned to the designated beneficial 

use shall be improved as feasible to meet those levels; (5) No further reduction of water quality may 

be allowed for surface waters of the state that do not meet the water quality levels assigned to their 

designated beneficial uses as a result of natural causes or conditions, and all new discharges must 

meet applicable water quality standards; and (6) The secretary shall assure that regulatory 

requirements are achieved for all new and existing point sources and that non-point sources are 

controlled through cost effective and reasonable best management practices.” 

Larger stream systems are assessed by the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources to determine the level of beneficial use support. Streams that do not fully support their uses 

do not fully meet water quality standards. These streams are identified in a report by the Department 

of Environment and Natural Resources as impaired waterbodies in need of TMDL development. The 

2008 South Dakota Integrated Report - Surface Water Quality Assessment (SD-DENR, 2008) does 

not identify any streams within the Forest as impaired, but does identify one stream immediately 

adjacent to the north end of the Slim Buttes; the South Fork Grand River. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-66 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

2005 Travel Management Final Rule provides the following direction related to water quality: (b) 

Specific criteria for designation of trails and areas. [C]onsider effects on the following, with the 

objective of minimizing: (1) Damage to soil, watershed, vegetation and other forest resources. (36 

CFR 212.55). 

Custer National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan identifies management goals for soil, 

water and riparian resources under Chapter II - Forest Wide Management Direction and Chapter III – 

Management Area Direction. The Forest Plan goal for watershed management is to: [E]nsure that soil 

productivity is maintained and that water quality is maintained at a level which meets or exceeds state 

water quality standards (page 4). The objectives for soil and water resources are: Continue to produce 

water that meets State water quality standards. National Forest System lands will be managed so that 

the soil and watershed conditions are in a desirable condition and will remain in that condition for the 

foreseeable future. Soil and water quality objectives are designed to assure that these resources meet 

State water quality objectives and BMPs (Best Management Practices) are incorporated to assure this 

(page 5). The goal for riparian areas include: [M]anage for water quality, provide diverse vegetation, 

and protect key wildlife habitat in these areas from conflicting uses and uses and activities that 

adversely impact these areas will be mitigated (page 3). The objectives for riparian areas include 

recognition of their unique values, and management direction is to be designed to protect these key 

wildlife habitats and improve water quality: [T]hese areas will be managed in relation to various 

legally mandated requirements including, but not limited to, those associated with floodplains, 

wetlands, water quality, dredged and fill material, endangered species, and cultural resources (page 5). 

The goals for Management Area M (Riparian) are: Manage to protect from conflicting uses in order to 

provide healthy, self-perpetuating plant and water communities that will have optimum diversity and 

density of understory and overstory vegetation (page 80). 

Soil and Water Conservation Practices (or BMPs) are the primary mechanism to comply with state 

and federal water quality law by minimizing water quality impacts from non-point source pollution 

while still allowing dispersed land management activities to occur on National Forest System land. To 

reach these objectives the Forest Service developed the R1/R4 Forest Service Soil and Water 

Conservation Practices Handbook (USDA Forest Service 1995). This handbook is not available on the 

Region 1 internet website, but is available from the project file. A revised handbook is anticipated 

from the Washington Office in 2009 or 2010. 

Practices specific to travel management include: 11.01 - Determination of Cumulative Watershed 

Effects, 11.09 - Management by Closure to Use, 12.10 - Management of Off-Road Vehicle Use, 12.11 

- Protection of Water Quality Within Developed and Dispersed Recreation Areas, 12.12 - Location of 

Pack and Riding Stock Facilities in Wilderness, Primitive, and Backcountry Areas, 15.01 - General 

Guidelines for Transportation Planning, 15.02 - General Guidelines for the Location and Design of 

Roads and Trails, 15.03 - Road and Trail Erosion Control Plan, 15.21 - Maintenance of Roads, 15.23 - 

Traffic Control During Wet Periods, and 15.27 - Trail Maintenance and Rehabilitation. The 

effectiveness of these BMPs and other road maintenance and construction BMPs can be found in 

Logan (2001), Seyedbagheri (1996), and USDA-FS (2002). 

Introduction - Water Quality 

Both natural events and human activities have the potential to impact soil, water and riparian 

resources across both forest and range land. Significant natural events include wildfire and floods, 

while the most significant human activities include mining, livestock grazing, roads/trails, floodplain 

development, timber harvest and recreation. The degree of impact depends upon the soil and 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-67

hydrologic characteristics of the watershed and how sensitive and resilient they are to these 

disturbances. Soil and hydrologic characteristics vary extensively across the landscape and are 

dictated by local landform, geologic material and climate. 

Natural Characteristics and Processes 

Watersheds, undisturbed by human influences, are not static systems. Deep snow packs and heavy 

spring rains can cause substantial flooding, landslides and instream erosion. Wildfire, wind, or insect 

and disease mortality can drastically alter the vegetative composition of a watershed. Depending on 

the extent of mortality and rate of stand decomposition, impacts to stream systems can also be 

substantial. Beneficial uses, including fisheries habitat, can be negatively affected by these natural 

events. However, watersheds left undisturbed after natural events, can and do recover rapidly, and 

ultimately provide conditions that fully support all beneficial uses within a relatively short period of 

time. These natural disturbances occur infrequently, which allows for significant and generally rapid 

recovery of hydrologic and erosional processes prior to the next major disturbance event. This results 

in pulse effects to water resources, which are moderate to high in magnitude, but low in frequency. 

Within the current climatic regime and prior to significant human influence, stream systems have 

developed under pulse type disturbances. 

Geology, Landform, Erosion and Sediment 

The underlying geology within the project area is intermixed sedimentary beds of clay, silt and sand. 

These structures have weathered to form steep cliff features along portions of the perimeter of most 

land units, while landforms along the remaining perimeter are less steep and more convex in nature. 

Erosion is a natural process of geologic decomposition that occurs in all watersheds. The rate at 

which it occurs is a function of soil and stream characteristics, precipitation and flow regimes, and 

vegetative cover. There are three basic types of erosion; 1) detachment and routing of individual soil 

particles from the land surface; 2) mass wasting such as landslides and slumps; and 3) detachment and 

mobilization of stream channel banks or bottom material, i.e., instream erosion. All of these processes 

produce “sediment,” and all stream systems transport sediment. Sediment is a loosely used term that 

can refer to a wide range of channel substrate particle sizes, i.e., silt, sand, gravel, cobble, boulder, etc. 

The larger particle sizes are generally produced through instream erosion or mass wasting and are 

commonly referred to as bedload. The finer particles that are suspended in flowing water can be 

produced through all of the erosion processes mentioned above. 

Geology and landforms within the analysis area have produced soils that are generally stable and not 

highly erodible when adequately vegetated. MacDonald and Stednick (2003) suggest that undisturbed 

forested watersheds typically have very low erosion rates because of high infiltration rates and limited 

surface runoff. Erosion rates have been estimated at less than 0.1 tons per acre per year for most 

forested areas in the interior western U.S. (Patric et al. 1984). Stednick (2000) summarized research 

concerning timber management in the Northern Rockies which also suggests that erosion rates for 

undisturbed forested landscapes (control watersheds, no harvest/roads) are very low (0 - 0.09 t/ac/yr). 

Therefore, in the absence of wildfire, hillslope surface erosion within undisturbed areas across the 

analysis area is considered to be nearly non-existent. The exception to this occurs on steep, high 

energy (south facing) landforms composed of fine textured material. Due to dry site conditions and 

steep slopes, vegetation can be sparse. Episodic precipitation events that saturate these soils can result 

in landslides (mass wasting) that release substantial amounts of sediment downslope. However, at the 

broad scale, instream erosion is considered the dominant erosion process across the analysis area. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-68 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

Precipitation and Flow Regimes 

Elevations across the land units range from under 3400 to over 4300 feet. Based on a 30 year period of 

record, the average annual precipitation associated with these elevations range from 14 to 20 inches 

(MT-NRIS 2008). The majority of the precipitation falls as spring snow or rain from April through 

June. 

Precipitation levels and geologic formations result in the ephemeral flow regimes for the majority of 

the drainages within the land units. Short perennial streams do however, occur below many spring 

sites. Spring (groundwater) discharge results in relatively constant flow throughout the year, although 

infrequent but significant peaks can occur during heavy spring snow and rain events that produce 

overland flow. 

Historically, beaver played a significant role throughout the project area through the development of 

extensive dam/pond networks. Beaver populations have been reduced relative to historic levels. 

Although temporary, beaver dams and ponds are an important component of riparian systems. They 

help to trap and store both sediment and water. A reduction in beaver populations over the years has 

likely resulted in lower water tables and lower late season streamflows along most streams. 

Vegetative composition is largely defined by climate and soils, but natural agents including fire, 

insects or disease, and wind can drastically alter vegetative cover. Over the last three decades, timber 

stands have been affected by wildfire on just under 70,000 acres across the District. Wildfire events 

have likely resulted in substantial increases in localized surface erosion although sediment delivery to 

perennial streams has not been quantified. Surface erosion and sediment transport subsides to back 

ground levels generally within five years as ground vegetation recovers. Recent wind events in the 

Ekalaka Hills caused substantial damage to timber stands, some of which is planned for salvage 

operations. 

Human Influences 

Humans have influenced watersheds and water quality for centuries. Prior to European settlement, 

Native Americans used fire to manipulate vegetation which influenced hydrologic processes at the 

local scale. As European settlement occurred, so did uncontrolled beaver harvest, timber harvest and 

forage harvest through livestock grazing. All of these activities had long term impacts to watershed 

characteristics and hydrologic processes. 

Currently, many activities influence water quality and natural channel processes including historical 

mining, livestock grazing, crop production, timber harvest and transportation systems. Some of these 

activities are constant or occur on an annual basis, e.g., transportation systems or livestock grazing. 

The effects from these types of activities are considered chronic. Although chronic effects are 

generally low to moderate in magnitude, they occur with moderate to high frequency. In contrast to 

pulse effects discussed previously, chronic effects may not allow for significant recovery of the soil 

and water resource over time. 

Historical Uranium Mining 

Uranium exploration has occurred throughout all land units on the District since the mid 50’s, while 

extractive mining of uranium was concentrated in the Cave Hills and specifically in the area of Riley 

Pass. Mining occurred between 1962 and 1964, and under federal legislation at the time, no 

reclamation of mining activities were required. Approximately 250 acres were disturbed in the North 

Cave Hills either through excavation of overburden to expose ore deposits, or off-site deposition of 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-69

waste material. Currently, under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 

Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), approximately 80 percent of this disturbance is under contract for 

reclamation (USDA-FS 2007). Depending on the concentration of hazardous substances in the mine 

waste (mainly arsenic and uranium), reclamation actions range from basic site stabilization and 

revegetation, to removal of contaminated waste to on-site repositories that are stabilized, capped and 

revegetated. This work is anticipated to be completed within five to six years. The remaining 

reclamation needs will be accomplished through contract as funding opportunities arise. 

Livestock Grazing 

Livestock grazing has occurred within the analysis area since the late 1800s. Livestock numbers have 

decreased over the years; in some allotments quite substantially. Currently there are 63 allotments 

providing 58,043 animal unit months (AUMs) on 126,000 acres of suitable range on the District. 

Recent range analyses have identified issues concerning livestock grazing impacts to riparian systems 

and water quality. In general, livestock grazing can impact riparian systems through overuse of 

streamside vegetation and destabilization of streambanks. Water quality impacts can occur by 

increasing levels of fine sediment, increasing water temperature or changing flow regimes. The 2006 

Slim Buttes and 2008 Long Pines Range Analysis Decisions proposed changes in range management 

to address these issues on the District. Range management planning across the remainder of the 

analysis area is ongoing. 

Timber Harvest and Prescribed Fire 

Timber harvest over the last three decades encompasses just under 19,000 acres on the District. 

Prescribed fire over the last two decades encompasses approximately 5000 acres on the District. On a 

watershed basis, neither harvest nor prescribed burn activities are substantial enough to be detrimental 

to water resources. Both of these activities have helped to reduce fuel loads and potential for future 

catastrophic wildfires. 

Transportation Systems- General Influences on Water Resources

Roads modify natural drainage networks and accelerate erosion processes. These changes can alter 

physical processes in streams, leading to changes in streamflow regimes, sediment transport and 

storage, channel bank and bed configurations, substrate composition, and stability of slopes adjacent 

to streams (Furniss et al. 1991). Numerous studies have identified unpaved roads as a major source of 

sediment in streams (Elliot 2000). Sudgen and Woods (2007) measured 20 unsurfaced road plots in 

western Montana and found average annual sediment yields to be 5.4 Mg/ha/yr (14.7 tons/ac/yr). In 

relation to other transportation systems (single or two-track motorized/non-motorized trails), roads 

open to full size vehicles pose the greatest risk of impact to water resources due to 1) largest tread 

width, 2) largest weight, size and force of vehicle, and 3) generally higher use levels. 

Motorized two-track trails can also negatively affect streams. Meadows (2007) suggests that ATV 

trails are high-runoff, high-sediment producing strips on low-runoff, low-sediment producing 

landscapes. For six study sites across six states, he found that sediment concentrations generally 

tended to increase with increasing disturbance levels. Although runoff did not appear to increase for 

the Montana site, sediment increased by approximately 625%, compared to the undisturbed, pretraffic forest floor. 

Motorized and non-motorized single track trails can also negatively affect streams, but the degree of 

affect is determined by the mode of travel. Deluca et al. (1998) found a substantial increase in 

sediment supply from horse traffic when compared to foot or llama traffic. Wilson and Seney (1994) 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-70 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

documented similar conclusions concerning horse traffic. They also suggest that two-wheeled cycle 

traffic (motor/bi-cycle) results in less sediment than either horse or foot traffic, although the actual 

data appears to suggest foot traffic produces the least sediment. These two studies documented 

opposite results concerning sediment production on wet trails. Wilson and Seney (1994) documented 

increased sediment production on wetted trails, whereas Deluca et al. (1998) found no increase. Cole 

(1991) found, in a study of three trails in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness of Montana, that although 

most individual trail segments experienced change, there was no net erosion over an 11 year period. 

Unplanned (non-system) routes have the potential to be the most detrimental to water quality because 

of improper location of the route in relation to adjacent streams. Incorporating adequate BMPs into the 

design, construction and maintenance phases of all routes can minimize negative effects to the greatest 

extent feasible and still provide a long-term transportation network. 

Transportation route impacts on wetlands were identified where routes are known to intersect 

wetlands, or narrow riparian/stream corridors. Six routes with unimproved crossings occur on the 

District, three in the Long Pines (3036, 3057W and 3089), and three in the South Cave Hills (3137, 

3113, and 31133). Appendix D provides observations and recommendations for these sites. 

Anticipated effects on these wetland sites from the proposed actions are disclosed in the 

Environmental Consequences section. 

Individual route risks have not been evaluated from site specific GIS spatial data or field data as this 

data has not been generated or collected across the District. Additionally, cumulative impacts of 

individual routes at the watershed scale have also not been quantified on-ground or instream. Instead, 

existing route networks were evaluated cumulatively at the watershed scale through GIS to determine 

relative risks to water resources. Since impacts to water quality generally occur from concentrated 

road surface flows routed directly to streams at crossing locations (bridges, culverts or fords), stream 

crossings were a key variable in the evaluation. All routes, regardless of ownership were included in 

the evaluation, although routes with Forest Service jurisdiction were also summarized separately as 

these are the routes potentially affected by the proposed actions. Refer to the next section for the 

results of this evaluation. 

Affected Environment Summary 

The water resource affected environment analysis is a broad scale, risk based assessment. Risks are 

determined at the 6 HUC (hydrologic unit code) watershed scale from GIS spatial data. A summary of 

selected natural characteristics and human activities are provided in Table 3-20. Quantifiable Forest 

Service activities include past timber harvest, fire (prescribed fire and wildfire), and existing 

transportation system attributes (route miles and number of stream crossings). All watersheds have 

some level of past and present agricultural activity (crop production and/or livestock grazing). Other 

than the information provided above on Forest Service range allotments, the effects of agricultural 

activities to water resources have not been assessed. Six HUC watersheds were used as the analysis 

area for the affected environment because the area encompassed (10,000 to 40,000 acres) provides a 

reasonable and manageable number of analysis units across the District (53). Smaller or larger 

watersheds would not provide better information for the deciding officer concerning water resource 

effects. 

Watersheds were assigned a risk level to help focus cumulative effects analysis for water resources. 

The risk level is based on 1) perennial stream crossings by FS routes, 2) total perennial stream miles, 

3) intermittent stream crossings by FS routes, 4) TMDL listed streams, and 5) exceptionally high fire 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-71

acres. High risk watersheds have Forest Service roads with perennial stream crossings, exceptionally 

high number of intermittent crossings on Forest Service Roads, or are TMDL category 5 streams with 

intermittent crossings on Forest Service roads. Moderate risk watersheds have more than one mile of 

Forest Service roads and more than one mile of perennial stream downslope, are TMDL category 5 

streams without any stream crossings on Forest Service roads, or have exceptionally high fire acres 

and intermittent stream crossings. The remaining watersheds are Low risk and were not carried 

forward to the direct and indirect effects analysis, but are included in cumulative effects. Of the 53 

watersheds on the District, 11 are rated high risk, 18 moderate and 24 low. 

As mentioned previously, riparian and stream conditions are also assessed by the MTDEQ and 

SDDENR to determine the level of beneficial use support. Impaired streams with known pollutant 

related sources require a TMDL (Category 4A and 5 streams). Category 4A streams have all necessary 

TMDLs in place, while category 5 streams still need TMDLs developed. Impaired streams with no 

known pollutant related sources do not require a TMDL (Category 4C streams). Category 1 streams 

fully support all beneficial uses, while category 3 streams have not had all beneficial uses assessed. 

This assessment provides the best information on current stream conditions below the Forest 

boundary. A summary of streams identified on the 2006 303(d) List are provided in Table 3-21. 

Watersheds with Category 5 streams are also identified in Table 3-20. 

The 2006 Montana 305(b)/303(d) Water Quality Report lists one mainstem reach immediately below 

the analysis area that requires a TMDL: Little Missouri River (MTDEQ 2006). Impaired uses include 

aquatic life and warm water fisheries. Probable causes for impairment of the Little Missouri are 

metals- cadmium, copper, iron, lead and zinc. Probable sources are natural sources and unknown. 

Intermittent tributaries to the Little Missouri headwater on National Forest System land. 

Transportation systems in these headwater areas have the potential to influence aquatic life and warm 

water fisheries downstream, but do not contribute to the causes identified. 

The 2008 South Dakota Integrated Report for Surface Water Quality Assessment lists one stream 

adjacent to the analysis area that requires a TMDL: South Fork Grand River (SD-DENR 2008). 

Impaired uses include irrigation and warmwater semi-permanent fish. The probable cause for 

impairment of irrigation is salinity while the cause for impairment of fish is total suspended solids 

(TSS). Probable sources for TSS are crop production, grazing in riparian or shoreline zones and 

natural sources. No sources for salinity are listed. Intermittent tributaries to the South Fork Grand 

River headwater on National Forest System land. Management activities on National Forest System 

land have the potential to contribute to TSS in streams including transportation management. 
Page 3-72 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and 

Sioux Travel Mana

Table 3-20. Summary of Watershed Characteristics and Watershed Scale Influences on the District 

Watershed # State Watershed Name 

Watershed Acres 

Percent Watershed 

Forest Service 

Total Perennial 

Stream Miles 

FS Perennial Stream 

Miles 

Harvest Acres 

Fire Acres 

Total Road Miles 

FS Road Miles 

Total Stream 

Crossings 

101102010704 MT Upper Tie Creek 23220 35 9 3 2099 6854 65 24 82 101102010705 MT Lower Tie Creek 22935 11 13 1 350 3369 41 7 51 101102020505 MT Speelmon Creek 17718 63 6 6 2350 10355 57 36 99 101303010104 SD Upper Crooked Creek 18046 16 7 <1 0 2 37 10 35 101102010802 MT Plum Creek 12819 70 5 1 1943 10685 47 33 43 101303020405 SD Bull Creek- Campbell Creek 13471 48 17 2 0 1464 37 15 26 101303020406 SD Dry Creek 10396 42 5 2 0 60 31 14 28 101102010803 MT Slick Creek 37776 31 20 1 1709 12052 104 34 109 101102010801 MT Little Missouri River-K Bar Creek F15 43315 4 27 0 12 2284 87 6 84 101102011004 MT Russell Creek 16090 41 13 0 5215 2425 82 30 107 101102010706 MT Little Missouri River-Waterhole CreekH15 41162 9 16 0 9 4402 95 15 76 101102010701 MT Little Missouri River-Sand CreekH15 24861 4 10 0 0 61 52 2 37 101303050406 SD Gap Creek 24693 11 20 4 5 1 43 9 43 101303010105 SD Middle Crooked Creek 14933 15 15 0 0 0 28 7 22 101102011005 MT Little Beaver Creek-Terrell Creek 35999 8 15 0 698 2 87 12 125 101303020408 SD Bull Creek- Hay Creek 12219 8 13 0 0 2 22 3 17 101303020403 SD Bull Creek- Cottonwood Creek 13150 4 13 0 0 69 28 2 38 101303010106 SD Petes Creek 13302 12 12 0 0 0 28 5 20 101102020510 MT Boxelder Creek-Wood Gulch 21619 7 11 0 0 19 37 8 39 101102020506 MT Boxelder Creek-Little Ramme Creek 32305 12 11 0 30 4622 81 9 63 

15 TMDL Category 5 listed stream.
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and 

Page 3-73 Sioux Travel Mana

Table 3-20. Summary of Watershed Characteristics and Watershed Scale Influences on the District 

Watershed # State Watershed Name 

Watershed Acres 

Percent Watershed 

Forest Service 

Total Perennial 

Stream Miles 

FS Perennial Stream 

Miles 

Harvest Acres 

Fire Acres 

Total Road Miles 

FS Road Miles 

Total Stream 

Crossings 

101303020504 SD South Fork Grand River- Prairie Dog CreekH15 17776 12 10 3 0 0 14 3 6 101102011006 MT HS Creek 14229 18 9 0 752 107 47 10 60 101102011003 MT Little Beaver Creek-Dugan Draw 23310 7 8 0 1602 6 59 10 82 101102020508 MT Boxelder Creek-Devils Canyon 15205 24 6 0 0 3387 32 9 30 101102011002 MT Headwaters Little Beaver Creek 22987 20 4 0 1165 51 72 10 80 101303020304 SD Middle Jones Creek 13720 19 4 0 0 924 49 7 23 101303020505 SD South Fork Grand River- Fisher CreekH15 13257 26 3 3 0 0 22 4 16 101303020501 SD South Fork Grand River- Sand CreekH15 11013 13 3 0 0 0 12 3 4 101102020509 MT Snow Creek 12658 89 0 0 494 10227 50 38 87 101102020504 MT Boxelder Creek-Belltower 30302 2 22 0 0 225 81 0 88 101303050109 SD Little Cowboy Creek- North Fork Moreau River 14958 2 10 0 0 0 15 0 10 101303020305 SD Lower Jones Creek 17148 3 9 0 0 0 21 0 25 101303050101 SD Chalk Butte Draw- North Fork Moreau River 17844 2 2 0 0 0 48 0 57 101303050106 SD Red Butte Creek 12328 13 1 0 0 0 7 1 7 101303020206 SD Sioux Creek 18077 35 0 0 0 2 30 12 21 101303040104 SD Ash Coulee 21058 11 0 0 0 402 41 9 27 101303040401 SD North Sand Creek- Sand Creek 20166 17 0 0 0 117 32 6 42 101102020403 MT Buffalo Creek 29301 5 0 0 0 0 82 6 95 101303020205 SD Lower Unnamed Tributary to Clarks Fork Creek 18336 12 0 0 0 0 18 1 11 101303050202 SD Spring Creek 19909 13 0 0 0 20 28 4 24 101102020507 MT Harmon Creek 14636 14 0 0 243 0 35 7 39 101303020407 SD Jack Creek 11479 3 0 0 0 20 16 0 15 
Page 3-74 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and 

Sioux Travel Mana

Table 3-20. Summary of Watershed Characteristics and Watershed Scale Influences on the District 

Watershed # State Watershed Name 

Watershed Acres 

Percent Watershed 

Forest Service 

Total Perennial 

Stream Miles 

FS Perennial Stream 

Miles 

Harvest Acres 

Fire Acres 

Total Road Miles 

FS Road Miles 

Total Stream 

Crossings 

101102020503 MT Big Ramme Creek 17740 6 0 0 200 17 37 4 51 101303050401 SD Jones Creek- Rabbit Creek 17037 65 0 0 0 464 45 27 32 101303050601 SD Headwaters of Antelope Creek 19957 33 0 0 0 1 34 19 23 100902090601 MT Upper Spring Creek 23702 19 0 0 0 342 55 12 75 101102020602 MT Spring Creek 23745 13 0 0 0 1557 42 6 61 101303020601 SD Headwaters of Big Nasty Creek 13438 7 0 0 0 170 35 4 39 101303050403 SD Point Creek 17553 13 0 0 0 5 29 3 25 101303020204 SD East Branch Unnamed Tributary to Clarks Fork Creek 16621 8 0 0 0 539 23 1 21 101102020401 MT Fresh Water Draw 14827 5 0 0 0 10 38 1 37 101303050207 SD Sheep Creek 16289 10 0 0 0 0 9 1 6 101303050205 SD Ash Creek 10150 10 0 0 0 1 10 0 10 

SUM 1030788 na 352 27 18876 77322 2258 500 2373 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and 

Page 3-75 Sioux Travel Mana

Table 3-21. Summary of TMDL Streams Within or Immediately Adjacent to the District 

Stream/TMDL 

category Probable Impaired Use* F16 Probable Cause of Impairment Probable Source of Impairment 

TMDL Category 5 Streams (TMDLs Required)

Little Missouri River Category 5 

Aquatic Life Support (P) Warm Water Fishery (P) 

Cadmium, Copper, Iron, Lead, Zinc 

Natural Sources, Sources unknown 

Montana- Hwborder. Mainboundary. 

South Fork Grand River Category 5 

Irrigation (N) Warmwater semi permanent Fish Life (N) 

Salinity Total Suspended Solids 

Crop Production Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline Zones, Natural Sources 

South DakotMainstem at boundary. 

TMDL Category 1 and 3 Streams (TMDLs Not Currently Required) 

Box Elder Creek Category 3 

All uses not assessed Montana- He

Mainstem at boundary. 

Buffalo Creek Category 1 

All uses fully supported Montana- He

Mainstem at boundary. 

16 P= partial use support, N= nonsupport.
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-76 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

3.4.1.3 Environmental Consequences – Water Quality 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives - Water Quality 

Direct Effects 

Relative to transportation systems, only the installation, reconstruction, or active removal and 

restoration of stream crossing structures result in direct effects to water quality, because the effect 

occurs during implementation of the action. For this analysis, fords are also considered a stream 

crossing structure. Since there are no actions proposed to actively change specific stream crossings 

under this analysis, there are no direct effects to evaluate. 

Indirect Effects 

Indirect effects occur at a later time or distance from the proposed action. For example, a non-system 

route upslope from a stream and proposed for public use could potentially result in sediment delivery 

to the stream during wet periods. However, this potential effect would likely occur at a later time than 

the decision to designate the route, and would be some distance downslope from the designated route, 

hence an indirect effect. 

Only routes with proposed actions are evaluated for indirect effects. Existing system routes that are 

designated without further actions, or non-system routes not converted to system routes, are not 

considered actions under this analysis. However, these routes are incorporated into the cumulative 

effects analysis below as default actions. Proposed actions for individual routes under this analysis 

include designating non-system routes for public and administrative use, not designating existing 

system routes, designating system and non-system roads for administrative use only, converting 

system roads to trails, changing a fall season of use, or changing the mode of travel (vehicle). 

Relative Route Risks By Action 

Indirect and cumulative effects are based on whether the action for an individual route will increase, 

decrease or have no effect on route risk to water resources. For indirect effects, as presented in Table 

3-24, the influence of the proposed action on risk is based on a comparison with the no-action 

condition. For cumulative effects, as presented in Table 3-25, the influence of the proposed and 

default actions on risk are based on a comparison with the existing condition. This rationale is 

displayed in the following table. 

Table 3-22. Summary of Relative Route Risks by Action and Condition

Action 

Change in Route Risk as 

Compared to Existing 

Condition 

Change in Route Risk 

as Compared to No 

Action Condition 

Proposed Actions Under Action Alternatives 

Add (designate non-system routes for public use) No Change Increase 

Add (designate non-system routes for administrative use) Decrease Increase 

Administrative (designate system routes for administrative use) Decrease Decrease 

Do Not Designate (system routes) Decrease Decrease 

Vehicle (change mode of travel) No Change No Change 

Convert (from roads to trails) No Change No Change 

Season (apply season of use 12/1-10/14 or yearlong) No Change No Change 

No Camping No Change No Change 

Default Actions Under No Action Alternative 

Do Not Designate (non-system routes) Decrease na 

Designate (system routes) No Change na 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-77

The only action that would tend to increase risk to water resources is designating non-system roads for 

public or administrative motorized use. Designating non-system roads adds additional route miles to 

the landscape for the long-term, thereby maintaining the risk of indirect and cumulative effects to 

water resources. However, this is only an increase in risk when compared to the No-Action 

Alternative, because under the No-Action these routes would not be designated. Under the existing 

condition, these routes are already on the landscape and available for public use, and therefore 

designating them for public use is no change in risk. Additionally, designating them for administrative 

use only should reduce existing use and therefore risk. 

Changing the mode of travel from highway legal vehicle to all motorized vehicles is not expected to 

change the type of vehicles that currently use these routes. Likewise, converting roads to trails is not 

expected to change the type of vehicle or level of use, nor the level or priority for maintenance along 

these routes. Changing the seasonal use period (yearlong to 12/1-10/14) related to the fall hunting 

season has the potential to reduce surface erosion, rutting and maintenance needs when roads are wet 

prior to freeze-up, but this time frame is considered too short for any meaningful risk reduction. A 

spring closure period during spring break-up would provide a much more substantial reduction in risk 

for water resources. Restricting camping along routes in the North Cave Hills is solely related to 

health and safety concerns with hazardous mine sites and will not influence water resources. 

Therefore, all of these actions would not substantially change risk to water resources. 

The remaining actions would tend to decrease risk to water resources. Converting system routes to 

administrative use reduces traffic and allows revegetation of the road surface to occur, both of which 

reduce erosion over the long-term. Not designating system and non-system routes reduces route miles 

on the landscape over the long-term, thereby reducing potential erosion and risk to water resources. 

Effects by Alternative - Water Quality 

The proposed actions for individual routes are summarized for moderate and high risk watersheds by 

whether the actions increase or decrease risk. Refer to the following table. Low risk watersheds are 

not evaluated for indirect effects because they either do not contain perennial streams, or roads on 

National Forest System land, or are category 5 TMDL streams. They are however, accounted for 

under cumulative effects. 

Alternative A - Indirect Effects 

This alternative proposes actions that increase risk to water resources in 24 of the 29 moderate and 

high risk watersheds on the District, while actions that decrease risk are proposed in 14 watersheds. 

Overall, there is a net increase in risk in 20 (69%) watersheds, while net risk decreases in five 

watersheds. Nine of the 20 watersheds with a net increase are high risk watersheds. The sole reason 

for the increase is due to the addition of non-system roads to the transportation system. Risk remains 

unchanged in four watersheds 

Under Alternative A, no routes previously identified with potential wetland concerns will have actions 

proposed to address these concerns. These routes and concerns are identified in Appendix D as future 

restoration opportunities. 

One watershed that is a tributary to a category 5 TMDL stream has proposed actions that result in a 

net increase in risk, while two other watersheds with category 5 TMDL issues have actions that result 

in a net decrease in risk. Three other watersheds have no net change in risk. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-78 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

Alternative B - Indirect Effects 

This alternative proposes actions that increase risk to water resources in 20 of the 29 moderate and 

high risk watersheds on the District, while actions that decrease risk are proposed in 27 watersheds. 

Overall, there is a net increase in risk in only seven (24%) watersheds, while net risk decreases in 20 

watersheds. The reason for the decrease in risk is due to designating system routes for administrative 

use only, and not designating some system routes. Risk remains unchanged in two watersheds. 

Under Alternative B, one route previously identified with potential wetland concerns will have actions 

proposed to address these concerns. The portion of route 3089 that affects a wetland will not be 

designated for public or administrative use. The other routes and concerns are identified in Appendix 

D as future restoration opportunities. 

Four watersheds that are tributaries to a category 5 TMDL stream have proposed actions that result in 

a net decrease in risk, while no watersheds result in a net increase in risk. Two watersheds have no net 

change in risk. 

Table 3-23. Summary of Route Miles by Action Risk for Moderate and High Risk 

Watersheds When Compared to the No-Action Condition 

Alternative A Alternative B 

Watershed Name Increase 

Risk 

Decrease 

Risk 

Increase 

Risk 

Decrease 

Risk 

Boxelder Creek-Devils Canyon 0.3 0.8 0.0 2.1 

Boxelder Creek-Little Ramme Creek 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 

Boxelder Creek-Wood Gulch 0.4 0.0 0.0 3.9 

Bull Creek- Campbell Creek 2.3 2.2 1.1 4.8 

Bull Creek- Cottonwood Creek 1.5 0.0 1.5 0.1 

Bull Creek- Hay Creek 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 

Dry Creek 3.2 0.0 2.7 0.2 

Gap Creek 4.0 1.4 3.4 1.5 

Headwaters Little Beaver Creek 1.8 0.0 1.8 1.7 

HS Creek 2.6 0.4 3.5 4.5 

Little Beaver Creek-Dugan Draw 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.3 

Little Beaver Creek-Terrell Creek 1.1 2.4 1.3 7.4 

Little Missouri River-K Bar Creek 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 

Little Missouri River-Sand Creek 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Little Missouri River-Waterhole Creek 1.9 0.9 0.2 1.3 

Lower Tie Creek 0.0 0.2 0.0 4.3 

Middle Crooked Creek 1.4 0.0 1.1 0.2 

Middle Jones Creek 0.4 0.1 0.2 3.9 

Petes Creek 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.9 

Plum Creek 3.0 0.0 2.7 8.1 

Russell Creek 11.1 0.0 4.2 5.0 

Slick Creek 9.1 0.0 4.7 11.7 

Snow Creek 2.8 0.8 0.6 10.3 

South Fork Grand River- Fisher Creek 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 

South Fork Grand River- Prairie Dog Creek 0.5 1.6 0.5 2.1 

South Fork Grand River- Sand Creek 0.0 2.4 0.0 2.4 

Speelmon Creek 4.3 0.0 2.1 8.8 

Upper Crooked Creek 3.6 0.7 1.9 0.7 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-79

Table 3-23. Summary of Route Miles by Action Risk for Moderate and High Risk 

Watersheds When Compared to the No-Action Condition 

Alternative A Alternative B 

Watershed Name Increase 

Risk 

Decrease 

Risk 

Increase 

Risk 

Decrease 

Risk 

Upper Tie Creek 3.0 0.0 0.5 8.6 

Total Miles by Action Risk 62.2 16.6 37.2 102.5 

Number of watersheds with a increase or 

decrease in risk 24 14 20 27 

Number of watersheds with net increase 

or decrease in risk 20 5 7 20 

Comparison of Indirect Effects 

The following table provides a summary of indirect effects for all actions in all watersheds by risk 

category; increase, decrease or no change in risk. For all actions across the District, a net increase in 

risk occurs under Alternative A (+17%), while a net decrease in risk occurs under Alternative B (-

16%). 

Table 3-24. Summary of Route Miles with Proposed Actions Relative to the No Action 

Condition 

Alternative Actions that Increase Risk A B 

Add (designate non-system routes for public and administrative use) 101.4 67.0 

Total Miles that Increase Risk 101.4 67.0 

Actions that Decrease Risk 

Administrative (designate system routes for administrative use only) 23.6 99.8 

Do Not Designate (system routes) 0.4 22.4 

Total Miles that Decrease Risk 24.0 122.2 

Actions that Don’t Change Risk 

Vehicle 97.4 52.9 

Convert 210.2 72.3 

Season 0.0 18.4 

No Camping 9.6 9.6 

Total Miles –Actions that Do Not Change Risk 317.2 153.2 

Total Miles – All Actions 442.6 342.4 

Percent Net Increase or Decrease in Risk ((increase miles – decrease 

miles)/total miles) +17% -16% 

No Action Alternative 

See discussion of No Action Alternative in the cumulative effects section below. 

Cumulative Effects - Effects of All Routes Including Those Without Proposed Actions 

All alternatives include routes without proposed actions. Actions for these routes are termed default 

actions and include some system routes that will be designated without further action, and some nonsystem routes that will not be designated without further action. These default actions are compared 

against the existing condition to determine risks. Designating system routes is not expected to change 

any characteristic of the route in terms of current use or impact and therefore this default action will 

not change risk to water resources. On the other hand, not designating non-system routes will remove 

the route from the landscape, thereby reducing any existing effects and future risks to water resources. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-80 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

The following table summarizes miles of routes with default actions, and cumulatively by including 

routes with proposed actions. 

Table 3-25. Summary of All Routes Across the District With and Without Proposed 

Actions

Alternative 

A B No Action 

Designation Status/Risk Category for Routes without Actions

NF System Road Miles – Designate/No Change In Risk 65.6 131.4 404.3 

NF Non-system Road Miles – Do Not Designate/Decrease Risk 4.2 39.0 108.0 

Total Miles for Routes without Actions 69.8 170.4 512.3 

Indirect Effects - Risk Category for Routes with Actions 

Miles for Actions that Increase Risk (no actions increase risk when 

compared to the existing conditions- see Table 3-23) 0.0 0.0 0 

Miles for Actions that Decrease Risk (designating system/nonsystem routes for administrative use only, and not designating 

system routes) 33.9 166.0 0 

Miles for Actions that Don’t Change Risk 408.7 176.4 0 

Total Miles for Routes with Actions 442.6 342.4 0 

Cumulative Effects - Risk Category for All Routes 

Total Miles for All Routes with Increased Risk 0.0 0.0 0 

Total Miles for All Routes with Decreased Risk 38.1 205.0 108.0 

Total Miles for All Routes with No Change in Risk 474.3 307.8 404.3 

Total Miles - All Routes 512.4 512.8 512.3 

Percent Net Increase or Decrease in Cumulative Risk ((increase 

miles – decrease miles)/total miles) -7% -40% -21% 

Action Alternatives 

These alternatives designate varying levels of system routes without any additional actions to reduce 

risks to water resources. Both action alternatives designate substantially less miles than the No Action 

Alternative. Alternative B designates less non-system miles than Alternative A, thereby further 

reducing risks from these routes. Both action alternatives result in a net decrease in risk; -7 percent 

under Alternative A and -40 percent under Alternative B. 

No Action Alternative 

This alternative designates the most system routes without any additional actions to reduce risks to 

water resources. However, it also designates the least amount of non-system routes. Not designating 

these routes reduces risk over the long-term as the routes disappear from the landscape, either 

naturally or through active rehabilitation. Cumulatively across the District, a net decrease in risk 

occurs under the No Action Alternative (-21%). 

Under this alternative, all routes previously identified with potential wetland concerns will have a 

seasonal use of 12/1-10/14. However, this action is not expected to provide substantial protection for 

these sites. These routes and concerns are identified in Appendix D as future restoration opportunities. 

Effects Common to All Alternatives at the Watersheds Scale 

Sediment modeling was not incorporated into the effects analysis for water quality for many reasons. 

First of all, natural erosion rates specific to the Custer National Forest have not been developed and 

extrapolating rates from other Forests would only increase errors associated with the model results. 

Additionally, except for wildfire, road construction and harvest of green timber stands, surface erosion 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-81

rates have not been developed for other frequent activities on the forest. Therefore, from a cumulative 

effects standpoint, existing sediment models are not adequate to quantify to a single cumulative value, 

the effects of all the diverse activities in individual watersheds including wildfire/prescribed fire, 

mining, dispersed camping, off-highway vehicle use, grazing, floodplain development, timber harvest, 

and transportation networks. Nor are they capable of distinguishing between all the different actions 

associated with this travel management analysis. A combination of individual models could prove 

useful, but a large amount of additional data (on-ground and spatial) would be necessary to obtain 

valid results. The only way to address these various activities cumulatively for this travel management 

analysis is to address each activity individually and then qualify, in general terms, the cumulative 

effects between specific activities where appropriate. Existing activities are discussed previously 

under the Affected Environment – Water Quality section. 

Finally, existing models can have very high errors associated with their results. Elliot (2000) indicates 

that, at best, any predicted runoff or erosion value, by any model, will be within plus or minus 50 

percent of the true value. The high degree of error associated with cumulative effects models make it 

difficult, if not impossible, to compare results between alternatives because confidence intervals 

overlap. Management decisions based on modeling results with this degree of error are not 

appropriate. 

At the 6 HUC watershed scale, the proposed actions are not likely to be substantial enough to cause 

detectable changes in water quality, quantity or channel processes under any alternative. Although the 

effect of an individual action on a specific route could be detectable in the nearest watercourse 

immediately downslope, it is unlikely to be detectable at the mouth of 6 HUC watersheds that range in 

size from 10,000 to 40,000 acres. Additionally, the effects of all actions are indirect as previously 

discussed. They will occur at different times in different locations and at different magnitudes across 

these large watersheds. The effects are therefore diluted; temporally and spatially. 

Natural disturbance events will continue to influence hydrologic and erosional processes across all 

watersheds. Given the current vegetative conditions and associated fuel accumulations in some 

watersheds, there is potential for wildfires to occur that may be outside the range of conditions 

(intensity and duration) that have occurred over the last few hundred years. Depending on the 

intensity and area burned, accelerated soil erosion is likely, particularly where hydrophobic soils may 

be formed. Significant channel adjustments could be expected in these watersheds, especially during 

years of average or higher precipitation/runoff conditions. Stream systems will however stabilize as 

vegetative recovery occurs during post-fire years. Transportation systems could compound the effects 

of post-fire flood events, especially where routes are not maintained to standard. It is reasonable to 

assume that current road conditions and maintenance needs will continue into the future for actions on 

routes that do not change risks. 

Past and present timber harvest activities and prescribed fire will continue to be a minimal influence 

on water resources as described under the affected environment. However, other human influences 

including transportation systems, grazing, recreation, and floodplain developments are likely to 

continue to cause chronic effects to water resources as discussed previously. 

3.4.1.4 Conclusion - Water Quality 

From a District-wide cumulative summary, the preferred alternative would decrease net risk along 40 

percent of the 513 total route miles evaluated. By comparison, Alternative A would decrease net risk 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-82 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

along only seven percent of the total route miles, while the no-action alternative would decrease net 

risk along 21 percent. 

Currently, some routes have documented water quality impacts and therefore, may not comply with 

Forest Plan direction or state and federal water quality regulations. Compliance relative to the 

Decision to be made for this EIS, only pertains to those routes with a proposed action. These routes 

have actions proposed which are the first steps toward addressing water quality impacts. Additional 

activities, outside of this proposal, that would further reduce water quality impacts are identified in 

Appendix D - Opportunities. From a NEPA standpoint, routes with no proposed actions that have 

known water quality impacts are not a compliance issue relative to the Decision to be made, because 

this project is not the cause of those impacts (i.e. they are existing impacts). However, water quality 

impacts should still be addressed through measures outside this process and recommended actions for 

these routes are also identified in Appendix D - Opportunities. Full compliance with Forest Plan 

direction and state and federal water quality regulations under all alternatives would occur in the 

future as these actions or rehabilitation measures are implemented. 

3.4.1.5 Affected Environment – Fisheries and Aquatics 

Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policy 

The Clean Water Act requires States to identify existing water bodies that do not meet water quality 

standards, and develop plans to meet them. Montana Water Quality Law, as directed by the Clean 

Water Act, developed a water quality classification system, developed water quality standards to be 

applied to various water classes, and identified water bodies that do not meet standards. 

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MTDEQ) has classified all waters within the 

Montana portion of the analysis area as C-3 waters. The beneficial uses associated with this 

classification include; bathing, swimming, and recreation; growth and propagation of non-salmonid 

fishes and associated aquatic life, waterfowl, and furbearers. 

Beneficial use classification for all streams in the South Dakota portion of the analysis area includes 

fish and wildlife propagation, recreation, and stock watering waters (category 9, South Dakota 

Administrative Rules (SDAR), Surface Water Quality Standards, 74:51:03:01 (SDAR 2008)). The 

most applicable surface water quality standards for streams in South Dakota pertaining to aquatic 

species and their habitat include: “Biological integrity of waters. All waters of the state must be free 

from substances, whether attributable to human-induced point source discharges or nonpoint source 

activities, in concentrations or combinations which will adversely impact the structure and function of 

indigenous or intentionally introduced aquatic communities” (SDAR 74:51:01:12). 

The 1995 Presidential Executive Order 12962 directs Federal agencies to “improve the quantity, 

function, sustainable productivity, and distribution of aquatic resources for increased recreational 

fishing opportunity by evaluating the effects of federally funded, permitted, or authorized actions on 

aquatic systems and recreational fisheries and document those effects relative to the purpose of this 

order.” 

As part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) decision-making process, proposed Forest 

Service programs or activities are to be reviewed to determine how an action will affect any sensitive 

species (FSM 2670.32). The goal of the analysis should be to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-83

species. Three sensitive amphibian species are present in the project area. These include the Great 

Plains Toad Bufo cognatus, Northern Leopard Frog Rana pipiens, and Plains Spadefoot Spea 

bombifron. Sensitive fish species considered in this analysis include the Northern Redbelly Dace 

Phoxinus eos and Sturgeon Chub Macrhybopsis gelida. Although the project area is within the historic 

distribution of these sensitive fish species, there has been no documented occurrence of either fish in 

the project area. 

The 1987 Custer National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan directs that management 

activities should enhance habitat quality and diversity, and to provide fish-oriented recreation 

opportunities. Most of the critical habitat areas have been incorporated into management areas that 

maintain or improve these key habitats. Fisheries management is considered in all management areas 

and the level of habitat management is projected to increase over time. 

Fish and Amphibian Distribution 

The Sioux District Travel Management Plan project area spans across 53 individual watersheds (6th

level hydrologic unit code). Custer National Forest system lands comprise about one-tenth (11.4 %) 

of the total acreage of the 53 watersheds (177,250 acres of 1,030,788 acres total). The project area 

encompasses headwater tributaries, springs, and impoundments that support diverse populations of 

endemic fish and amphibian species. 

There are no sensitive fish species documented in the project area. However, waters on the Sioux 

Ranger District are within the historic distribution of the Northern Red Belly Dace and the Sturgeon 

Chub. These species are listed as Sensitive by Region 1 of Forest Service, although neither species has 

been observed or documented on the District. 

Other fish species considered in this analysis include: 1) native nonsensitive species, including the 

Black Bullhead Ameiurus melas, Brook Stickleback Cualea inconstans, Fathead Minnow Pimephales 

promelas, and Lake Chub Couesius plumbeus and, 2) exotic recreational species, including Black 

Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus, Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus, Large Mouth Bass Micropterus 

salmoides, Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss, and Yellow Perch Perca flavescens. 

Sensitive amphibian species present in the project area include the Great Plains Toad, Northern 

Leopard Frog, and Plains Spadefoot. Common nonsensitive amphibian species found throughout the 

project area include the Boreal Chorus Frog Pseudacris maculata, Tiger Salamander Ambystoma 

tigrinum, and Woodhouse’s Toad Bufo woodhousii. 

Great Plains Toad (Bufo cognatus) 

The Great Plains toad is recognized as a distinct species that ranges across the Great Plains from 

central Mexico to southeastern Alberta (Maxell 2000). In Montana, Great Plains Toads are found 

across the eastern plains, especially on the plateaus between and flanking the Yellowstone and 

Missouri Rivers, and have been documented east of Shelby, Great Falls, Lewiston, and Billings 

Montana (Maxell 2000; Werner et al. 2004). The Great Plains Toad is widespread throughout South 

Dakota, occurring in almost every county (Fischer et al. 1999). 

The Great Plains Toad is found in headwater drainages and onto prairies, where they are seen around 

glacial potholes, stock reservoirs, irrigation ditches, and smaller coulees (Werner et al. 2004). The 

Great Plains toad is a rapid burrower when active and occupies shallow burrows during the day 

(Fischer et al. 1999, MTFWP 2008). This species enters water only to breed, and emergence and 

breeding periods are triggered by early summer thunderstorms after which the toads immediately 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-84 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

move to breeding areas (Fischer et al. 1999, MTFWP 2008). Breeding takes place anytime between 

mid-May and mid-July (Fischer et al. 1999). Females lay up to 45,000 eggs and communal egg laying 

is common; eggs hatch in two to three days and tadpoles metamorphose in three to six weeks (Werner 

et al. 2004). Sexual maturity is achieved at two to three years of age (Werner et al. 2004). 

Great Plains toads have only been documented at about 30 localities across the plains east of the 

Rocky Mountains and their status across this region is largely unknown (Maxell 2000). Risk factors 

relevant to the viability of populations of this species are likely to include grazing, use of pesticides 

and herbicides, nonindigenous species, road and trail development, on- and off-road vehicle use, 

development of water impoundments, habitat loss/fragmentation, and metapopulation impacts (Maxell 

2000). Although historic records document Great Plains Toads on land units of the Sioux Ranger 

District (Long Pines and Ekalaka Hills), there have been no recorded observations on the District 

since 1914 (Reichel 1995). 

Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens) 

The Northern leopard frog historically ranged from Newfoundland and northern Alberta in the north 

to the Great Lakes region, the desert Southwest and the Great Basin in the south (Maxell 2000). A 

number of isolated populations historically existed in the Pacific Northwest and California (Stebbins 

1985; as reported in Maxell 2000). In Montana they have been documented across the eastern plains 

and in many of the mountain valleys on both sides of the Continental Divide at elevations up to 6,700 

feet (Werner et al. 2004). 

The Northern leopard frog is found in, and adjacent to, permanent slow moving or standing water 

bodies with considerable vegetation, but may range widely into moist meadows, grassy woodlands 

and even agricultural areas (Nussbaum et al. 1983; as reported in Maxell 2000). Adults feed on 

invertebrates, but may cannibalize smaller individuals. Adults overwinter on the bottom surface of 

permanent water bodies, under rubble in streams or in underground crevices that don’t freeze. 

Northern leopard frogs breed from mid-March to early June (Maxell 2000). Mating occurs when 

males congregate in shallow water and begin calling during the day (Maxell 2000). Eggs are laid at 

the water surface in large, globular masses of 150 to 500 (Maxell 2000). Juveniles may move as 

much as 8 kilometers from their natal ponds to their adult seasonal territories (Dole 1971; as reported 

in Maxell 2000). Young and adult frogs often disperse into marsh and forest habitats, but are not 

usually found far from open water (Maxell 2000). 

Over the last few decades the Northern leopard frog has undergone declines across much of the 

western portion of their range (Stebbins and Cohen 1995; as reported in Maxell 2000). Most Northern 

leopard frogs in western Montana became extinct in the 1970’s or early 1980’s. The only 2 population 

centers known to exist in western Montana are near Kalispell and Eureka (Maxell 2000). However, 

the northern leopard frog is still abundant and widespread in southeastern Montana and northwestern 

South Dakota (Reichel 1995; as reported in Hendricks and Reichel 1996). Although this species is 

relatively common on the Sioux District of the Custer National Forest, in both Montana and South 

Dakota, they are considered a Sensitive Species due to population declines in the western portion of 

their historic range. 

Plains Spadefoot (Spea bombifrons) 

The Plains Spadefoot is documented only sparsely in central and eastern Montana, including sightings 

in the mountain valleys of the upper Missouri watershed at elevations up to 5,000 ft (Maxell 2000, 

Werner et al. 2004). They can be found in southeastern South Dakota and are also sporadically 

distributed throughout the western portion of the state (Fischer et al. 1999). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-85

Spadefoots are a prairie species, associated with areas of sandy soil or gravel-loam (Werner et al. 

2004). Their lifestyle associates them with large temporary wetlands easily flooded after heavy rains 

(Fischer et al. 1999). When conditions are such that adults retreat underground, the spades on the hind 

feet are used to dig backwards into the soil until pockets of moist soil are encountered, sometimes at 

depths of almost a meter (MTFWP 2008). Plains Spadefoots are seldom encountered outside the 

breeding season since they spend most daylight hours underground (Werner 2004). The Plains 

Spadefoot reaches sexually maturity at one to two years of age and breeding generally takes place 

from May to August following heavy rainfall at temperatures above 54o F (Fischer 1999, Werner et al. 

2004). Females lay close to one thousand eggs, tadpoles develop in two to six days, and 

metamorphosis occurs from three to six weeks (Werner at al. 2004). 

In the past 125 years, this species has been documented at about 40 localities across the plains and in 

the mountain valleys east of the Continental Divide and their status across this region is almost 

completely unknown (Maxell 2000). Risk factors relevant to the viability of populations of the Plains 

Spadefoot are likely to include grazing, road and trail development, on- and off-road vehicle use, use 

of pesticides and herbicides, development of water impoundments, habitat loss/fragmentation, and 

metapopulation impacts (Maxell 2000). Only two current records exist for the Plains Spadefoot on the 

Sioux Ranger District, one in the Ekalaka Hills and one in the Long Pines land unit. 

Watershed Condition and Stream Habitat Characteristics 

For the purpose of this analysis generalizations of watershed condition, and potential impacts to 

aquatic habitat and biota relative to travel routes, were inferred from: 1) perennial stream crossings by 

FS routes, 3) total perennial stream miles, 3) intermittent stream crossings by FS routes, 4) TMDL 

listed streams, and 5) exceptionally high fire acres. Sediment delivery and riparian habitat loss are 

generally positively related to the aforementioned route related variables, and generally but not 

universally are indicative of reduced aquatic habitat capability (e.g., Furniss et al. 1991, Dunham and 

Rieman 1999, Forman et al. 2003). Habitat quality within watersheds is variable, in part because of 

other land use activities and because the ultimate effects of travel routes also depend on location of 

those routes, geology and soils of the watershed, maintenance of the routes, and other factors (Furniss 

et al. 1991). 

There is a distinction between travel route effects and the effects of various modes of travel. In some 

cases, the actual use, or mode of travel is inconsequential. Rather, it is the facility (road or trail) that 

has the potential to impact aquatic habitat and biota. Often, roads have more impacts than trails 

because of their wider prisms, larger cut-and-fill slopes and more extensive ditch routing systems. 

However, motorized and mixed use trails also hold potential to disturb soils and increase erosion. 

Sediment production from All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) use on 10 non-system route segments was 

reported to be six times higher than sediment production on 21 forest road segments in the Upper 

South Platte River watershed in Colorado (Welsh 2008). Deluca et al. (1998) found horses 

consistently produced more sediment than hikers or llamas, and horses have also been reported to 

produce higher sediment yields than hikers, mountain bikers, and motorcycles on similar trails 

(Wilson and Seney 1994). Although all transportation routes and uses (motorized and nonmotorized) 

can produce sediment, Best Management Practices (BMP), facility improvements, and scheduled 

maintenance can minimize potential for adverse effects to aquatic systems on all routes. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-86 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

Influences of Transportation Systems on Aquatic Habitat and Biota 

Potential effects of travel routes and various modes of travel on aquatic habitat and species are 

combined under one primary aquatics issue (effects to aquatic habitat and biota). However, the issue 

is segregated into various components of concern. Those components are: 1) Travel route impacts on 

stream channel form and function, including sediment delivery to streams and subsequent effects on 

aquatic habitat and biota; 2) Travel route impacts on riparian ecosystems; 3) Travel route impacts on 

habitat fragmentation; and 4) Travel route impacts on exploitation and modification of recreational 

and native fisheries. 

Stream Channel Form and Function 

Travel routes may affect stream channel form and function, including sediment delivery to streams 

and subsequent effects on aquatic habitat and biota. Roads and trails constructed for Forest travel 

disturb soils and increase the potential for erosion and sediment transport and deposition in streams 

(Furniss et al. 1991, Forman et al. 2003). Likewise, motorized and non-motorized uses (motorcycles, 

ATVs, horses, mountain bikes, and hikers) can further disturb soils and increase potential for erosion 

and sediment delivery. Sediment concerns are generally highest when roads and trails are not 

sufficiently drained (Furniss et al. 1991). Water and sediment can concentrate on roads and trails 

during spring snowmelt runoff or periods of intense rain and be delivered to streams. With sufficient 

drainage, water and sediment from upland segments of trails and roads can be diverted off trails or 

roads, filtered through forest vegetation, and not routed to streams (Furniss et al. 1991). As such, 

upland segments of roads and trails can generally be designed to mitigate sediment delivery concerns. 

One primary concern is erosion and sediment delivery from road and trail segments near stream 

crossings (Furniss et al. 1991, Forman et al. 2003). 

Sediment entering stream channels can affect channel shape and form, stream substrates, and the 

structure of fish and amphibian habitats (Everest et al. 1987, Hicks et al. 1991, Waters 1995, McIntosh 

et al. 2000, Werner et al. 2004). To evaluate the effects travel routes and modes of travel have on 

sediment and aquatic habitats, one must project changes in erosion and sediment delivery against the 

structural framework of the channel. Streams are not similar in terms of their inherent sensitivity to 

changes in streamflow or sediment discharge, their inherent stability, or their ability to recover from 

sediment related change (Rosgen 1996, Hogan and Ward 1997). Furthermore, stream habitats 

described in terms of pools, riffles and spawning gravel are geomorphic entities that are selectively 

influenced or controlled by channel type, streamflows and sediment inputs (Rosgen 1996, Hogan and 

Ward 1997). 

Pools are the result of local scour or impoundment induced by structural controls (e.g., boulders, large 

woody debris) in the channel or streambank (Rosgen 1996, Hogan and Ward 1997). Pools are areas 

of higher velocity during peak flows, but at low flows their depth creates a depositional environment 

for fine sediment. Increased sediment from roads and trails can influence the amount and quality of 

pool habitat if sediment increases are sufficient to alter channel morphology by filling in pools and 

increase width/depth ratios. For lower-gradient, more sensitive channel types with moderate 

sensitivity to increased sediment, excessive sediment loading can reduce maximum pool depth and 

residual pool volume thereby reducing the quality and availability of pool habitats important to fish 

and amphibians (Rosgen 1996, Hogan and Ward 1997, Werner 2004). 

Riparian Ecosystems 

Forest roads and trails constructed for travel activities within riparian corridors can alter or remove 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-87

riparian vegetative communities, with direct and indirect impacts on riparian and stream ecosystems 

(Furniss et al. 1991, Forman 2003). Riparian vegetation modification may directly remove security 

cover and reduce stream shading, resulting in increased water temperatures in summer and colder 

temperatures in winter. Removal of riparian vegetation may indirectly result in reduced streambank 

stability and sediment filtering capacity of vegetation, both of which can result in increased sediment 

delivery rates with effects as described above (e.g., Thornton et al. 1997). Riparian vegetation 

modification may also change stream channel form and function, and may modify aquatic food webs 

and nutrient cycles. Potential for changes in channel form and function is also related to the inherent 

stability of various channel types. Removal of riparian vegetation in amphibian breeding, incubating 

and rearing habitats may reduce its suitability for those functions and may increase vulnerability of the 

amphibians to predation (Maxell 2000, Forman et al. 2003). 

Habitat Fragmentation 

Roads and trails can fragment aquatic habitats where stream crossings create barriers for upstream 

movement of aquatic species (Furniss et al. 1991). This typically occurs where culverts and fords are 

not designed to allow for upstream fish and amphibian passage. Crossings with culverts can be 

barriers usually because of outfall barriers, excessive velocities, insufficient water depths, disorienting 

turbulent flow patterns, lack of resting pools below the barrier or a combination of these conditions. 

Aquatic organisms upstream of the barrier are then geographically and hence, reproductively isolated 

from the downstream population. Habitat fragmentation can reduce viability of fish populations by a 

variety of stochastic, deterministic and genetic mechanisms (e.g., Rieman et al. 1993). Based on field 

reviews and recent culvert replacement information, no existing, perennial stream/route crossings on 

the District are known to hinder aquatic organism passage. 

Exploitation of Recreational and Native Fisheries 

Travel routes that lead to popular fishing destinations may have an indirect effect on fish populations 

by over-exploiting fish stocks that are vulnerable to high angling pressure. Over-exploitation of fish 

stocks may result in population declines (e.g., Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Population declines in 

small fish populations may render them at higher risk of extinction (Rieman et al. 1993). 

The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MTFWP) manage fish and wildlife populations 

throughout Montana and South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks manage these resources in the state of 

South Dakota. Lake management plans have been developed for most lakes and reservoirs throughout 

the Custer National Forest in both states. These plans address recruitment potential and angling 

pressure effects. Where natural recruitment does not meet population goals, supplemental stocking is 

generally prescribed. Lake management plans and special regulations effectively mitigate the overexploitation component of the aquatics issue. Thus, this component is dismissed from further detailed 

analysis. 

Transportation Systems Analysis 

Roads and trails were evaluated for impacts to water quality or natural channel processes (Water 

Quality Section). This analysis evaluates the subsequent potential impacts to aquatic habitat and biota 

in relation to those impacts. An in depth review of effects of roads and trails on fish and amphibians, 

and their habitats is provided by Furniss et al. (1991), Maxell (2000), and Forman et al. (2003). 

The potential for routes to impact water quality was evaluated based on the number of perennial 

stream crossings by FS routes, total perennial stream miles, intermittent stream crossings by FS 

routes, TMDL listed streams, and exceptionally high fire acres. Values obtained from the analysis 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-88 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

provide an index of potential water quality impact, or route risk to water quality. The route value is 

not intended to predict an absolute value or level of impact to water quality, aquatic systems, or 

species, rather a hierarchical approach to prioritizing impact potential by category: Low, Moderate, 

and High Risk. A summary of selected natural characteristics, human activities, and aquatic species 

presence are provided in Table 3-26 by 6 HUC (hydrologic unit code) watersheds. Quantifiable Forest 

Service activities include past timber harvest, fire (prescribed fire and wildfire), and existing 

transportation system attributes. Potential effects to fish and amphibians and their habitats related to 

proposed actions are evaluated under indirect effects by action alternative.
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and FSS 

Page 3-89 Sioux Travel Mana

Table 3-26. Summary of Watershed Characteristics, Watershed Scale Influences, Fisheries Resources, and Se

Amphibians on the Sioux Ranger District. 

 Watershed # Watershed Name 

Watershed Acres 

Percent Watershed 

Forest Service 

FS Perennial Stream 

Miles 

Harvest Acres 

Fire Acres 

FS Road Miles 

Total Stream 

Crossings 

FS Intermittent 

Crossings 

FS Perennial 

Crossings 

101102010704 Upper Tie Creek 23,220 35 3 2,099 6,854 24 82 18 7 101102010705 Lower Tie Creek 22,935 11 1 350 3,369 7 51 8 5 101102020505 Speelmon Creek 17,718 63 6 2,350 10,355 36 99 44 4 101303010104 Upper Crooked Creek 18,046 16 <1 0 2 10 35 3 3 101102010802 Plum Creek 12,819 70 1 1,943 10,685 33 43 24 2 101303020405 Bull Creek- Campbell Creek 13,471 48 2 0 1,464 15 26 7 1 101303020406 Dry Creek 10,396 42 2 0 60 14 28 7 1 101102010803 Slick Creek 37,776 31 1 1,709 12,052 34 109 45 1 101102010801 

Little Missouri River-K Bar Creek F19 43,315 4 0 12 2,284 6 84 8 0 

101102011004 Russell Creek 16,090 41 0 5,215 2,425 30 107 44 0 101102010706 

Little Missouri RiverWaterhole CreekH19 41,162 9 0 9 4,402 15 76 7 0 

101102010701 

Little Missouri River-Sand CreekH19 24,861 4 0 0 61 2 37 0 0 

101303050406 Gap Creek 24,693 11 4 5 1 9 43 1 0 101303010105 Middle Crooked Creek 14,933 15 0 0 0 7 22 5 0 101102011005 

Little Beaver Creek-Terrell Creek 35,999 8 0 698 2 12 125 11 0 

17 Fisheries Resources: ER - Exotic Recreational Species, NNS - Native Nonsensitive Species.18 Sensitive Amphibians Species: NLF – Northern Leopard Frog, PSF- Plains Spadefoot, GPT – Great Plains Toad.19 TMDL listed stream or tributary to
Page 3-90 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and 

//dfs/

Table 3-26. Summary of Watershed Characteristics, Watershed Scale Influences, Fisheries Resources, and Se

Amphibians on the Sioux Ranger District. 

 Watershed # Watershed Name 

Watershed Acres 

Percent Watershed 

Forest Service 

FS Perennial Stream 

Miles 

Harvest Acres 

Fire Acres 

FS Road Miles 

Total Stream 

Crossings 

FS Intermittent 

Crossings 

FS Perennial 

Crossings 

101303020408 Bull Creek- Hay Creek 12,219 8 0 0 2 3 17 1 0 101303020403 Bull Creek- Cottonwood Creek 13,150 4 0 0 69 2 38 1 0 101303010106 Petes Creek 13,302 12 0 0 0 5 20 1 0 101102020510 Boxelder Creek-Wood Gulch 21,619 7 0 0 19 8 39 4 0 101102020506 

Boxelder Creek-Little Ramme Creek 32,305 12 0 30 4,622 9 63 5 0 

101303020504 

South Fork Grand RiverPrairie Dog Creek 17,776 12 3 0 0 3 6 0 0 

101102011006 HS Creek 14,229 18 0 752 107 10 60 7 0 101102011003 

Little Beaver Creek-Dugan Draw 23,310 7 0 1,602 6 10 82 18 0 

101102020508 

Boxelder Creek-Devils Canyon 15,205 24 0 0 3,387 9 30 7 0 

101102011002 

Headwaters Little Beaver Creek 22,987 20 0 1,165 51 10 80 16 0 

101303020304 Middle Jones Creek 13,720 19 0 0 924 7 23 1 0 101303020505 

South Fork Grand RiverFisher Creek 13,257 26 3 0 0 4 16 0 0 

101303020501 

South Fork Grand River- Sand Creek 11,013 13 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 

101102020509 Snow Creek 12,658 89 0 494 10,227 38 87 56 0 101102020504 Boxelder Creek-Belltower 30,302 2 0 0 225 0 88 0 0 101303050109 

Little Cowboy Creek- North Fork Moreau River 14,958 2 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 

101303020305 Lower Jones Creek 17,148 3 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 101303050101 

Chalk Butte Draw- North Fork Moreau River 17,844 2 0 0 0 0 57 0 0 

101303050106 Red Butte Creek 12,328 13 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 101303020206 Sioux Creek 18,077 35 0 0 2 12 21 2 0 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and FSS 

Page 3-91 Sioux Travel Mana

Table 3-26. Summary of Watershed Characteristics, Watershed Scale Influences, Fisheries Resources, and Se

Amphibians on the Sioux Ranger District. 

 Watershed # Watershed Name 

Watershed Acres 

Percent Watershed 

Forest Service 

FS Perennial Stream 

Miles 

Harvest Acres 

Fire Acres 

FS Road Miles 

Total Stream 

Crossings 

FS Intermittent 

Crossings 

FS Perennial 

Crossings 

101102020509 Snow Creek 12,658 89 0 494 10,227 38 87 56 0 101303040104 Ash Coulee 21,058 11 0 0 402 9 27 1 0 101303040401 North Sand Creek- Sand Creek 20,166 17 0 0 117 6 42 9 0 101102020403 Buffalo Creek 29,301 5 0 0 0 6 95 5 0 101303020205 

Lower Unnamed Tributary to Clarks Fork Creek 18,336 12 0 0 0 1 11 0 0 

101303050202 Spring Creek 19,909 13 0 0 20 4 24 1 0 101102020507 Harmon Creek 14,636 14 0 243 0 7 39 10 0 101303020407 Jack Creek 11,479 3 0 0 20 0 15 0 0 101102020503 Big Ramme Creek 17,740 6 0 200 17 4 51 8 0 101303050401 Jones Creek- Rabbit Creek 17,037 65 0 0 464 27 32 8 0 101303050601 Headwaters of Antelope Creek 19,957 33 0 0 1 19 23 7 0 100902090601 Upper Spring Creek 23,702 19 0 0 342 12 75 11 0 101102020602 Spring Creek 23,745 13 0 0 1,557 6 61 2 0 101303020601 

Headwaters of Big Nasty Creek 13,438 7 0 0 170 4 39 1 0 

101303050403 Point Creek 17,553 13 0 0 5 3 25 0 0 101303020204 

East Branch Unnamed Tributary to Clarks Fork Creek 16,621 8 0 0 539 1 21 0 0 

101102020401 Fresh Water Draw 14,827 5 0 0 10 1 37 0 0 101303050207 Sheep Creek 16,289 10 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 101303050205 Ash Creek 10,150 10 0 0 1 0 10 0 0 

SUM 1,030,788 NA 27 18,876 7,7322 500 2,373 414 24 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-92 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

3.4.1.6 Environmental Consequences – Fisheries and Aquatic 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives – Fisheries and Aquatics 

Direct Effects 

Direct effects are those resulting in the direct mortality of fish or amphibians, or the destruction of fish 

or amphibian habitat. Direct effects occur at the same time and place as the proposed activity. 

Relative to transportation systems, only the installation, reconstruction or removal of stream crossing 

structures, and route construction or decommissioning could result in direct effects to fish and 

amphibians. The proposed actions in the project area do not include any route related construction 

activities that would result in direct effects to aquatic habitats or biota. Therefore, no direct effects are 

evaluated in this analysis. 

Indirect Effects 

Indirect effects occur at a later time or distance from the proposed action. Indirect effects are those 

resulting in changes to fish and amphibian habitat, individuals, or populations as a result of changes in 

the aquatic environment. Detrimental effects to aquatic species could result from increased sediment 

levels entering stream channels, wetlands, springs or impoundments, changes in streambank stability 

due to near-bank activities, and modification in water temperature regimes induced by a reduction in 

riparian vegetation. 

Routes with proposed actions are evaluated for indirect effects to fisheries and amphibians. A 

summary of route related actions and the potential for these actions to reduce or not reduce the risk of 

impacting water quality can be found in the Water Quality Section, Related Route Risk By Action

(Table 3-22). In general terms, the only actions that would tend to increase risk are designating nonsystem roads or trails (routes) for public or administrative motorized use. These actions, when 

compared to the No Action Alternative, add additional route miles to the landscape, and do not reduce 

the risk of indirect and cumulative effects to aquatic ecosystems. However, these routes already exist 

on the landscape and are currently available for public use. Therefore, there would be no change in 

risk when comparing non-system route designation actions to the existing condition. All other 

proposed actions would tend to decrease risk or not change risk for comparisons to both the No Action 

Alternative and the existing condition. Decreased risk actions include: 1) converting system roads to 

administrative use, and 2) not designating system and non-system routes. 

Effects by Alternative – Fisheries and Aquatics 

Indirect effects to fisheries resources and sensitive amphibians, for moderate and high risk watersheds 

are displayed in Table 3-27. Low risk watersheds are not evaluated for indirect effects to aquatic 

resources because they either do not contain perennial streams, or roads on National Forest System 

land, or both. 

Alternative A - Indirect Effects 

With the exception of the Little Missouri River-K Bar Creek watershed, all of the fisheries resource 

and/or sensitive amphibian occupied watersheds (referred to hereafter as aquatic resource watersheds) 

have a net increase in risk under Alternative A (Table 3-27). The increased risk to aquatic resource 

watersheds is attributed to the addition of 35.9 miles of non-system roads to the transportation system 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-93

and only 4 miles of route related actions that reduce risk. Therefore, there is a net increase in risk of 

31.9 miles under Alternative A. 

 

Table 3-27. Summary of Route Miles by Risk for Moderate and High Risk 

Watersheds and for Fisheries Resource and Sensitive Amphibian Watersheds When 

Compared to the No Action Alternative 

Alternative A Alternative B 

Watershed Name Increase 

Risk 

Decrease 

Risk 

Increase 

Risk 

Decrease 

Risk 

Boxelder Creek-Devils Canyon 0.3 0.8 0.0 2.1 

Boxelder Creek-Little Ramme Creek 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 

Boxelder Creek-Wood Gulch 0.4 0.0 0.0 3.9 

Bull Creek- Campbell CreekA,F 2.3 2.2 1.1 4.8 

Bull Creek- Cottonwood Creek 1.5 0.0 1.5 0.1 

Bull Creek- Hay Creek 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 

Dry CreekA 3.2 0.0 2.7 0.2 

Gap Creek 4.0 1.4 3.4 1.5 

Headwaters Little Beaver CreekA 1.8 0.0 1.8 1.7 

HS Creek 2.6 0.4 3.5 4.5 

Little Beaver Creek-Dugan DrawA 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.3 

Little Beaver Creek-Terrell Creek 1.1 2.4 1.3 7.4 

Little Missouri River-K Bar CreekA 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 

Little Missouri River-Sand Creek 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Little Missouri River-Waterhole CreekA 1.9 0.9 0.2 1.3 

Lower Tie Creek 0.0 0.2 0.0 4.3 

Middle Crooked CreekA 1.4 0.0 1.1 0.2 

Middle Jones CreekA 0.4 0.1 0.2 3.9 

Petes Creek 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.9 

Plum CreekA 3.0 0.0 2.7 8.1 

Russell CreekA 11.1 0.0 4.2 5.0 

Slick Creek 9.1 0.0 4.7 11.7 

Snow CreekF 2.8 0.8 0.6 10.3 

South Fork Grand River- Fisher Creek 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 

South Fork Grand River- Prairie Dog Creek 0.5 1.6 0.5 2.1 

South Fork Grand River- Sand Creek 0.0 2.4 0.0 2.4 

Speelmon CreekA 4.3 0.0 2.1 8.8 

Upper Crooked Creek 3.6 0.7 1.9 0.7 

Upper Tie CreekA,F 3.0 0.0 0.5 8.6 

Total Miles by Action Risk 62.2 16.6 37.2 102.5 

Total Miles for Fisheries Resource and 

Sensitive Amphibian Watersheds 35.9 4 17.2 55.8 

A Sensitive Amphibian Watershed F Fisheries Resource Watershed 

Alternative B - Indirect Effects 

Alternative B proposes actions that result in a net decrease in risk in 10 of the 13 moderate and high 

risk aquatic resource watersheds (Table 3-27). The net decreased risk is attributed to 55.8 miles of 

route related actions that reduce risk and 17.2 that increase risk. The 3 aquatic resource watersheds 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-94 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

that have a net increase in risk include the Dry Creek, Headwaters Little Beaver Creek, and the 

Middle Crooked Creek watersheds. All of these 3 watersheds harbor sensitive amphibian species. 

However, the net increased risk of 3.5 total miles for these watersheds is related to 3.4 miles of actions 

that designate non-system routes to administrative use, and only 0.1 miles related to designating nonsystem routes to public use routes. Therefore, although these routes will remain on the landscape, all 

but 0.1 miles of the increased route risk miles will receive low levels of use and their designation 

should have negligible to nonexistent indirect effects to sensitive amphibian species. 

No Action Alternative 

See discussion of No Action Alternative in the cumulative effects section below. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects are defined as "the impact on the environment that results from the incremental 

impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, regardless 

of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from 

individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time" (CFR 40 

1508.7). Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable events and activities that have and will likely 

continue to incrementally impact aquatic species and their habitats, in the 53 watersheds (on and off 

CNF) of the project area, include: wildfire/prescribed fire, mining, grazing, timber harvest, 

transportation networks, and recreation (camping, fishing, hunting, etc.). 

Effects Determination by Alternative 

No Federally listed threatened or endangered fish or amphibian species, designated critical habitat, 

fish or amphibian species proposed for Federal listing, or proposed critical habitat occur in the project 

area. Forest Service sensitive fish and amphibian species considered in this analysis include the 

Northern Redbelly Dace, Sturgeon Chub, Great Plains Toad, Northern Leopard Frog, and Plains 

Spadefoot. The table below summarizes the potential effects to aquatic species in the project area. 

Table 3-28. Determination of potential impacts to sensitive fish and amphibian species 

and recreational fisheries resources

Aquatic Species DeterminationF

20

Alternative Alternative A Alternative B 

No Action 

Alternative 

Northern Redbelly Dace 

Phoxinus eos NI NI NI 

Sturgeon Chub 

Macrhybopsis gelida NI NI NI 

Great Plains Toad 

Bufo cognatus NI NI NI 

Northern Leopard Frog 

Rana pipiens MIIH BI MIIH 

Plains Spadefoot 

Spea bombifron MIIH BI MIIH 

 

20 NI = No Impact; MIIH = May Impact Individuals or Habitat but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or loss of 

viability to the population or species; WIFV = Likely to result in a trend to Federal listing or loss of viability; and BI = Beneficial 

impact. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-95

Table 3-28. Determination of potential impacts to sensitive fish and amphibian species 

and recreational fisheries resources

Aquatic Species DeterminationF

20

Alternative Alternative A Alternative B 

No Action 

Alternative 

Recreational Fish Species MIIH BI MIIH 

Cumulative Effects - Effects of All Routes Including Those Without Proposed Actions 

Existing condition allows for motorized use of all routes on the Forest landscape unless signed 

otherwise, including system and non-system routes. Therefore, if the existing condition were to 

continue into the foreseeable future there would be no reduction in risk to aquatic species and habitat, 

and any existing impacts and risks in the 16 aquatic resource occupied watersheds (Table 3-26) would 

be expected to continue until route maintenance occurred. All alternatives, including the No Action 

Alternative, include routes without proposed actions. Under the action alternatives, actions would 

occur by default for these routes, whereby some system routes would be designated and some nonsystem routes would not be designated without further action. When these default actions are 

compared against the existing condition there is a marked difference among the action alternatives in 

the percent decrease in cumulative risk to water quality and consequently to aquatic biota and their 

habitats. Alternative B has a 40% decrease in risk to water quality in relation to existing condition, 

while Alternative A would have a 7% decrease, and the No Action Alternative a 21% decrease (Table 

3-25). 

Action Alternatives 

The cumulative effects of the individual action alternatives (A and B) when combined with past 

activities and natural processes, would result in minimal negative impacts to aquatic biota, including 

sensitive aquatic species, and their habitats throughout the project area. However, Alternative B 

provides greater protection for aquatic resources than Alternative A (net decrease in risk of 55.8 miles 

versus a net increase in risk of 31.9 miles; Table 3-27), and both action alternatives designate 

substantially less miles than the No Action Alternative. 

No Action Alternative 

Thirteen of 29 moderate and high risk watersheds and 3 of the 24 low risk watersheds on the Sioux 

District harbor fisheries and/or sensitive amphibian resources (Table 3-26). The No Action Alternative 

designates the most system routes without any additional actions to reduce risk to aquatic resources 

(404.3 miles; Table 3-25 Water Quality Section). Sedimentation produced from routes in these 

watersheds would likely impact aquatic habitat and localized fish and amphibian populations across 

the District.

Effects Common to All Alternatives at the Watersheds Scale 

The cumulative effects of the individual alternatives when combined with past activities and natural 

processes would result in negligible negative impacts to aquatic biota, including sensitive aquatic 

species, and their habitats throughout the project area. 

At the watershed scale, proposed actions are not considered to be substantial enough to cause 

measurable changes in water quality, quantity or channel processes under any action alternative. 

Consequently, cumulative effects to aquatic species and their habitats are not anticipated to result 

from any of the action alternatives. However, various actions proposed under the action alternatives 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-96 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

have the potential to reduce or not reduce the risk of impacts to aquatic habitats and species. 

Alternative B includes the most route mile actions that would result in beneficial impacts (reduce risk) 

to aquatic systems. 

3.4.1.7 Conclusion - Fisheries and Aquatics 

Proposed actions with site specific effects that potentially increase risk of adverse impacts to aquatic 

habitat and species are negligible under Alternative B. Compliance relative to the Record of Decision 

for this EIS, only pertains to those routes with proposed actions. Under Alternative B, actions related 

to moderate and high risk routes are expected to benefit or maintain aquatic habitats, and fish and 

amphibian species. Only minimal indirect effects to sensitive aquatic species are anticipated under 

Alternative A and the No Action Alternative. Therefore, the Sioux District is anticipated to move 

towards compliance with Forest Plan standards and state and federal water quality regulations under 

any action alternative. However, Alternative B initiates the most rapid rate of recovery and 

compliance should be achieved in the shortest timeframe under this alternative. 

Appendix D includes opportunities to reduce impacts to water quality, aquatic habitat and biota where 

there are: 1) site specific impacts from existing routes not associated with the proposed action, and 2) 

proposed actions with potential to improve conditions but do not eliminate impacts. However, 

construction, reconstruction, maintenance and decommissioning proposals will require future and 

separate NEPA decisions. 

Relative to sensitive fish and amphibian species, none of the alternatives are likely to result in a trend 

toward Federal listing or loss of viability. The following table summarizes the effects determinations 

for sensitive aquatic species and aquatic species of concern. 

Table 3-29. Fisheries and Aquatics Effects Summary

Indicator Alt. A Alt. B No Action

Sensitive Fish and Amphibian Species

Number of Species with No Impact or Beneficial Impacts 

3 5 3 

Number of Species with potential to effect individuals or 

Habitat but will not Likely Contribute to a trend towards 

Federal Listing or Loss of Viability to the Population or 

Species 2 0 2 

Number of Species likely to result in a trend to Federal 

listing or loss of viability 0 0 0 

Recreational Fish Species 

Alternatives with No Impact or Beneficial Impact No Yes No 

Alternatives with potential to effect individuals or Habitat 

but will not Likely Contribute to a Loss of Viability to the 

Population or Species Yes No Yes 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-97

3.4.2 SOILS 

Overview of Changes from the Draft to the Final EIS 

 Changes involved additional narrative to clarify analysis results and address comments 

received on the DEIS. 

 Changes made reflect minor mileage changes to Alternative B. 

3.4.2.1 Introduction 

Adding routes to the system and designating motorized uses on roads and trails could increase soil 

compaction and soil erosion leading to a decrease in soil productivity, and soil quality. 

3.4.2.2 Affected Environment – Soils 

The project area is located in southeast Montana and northwest South Dakota on the Sioux Ranger 

District. The Sioux Ranger District falls in the Northwestern Great Plains Section of the Great PlainsPalouse Dry Steppe province. The area includes gently sloping to rolling, moderately dissected shale 

plains. There are some steep, flat topped buttes, badland like topography, and eroded escarpments. 

The Soil Survey of Carter County, Montana (USDA NRCS, 2003) and The Soil Survey of Harding 

County, South Dakota (USDA SCS, 1988) were used to determine erosion hazards ratings, suitability 

of the landscape for natural surfaced roads, and describe landforms. Soil survey information can be 

downloaded from the soil data mart on the world wide web at Hhttp://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/. 

(Montana soil survey information is also available at (Hhttp://nris.state.mt.us/nrcs/soils/datapage.html

or Hhttp://www.mt.nrcs.usda.gov/soils/mtsoils/official.html). Soil survey information reports can also 

be accessed directly from the web using Web Soil Survey (Hhttp://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/). 

Erosion risk ratings are provided from the county soil survey data. They are estimates of the potential 

for erosion after soil disturbance and are based on the inherent soil resistance to erosion and the 

erosive forces acting upon them. Slight hazard implies little to no potential for erosion; moderate 

hazard indicates that some erosion is likely, that the roads or trails may require occasional 

maintenance, and that simple erosion control measures are needed; and a severe hazard implies that 

considerable erosion is expected, that the roads or trails require frequent maintenance, and that costly 

erosion control measures are needed. Of the current Forest Service routes approximately 1% are 

classified in the slight hazard rating, 40% in moderate, 59% in severe, and a trace amount are not 

rated. 

The ratings for the suitability for natural surface roads interpretation indicate the suitability for using 

the natural surface of the soil for roads. The ratings are based on slope, rock fragments on the surface, 

plasticity index, content of sand, the Unified Classification of the soil, depth to a water table, ponding, 

flooding, and the hazard of soil slippage. The soils are described as well suited, moderately suited, or 

poorly suited to this use. Well suited indicates the soil has features that are favorable for the specified 

kind of roads and has no limitations. Good performance can be expected, and little or no maintenance 

is needed. Moderately suited indicates the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the 

specified kind of route. One or more soil properties are less than desirable, and fair performance can 

be expected. Some maintenance is needed. Poorly suited indicate the soil has one or more properties 

that are unfavorable for the specified kind of route. Overcoming the unfavorable properties requires 

special design, extra maintenance, and costly alteration. Not rated is used for those map units that do 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-98 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

not have soil components that can be rated for the particular use. For example, rock outcrop would be 

not rated. Of the current Forest Service routes approximately <1% are classified as well-suited for 

using the natural surface of the soil for roads, 44% are moderately suited, 56% are poorly suited, and a 

trace amount are not rated. 

Soil Map units may contain one or more ratings based on soil components of the map unit. Since the 

locations of the different components are not mapped, the map unit ratings depict the most severe 

rating for the soils within the map unit. For example, if one soil component has a moderate rating 

while another soil component in the same map unit has a slight rating, the map unit was given a 

moderate rating. In some map units the most severe or limiting rating may comprise the lowest 

percentage of the map unit, for example in Carter County, on the Sioux District, the BusbyBlacksheep-Twilight fine sandy loams, 8 to 25 percent slopes, map unit 170D, is rated as having 

severe erosion hazard and is poorly suited to native surface roads, but only 15% of the map unit 

actually has that rating, while 70% of the unit has a more favorable rating. These ratings do not mean 

that management (i.e. roads and trails) should not occur or exist on soils with a specific rating but 

rather what types of mitigation and management are needed to minimize the impact, and are used as a 

comparison in the analysis of effects. 

The interpretations for the suitability for natural surface roads and trails are very similar to the erosion 

hazard rating. Discussion will focus on the erosion hazard as that has the most direct effect on soil 

productivity. Data presented show the miles of roads and trails in soil map units that have at least one 

soil component that has a specific hazard rating, and depicts the most limiting rating for the soil map 

unit. These interpretations are a guide to how soils identified in these map units might respond to 

management. In most cases, on site investigation is needed to accurately identify soils and hazard 

ratings. It is highly likely that the miles of routes on high erosion hazard soils is less than that 

identified. 

Regulatory Framework 

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resource Planning Act of 1974 and National Forest 

Management Act of 1976 

In response to requirements set forth in these two Acts, final rules on National Forest System Land 

and Resource Management Planning established specific minimum management requirements to be 

met in accomplishing the goals and objectives for National Forest System lands. These requirements 

were intended to guide the development, analysis, approval, implementation, monitoring, and 

evaluation of forest plans. Requirements specific to soils are found in 36 CFR 219.27, volume 47, 

#190, 09/30/82 (Federal Register 1982) as follows: 

(a) Resource protection. All management prescriptions shall: 

(1) Conserve soil and water resources and not allow significant or permanent 

impairment of the productivity of the land; 

(2) Consistent with the relative resource values involved, minimize serious or longlasting hazards from flood, wind, wildfire, erosion. 

(f) Soil and Water Conservation. 

Conservation of soil and water resources involves the analysis, protection, 

enhancement, treatment, and evaluation of soil and water resources and their responses 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-99

under management and shall be guided by instructions in official technical handbooks. 

These handbooks must show specific ways to avoid or mitigate damage, and maintain 

or enhance productivity on specific sites. These handbooks may be regional in scope or, 

where feasible, specific to physiographic or climatic provinces. 

Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 

It is the policy of the Congress that the national forests are established and shall be administered for 

outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes (16 USC 2 (I); Sec 528 ). 

The terms multiple use and sustained yield are defined as: 

Multiple use: The management of all the various renewable surface resources of the national 

forests so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the 

American people; making 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; that some land will be used 

for less than all of the resources; and harmonious and coordinated management of the various 

resources, each with the other, without impairment of the productivity of the land, with 

consideration being given to the relative values of the various resources, and not necessarily 

the combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output. 

Sustained yield: The achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or 

regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the national forests without 

impairment of the productivity of the land. 

Regional Direction 

The most recent soil quality standards were adopted by the Northern Region Regional Office effective 

November 12, 1999. (Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2500 - WATERSHED AND AIR 

MANAGEMENT, R-1 SUPPLEMENT 2500-99-1). The objectives are: To meet direction in the 

National Forest Management Act of 1976 and other legal mandates. To manage National Forest 

System lands under ecosystem management principles without permanent impairment of land 

productivity and to maintain or improve soil quality. 

Custer National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan 

Management goals for soil, water and riparian resources are identified in the Forest Plan under 

Chapter II - Forest Wide Management Direction and Chapter III – Management Area Direction. 

The Forest Plan goal for watershed management is to: 

“[E]nsure that soil productivity is maintained and that water quality is maintained at a level 

which meets or exceeds state water quality standards.” (page 4) 

Forest Plan objectives for soil and water resources are: 

“National Forest System lands will be managed so that the soil and watershed conditions are in 

a desirable condition and will remain in that condition for the foreseeable future. Soil and 

water quality objectives are designed to assure that these resources meet State water quality 

objectives and BMP's (Best Management Practices) are incorporated to assure this.” (page 5) 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-100 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

Soil Productivity 

The Region 1 soil quality standards apply to lands where vegetation and water resource management 

are the principal objectives, that is, timber sales, grazing pastures or allotments, wildlife habitat, and 

riparian areas (USDA Forest Service, 1999). Roads and trails are a “dedicated use” for lands that 

comprise the route prism and right of way. The affected land is managed for transportation uses and 

is not managed for vegetation production or water resources. Therefore, the R1 soil quality standards 

are not relevant to this analysis. However, the decision made in this project will affect the amount of 

land committed to dedicated use. By adding routes to the system and designating or not designating a 

route for specific use might have an impact on other projects and that project’s ability to meet 

Regional policy regarding soil quality. 

Roads and trails do have an impact on soil productivity, especially when users veer off the established 

travelway to bypass wet or muddy sections of the road or trail, bypass switchbacks, and create 

shortcuts. Non-system routes eliminates the protective vegetative cover, compacts the exposed soil 

surface, generates and concentrates runoff, and causes accelerated soil erosion 

Some impacts to soils and soil productivity are normally accepted as a necessary cost to provide 

access to public lands, as long as most impacts are limited to the immediate area of disturbance, the 

road or trail can be maintained at a reasonable cost, and permits use as long as it’s needed. 

Implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs) are intended to meet these objectives. There are 

some non-system roads and trails that are not on the transportation system, as well as those that are on 

the system that are causing soil impacts beyond what is normally accepted because they fail to meet 

the standards of BMPs. Some of the reasons they may not meet standards is they are improperly 

located, do not have adequate drainage to prevent accelerated erosion and deposition, and are difficult 

to maintain for long term use. Often this leads to pioneering new routes or trails to get around 

sections that are difficult to traverse. This leads to more soil that is exposed, compacted, and eroded. 

The end result is an increasing amount of soil disturbance and associated impacts, both to the road and 

off-site. 

Soil Crusts 

Information on distribution and extent of soil crusts in the area is generally lacking. There are no 

references to soil crusts in the Soil Surveys of the project area. Soil crusts are commonly found in 

more arid regions where vegetative cover is generally sparse, typically in semiarid and arid 

environments throughout the world. Areas in the United States where crusts are a prominent feature 

of the landscape include the Great Basin, Colorado Plateau, Sonoran Desert, and the inner Columbia 

Basin. (Hhttp://www.soilcrust.org/crust101.htm). Because of the environmental factors soil crusts are 

probably very limited in the Sioux Ranger Districts. 

Soil crusts most likely do not occur on existing roads and trails due to type and level of existing 

disturbance. Off-road travel by motor vehicle is currently prohibited except for dispersed camping 

within 300 feet of the road. The majority of dispersed campsites currently have some level of 

disturbance; soil crusts are probably not very prevalent in these areas. These dispersed campsites are 

most likely not located in the drier open areas in the area but are more generally found in areas with 

higher vegetative cover, some shade, and at higher elevations. (Also, see the section on vegetation for 

additional discussion on dispersed campsite availability.) Generally, soil crusts will not be affected by 

designating roads and trails, since no new construction is being considered at this time. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-101

3.4.2.3 Environmental Consequences - Soils 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Soil effects resulting from development and use of forest roads and trails have been fairly well 

documented (Gucinski et al 2001, Wilson and Seney, 1994, Weaver and Dale, 1978). Effects from 

roads and trails can vary by standard and condition. 

Soil effects from roads and trails include removal of vegetative cover, compaction, degradation of soil 

structure, decreased infiltration and water holding capacity, reduction in soil organic material, 

accelerated erosion, and potential mass failure including landslides or slumps. These types of impacts 

can occur on motorized or non-motorized roads and trails. Erosion tends to be least on roads and 

trails with flat grades and more severe on roads and trails with steeper gradients. 

Soil crusts probably do exist in the project area though the extent and distribution are not well known. 

There might be impacts to soil crusts mainly due to cross-country travel. Cross-country travel by 

stock, foot and motorized travel could have a negative impact on soil crusts where they exist. 

For roads identified as Administrative use only, the less use they get the more vegetation will become 

established and potential erosion reduced. Some roads may be used consistently throughout the year 

while others may be used periodically, or maybe not at all some years. This should lead to an overall 

reduction in compaction, runoff, potential erosion and sediment generation from these roads. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Effects on soils from routes vary by standard and condition. The areas that routes and their associated 

disturbance occupy are removed from the productive soil base. Runoff from routes affects soil 

productivity by eroding soil from and adjacent to the route, and by depositing sediment on areas 

below the route. These effects are slight on well maintained, high standard routes. Other routes have 

more serious effects that tend to be localized on route segments where surface drainage is inadequate. 

Routes that are not designated for public motorized use and for which no administrative use has been 

identified may be considered candidates for decommissioning or rehabilitation. These routes, with the 

exclusion of motorized traffic, should begin to revegetate and over time, continue to have improved 

soil productivity and eventually be brought back to the productive soil base. 

Roads and trails impact and disrupt the natural function of the soil resource, and are long-term 

commitments to that specific use. This is considered an irretrievable commitment of the soil resource 

for as long as the road or trail exists. Soil function and productivity on roads and trails can be 

recovered and the Forest Service has considerable experience in rehabilitating old roads with fairly 

successful results (Kolka and Smidt, 2004). 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-102 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

An indirect effect from the action alternatives would take place as roads and trails identified as system 

routes (including conversion from non-system routes) are reconstructed, relocated, or maintained to 

meet standards and incorporate BMPs, which would reduce soil effects from these roads and trails. 

Comparisons of erosion hazard ratings by alternative are found in the following table. 

Table 3-30. Miles F

21 of Routes by Erosion Hazard Rating and Designation 

for Each Alternative

Road Erosion Hazard Rating Alternative A Alternative B No Action Alternative 

Administrative Use 

Slight 1 2 0 

Moderate 14 62 0 

Severe 21 81 2 

Subtotal 36 145 2 

Not Designated 

Slight 0 0 1 

Moderate 2 26 49 

Severe 1 34 54 

Subtotal 3 60 104 

Public Motorized Use 

Slight 6 6 5 

Moderate 176 137 150 

Severe 263 153 223 

Subtotal 445 296 378 

Alternative A 

Direct Effects 

This alternative would have the greatest impact on soils for the action alternatives. This alternative 

would have approximately 19 more miles of routes for administrative use and 40 more miles of routes 

for public motorized use on landforms with severe erosion hazard compared to the No Action 

Alternative. This includes adding routes to the system and changes in designation. 

This alternative would prohibit motorized travel on 3 miles of routes (1 mile on landforms with severe 

erosion hazard, see table above), allowing vegetation to reestablish. This would reduce erosion and 

concentrated runoff from these sites. These areas would eventually be returned to productive 

capability. 

This alternative would add 101 miles of non-system roads and trails to the Forest transportation 

system. Of this, 52 miles (45 miles Public use and 7 miles Administrative use) would be on 

landscapes that have a severe erosion hazard rating. 

This alternative would provide the greatest miles of roads and trails to be available for public use, and 

would also provide the most miles of roads available for administrative use. 

 

21 Small differences in mileage figures between this and other tables are due to GIS analysis and rounding errors.
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-103

Indirect Effects 

Off-site deposition of eroded material, soil erosion from roads and trails, and concentrated runoff 

would be reduced over time as more of the road and trail system is revegetated or is brought up to 

standard and BMPs are implemented. 

Alternative B 

Direct Effects 

This alternative would have 79 more miles of routes for administrative use and 70 less miles available 

for public motorized use on landforms with severe erosion hazard compared to the No Action 

Alternative. This includes adding routes to the system and changes in designation. 

This alternative would prohibit motorized travel on 60 miles of routes (34 miles on landscapes with 

severe erosion hazard, see table above), allowing vegetation to reestablish. This would reduce erosion 

and concentrated runoff from these sites. 

There are approximately 66 miles of non-system roads and trails being added to the transportation 

system. Of this, 37 miles (12 miles public use and 25 miles administrative use) would be on 

landscapes that have a severe erosion hazard rating. 

This alternative would provide the fewest miles of roads and trails to be available for public use, and 

would also provide the most miles of roads available for administrative use. 

Indirect Effects 

Off-site deposition of eroded material, soil erosion from roads and trails, and concentrated runoff 

would be reduced over time as more of the road and trail system is revegetated or is brought up to 

standard and BMPs are implemented. 

No Action Alternative 

Direct Effects 

This alternative only includes those routes that are currently in the transportation system. There are 

399 miles of routes that would be available for public motorized use. There are approximately 104 

miles of non-system roads that would not be designated (motor vehicle use prohibited) and would be 

available for rehabilitation and return of natural vegetation and eventually be returned to the 

productive land base. Concentrated runoff and erosion would be reduced from these sites. 

Existing low standard roads and trails would continue to erode and concentrate runoff and erosion at 

present rates. Existing sites where soil erosion is a concern will continue to erode and contribute 

sediment. The area of soil productivity effects would continue to expand as new trail segments are 

developed to get around areas that are eroded. 

Indirect Effects 

Off-site deposition of eroded material, soil erosion from roads and trails, and concentrated runoff 

would be reduced over time as more of the road and trail system is revegetated or is brought up to 

standard and BMPs are implemented. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-104 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects occur when past present or foreseeable activities overlap in both time and space 

with the proposed activities. Thus, cumulative effects are limited to the areas where the proposed 

activities would occur. In other words, cumulative effects would occur only where proposed activities 

would occur where previous management has affected soil conditions. Activities outside of the 

locations of proposed management are not subject to cumulative effects because they do not overlap 

spatially with the lands being proposed for management in the Sioux Ranger District Travel 

Management Project. Soil effects do not extend off of the piece of ground where they occur. 

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities 

The current vegetative treatment and mining activities that do occur in the analysis area incorporate 

BMPs and produce relatively few soil impacts relating to roads and trails. There is a possibility that 

new routes will be constructed and added to the system in the future. These could be designated for 

public use or for administrative use only. If these routes were to be added to the transportation 

system, it would increase the compaction and potential runoff and erosion for the specific route. The 

location and analysis of the proposed route would be determined based on site specific analysis to 

reduce the potential impacts on soils. Timber sales are audited for compliance with BMPs and are 

monitored to see that design features that reduce soil effects are implemented. 

The continuation of livestock grazing activities will overlap with the proposed action in both time and 

space. They could potentially contribute to the effects. A possibility exists that new routes will be 

constructed and/or added to the transportation system in the future. This might occur if new range 

infrastructure is identified as a need for continued management. These could be designated for public 

use or for administrative use only. If these routes were to be added to the transportation system, it 

would increase the compaction and potential runoff and erosion for the specific route. The location 

and analysis of the proposed route would be determined based on site specific analysis to reduce the 

potential impacts on soils. Another impact might occur if livestock grazing occurs where vegetation 

is beginning to reestablish, either naturally or through reclamation activities, on routes that are not 

designated. Continued grazing might reduce the vegetative cover, slowing reclamation. 

The decision made in this project will affect the amount of land committed to a dedicated use. By 

adding routes to the system or designating/not designating a route for specific use, this project might 

have an impact on other projects and that project’s ability to meet Regional policy regarding soil 

quality. 

3.4.2.4 Conclusion - Soils 

Roads and trails impact and disrupt the natural function of the soil resource, and are long-term 

commitments to that dedicated use. Routes not designated for public motorized used will begin to 

revegetate and improve soil productivity. 

Alternative A would provide the greatest number of miles of routes available for public use and the 

least number of miles of routes to return to productive capability over time. 

Alternative B would provide an intermediate number of miles compared to Alternatives A and No 

Action. Alternative B would have fewer miles of routes available to the public for motorized use on 

landforms with severe erosion hazard compared to Alternative A and the No Action Alternative. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-105

Alternative B would decrease the miles of roads and trails designated for public motorized use on 

soils that have severe erosion rating by 70 miles compared to the No Action Alternative. 

Alternative A would increase by 40 miles the roads and trails designated for public motorized use, on 

soils having severe erosion hazard compared to the No Action Alternative. 

Soil crusts most likely do not occur on existing roads and trails due to type and level of existing 

disturbance. Generally, soil crusts will not be affected by designating roads and trails, since no new 

construction is being considered at this time. 

Consistency with Laws, Regulation, and Policy 

All Forest Plan management direction would be met by the proposed action. 

3.4.3 VEGETATION 

Overview of Changes from the Draft to the Final EIS 

 Changes made reflect minor mileage changes to Alternative B. 

3.4.3.1 Introduction 

Analysis of associated travel disturbances on vegetation, weed spread, and sensitive plants are 

addressed under the general heading of Vegetation. 

3.4.3.2 Affected Environment – Vegetation 

Introduction 

There is a concern that designation of travel routes allows for disturbance of native vegetation by 

vehicles, camping, hiking, mountain biking, and pack and saddle stock. Vegetation has various 

abilities to recover from disturbance depending upon frequency, duration, and timing of disturbance 

and species ability to resist disturbance. 

Regulatory Framework 

36 CFR 219.20 outlines direction regarding ecological sustainability. Plans should provide for 

maintenance or restoration of ecosystems at appropriate spatial and temporal scales determined by the 

responsible official. The spatial scale for this analysis is the project area and the temporal scale is the 

planning horizon of the decision resulting from this analysis, identified as ten years. 

Overview-Vegetation 

Vegetation of the Sioux Ranger District is floristically rich and diverse. The diversity is composed of 

many community types including ponderosa pine (5), aspen (1), paper birch (1), green ash woodland 

(3), cottonwood (6), Rocky Mountain juniper (1), silver sage shrubland (1), big sage shrubland (4), 

skunkbush sumac shrubland (2), buffaloberry (1), western snowberry (1), horizontal juniper (1), 

grasslands (22), and herbaceous riparian (19). 

Factors Influencing Area Impacted and Severity of Impact 

The overall impact of a travel use on vegetation is a function of both the area impacted and the 

severity of impact within the disturbed area. Within the scope of this analysis, travel related impacts 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-106 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

to vegetation include disturbances from camping and vehicle use. Factors that influence the severity 

of vegetation impact include duration and frequency of use, vegetation resistance and resilience, and 

season of use. 

Duration and Frequency of Use 

It is recognized that impacts might occur anywhere along designated travel routes. However, there is 

a higher probability of more severe vegetation impacts in areas where people tend to frequent 

repeatedly. These areas are typically near water, vistas, shade, and other areas on gentle terrain 

suitable for camping (usually 0 to 4% slopes). Sites that are used infrequently and sites that are 

capable of resisting deterioration will usually be less impacted than those that are used frequently and 

those that are readily disturbed. For example, in long-established campsites, the magnitude of 

vegetation impact is determined as much by the ability of vegetation to recover from disturbance as by 

the ability to resist disturbance. 

Resistance and Resilience 

Aspects of vulnerability of vegetation having impacts and ability to recover include attributes of 

resistance and resilience. Resistance refers to the ability of vegetation to resist change when trampled. 

Resilience refers to the ability of vegetation to recover following the cessation of trampling and 

tolerate a cycle of disturbance and recovery. 

Resistant vegetation types, such as sedges, are able to absorb 25 to 30 times as much trampling as the 

least resistant type, such as ferns (Cole 1993 and Cole 1993b). Plant characteristics, notably the 

position of the plants’ perennating bud and physiological characteristics such as reproductive capacity 

and growth rates, also influence resilience (Cole 1995a,b,c). Morphological characteristics are primary 

factor influencing plant resistance to trampling. Grasses and sedges have flexible stems growing in 

mats or tufts. More fragile are woody plants and taller herbs. Complete loss of vegetation cover occurs 

quickly in shady forested areas, less quickly in open areas with resistant grassy vegetation (Leung & 

Marion, 1996). The resilience of plants, their ability to recover following trampling disturbance, varies 

substantially by habitat, with higher recovery in the most productive environments such as those with 

higher soil fertility and moisture. For example, recovery rates are high in riparian and grassland areas. 

Recovery in forested systems is typically moderate to high. In contrast, trampling impacts in less 

resilient environments, such as arid environments, require a long time to recover (Leung & Marion, 

1996). 

Effects Analysis Methodology-Vegetation 

General potential effects to vegetation are based on literature reviews. Geographical Information 

System (GIS) methods were used to assess the magnitude of area potentially impacted and potential 

risk categories based on various elements of frequency and duration of trampling, and vegetation 

resistance and resilience. 

Duration and Frequency of Use 

Potential Infrequent Use Areas – Potential Use Corridors 

Impacts might occur within each Alternative’s potential impact corridor along designated travel 

routes. Sites that are used infrequently and sites that are capable of resisting deterioration will usually 

be less impacted than those that are used frequently and readily disturbed 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-107

The following buffers from designated routes were used to describe the Potential Use Corridor by 

Alternative. For designated motorized routes with an allowance for dispersed vehicle camping access, 

a 300 foot buffer was applied to all alternatives. For designated motorized routes without an 

allowance for dispersed vehicle camping access in the North Cave Hills, a 50 foot buffer was applied 

to Alternative B to account for potential vehicle turn arounds. It is recognized that not all estimated 

acreage will be affected and therefore results will be on the conservative side. 

Potential Frequent Use Areas – 0 to 4% Slopes 

There is a higher probability for more severe vegetation impacts in areas where people tend to visit 

repeatedly or with longer duration of use. These areas are typically near water, vistas, shade, and 

other areas on gentle terrain suitable for camping (usually 0 to 4% slopes). 

Zero to 4% slopes were used to represent potential frequent use areas, found within each Alternative’s 

potential use corridors, and are intersected with elements outlined in the resistance and resilience 

section below. The 0 to 4% slope class was used because people tend to concentrate for longer 

durations of use at campsites or areas in gentle terrain. It is recognized that not all estimated acreage 

will be affected and therefore results will be on the conservative side. 

Resistance and Resilience 

All vegetation cover types from satellite imagery (SILC3 post-large wildfires) are addressed within 

the following two risk groupings based on degree of vulnerability to resist impacts (resistance) and 

ability to recover (resiliency). The two groups are intersected with the frequent and infrequent use 

areas outlined above. 

Because grasslands, shrub/grass, and open woodland vegetation types tend to have higher resistance 

(lower vulnerability to trampling) and resilience (higher resiliency to recover) elements, these cover 

types are used to represent areas of low risk for impacts. 

Because forested vegetation types (greater that 65% canopy cover) tend to have lower resistance to 

impacts and moderate to high resiliency to recover, these cover types are used to represent areas of 

moderate risk for impacts. 

High risk category (alpine / subalpine and desert / semi-desert) is not considered in this analysis since 

these areas do not occur in the analysis area. 

Measurable Attributes 

Based on the above discussion, the magnitude of area potentially impacted is stratified by risk of 

impacts in low and moderate risk categories. Where vehicle access for dispersed camping is allowed, 

potential use within each Alternative’s corridor is projected to have less frequency of use (not all the 

area within the corridor will be traveled since one must use the most direct route to a campsite). 

These areas were identified through the intersection of cover type resistance / resilience groupings in 

each of the two risk categories with each of the Alternative’s use corridors. These areas were further 

intersected with the risk category cover type groups within a 0 to 4% slope class. The 0 to 4% slope 

class represents the area with higher probability for concentrated use and severity of impact such as 

camping. The measurement is in acres and percent of potentially impacted acres compared to total 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-108 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

project area acres. It is recognized that not all estimated acreage will be affected and therefore results 

will be on the conservative side. 

3.4.3.3 Environmental Consequences – Vegetation 

Direct and Indirect Effects-Vegetation 

General Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Trampling 

Crushing or treading upon vegetation, either by foot, hoof, or tire, contributes to a wide range of 

vegetation impacts, including damage to plant leaves, stems, and roots, reduction in vegetation height, 

change in the composition of species, and loss of plants and vegetative cover. Trampling can quickly 

break down vegetation cover and create a visible route that attracts additional use. Complete loss of 

vegetation cover occurs quickly in shady forested areas, less quickly in open areas with resistant 

grassy vegetation. Regardless, studies have consistently revealed that impacts can occur with initial or 

low use, with a diminishing increase in impact associated with increasing levels of traffic (Hammit & 

Cole, 1998; Leung & Marion, 1996). Once trampling occurs, the rate of vegetative recovery can vary, 

depending on the site’s resistance and resilience to disturbance. 

Soil compaction from repeated trampling can affect plant growth by reducing moisture availability 

and precluding adequate taproot penetration to deeper soil horizons. In turn, the size and abundance of 

native plants may be reduced. Above-ground portions of plants also may be reduced through breakage 

or crushing, potentially leading to reductions in photosynthetic capacity, poor reproduction, and 

diminished litter cover. Likewise, blankets of fugitive dust raised by motorized traffic can disrupt 

photosynthetic processes, thereby suppressing plant growth and vigor, especially along motorized 

routes. In turn, reduced vegetation cover may permit invasive and/or non-native plants—particularly 

shallow-rooted annual grasses and early successional species capable of rapid establishment and 

growth—to spread and dominate the plant community, thus diminishing overall local biodiversity. 

Compositional changes in the vegetation along trail corridors can have both beneficial and adverse 

effects. Trampling-resistant plants provide a durable groundcover that reduces soil loss by wind and 

water runoff, and root systems that stabilize soils against displacement by heavy traffic. Many of 

introduced species are disturbance-associated and are naturally limited to areas where the vegetation is 

routinely trampled or cut back. However, a few invasive non-native species, once introduced to trail 

corridors, are able to out-compete native plants and spread away from the trail corridor in undisturbed 

habitats. Some of these species form dense cover that crowd out or displace native plants (see Weeds 

Section). 

Camping 

Vegetation composition of campsites is not changed by infrequent camping for short periods. 

However, aerial plant parts will be broken and flowering in the season of impact may be affected. 

Long-term or frequent camping, even for one season, results in the destruction of vegetation, leaving 

barren compacted areas. 

The creation of fire-rings impacts vegetation through burning, and the covering of vegetation with 

rocks. Revegetation is likely to be slow, because of changes in soil characteristics from such as loss of 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-109

nitrogen, phosphorus, sulphur, and organic matter. The firewood used in campfires often comes from 

dead trees, but living trees have also been used, often to an extent which exceeds their capacity for 

regeneration. 

Minor impacts associated with camping include the death of vegetation covered with garbage, partlyburned wood, or rocks removed from campsites. Digging of pits for garbage disposal and the removal 

of rocks from campsites -result in the creation of small bare areas, which are often enlarged by 

erosional processes and trampling. 

Vehicles 

The overall impact of a vehicle on vegetation is a function of both the area impacted and the severity 

of impact within the disturbed area. The severity of vegetation impact within a disturbed area can be 

higher than hiking, mountain biking, and stock use based on weight (a dirt bike weighs 100-200 

pounds, whereas typical ATV can weigh up to 900 lbs, or up to several tons for 4x4 Off Road 

Vehicles), power, tire-surface area (tire footprint), and wheel slip that can cause greater compression 

on soils and vegetation as well as vegetation shearing. Vehicle impacts to vegetation can be 

exacerbated by rutting during wet periods due to low bearing capacity of soft soils (Affleck. 2005). 

Direct impacts of vehicle activities on vegetation include reduced vegetation cover and growth rates, 

and increased potential for non-native and pioneering species to become established, thus altering 

vegetation communities. In certain instances, however, the impervious nature of compacted routes 

could result in runoff that generates greater moisture availability immediately along motorized routes. 

In turn, this would promote increased vegetation cover and plant abundance farther away. Repeated 

off-route activity results in the crushing, breaking and overall reduction of vegetative cover. Detours 

around snowbanks or mud holes are sometimes made by vehicles, and parallel motorized routes can 

become widely spaced. 

Indirect effects of vehicle activities on vegetation are tied to soil properties altered by vehicle traffic, 

as soil properties typically influence vegetation growth. Motorized roads and trails also create edge 

habitats, which can generate conditions that promote the encroachment of non-native and invasive 

plant species. Other indirect effects include increased amounts of airborne dust raised by traffic. 

Fugitive dust on plant foliage can inhibit plant growth rate, size, and survivorship. Vehicle passes can 

also result in indirect effects including damaging germinating seeds, and weakening plants making 

them more susceptible to disease and insect predation. Vehicles can result in changes in plant species 

composition. 

Weeds 

An effect of travel and trampling can be the establishment and spread of weeds. These effects are 

further described in the Weed portion of the Vegetation section. 

Magnitude and Settings of Potential Effects on Vegetation 

The following table summarizes potential amount of vulnerability for vegetation impacts for each 

Alternative by risk categories based on various elements of frequency and duration of trampling, and 

vegetation resistance and resilience. It is recognized that not all estimated acreage will be affected 

and therefore results will be on the conservative side. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-110 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

Table 3-31. Potential Vegetation Impacts by Risk Category - Sioux

Attributes Alternative A Alternative B No Action 

Moderate Risk Areas

Acres Potential Frequent Use Areas F

22 (% of Project Area) 128 (Trace) 90 (Trace) 98 (Trace)

Acres Potential Infrequent Use Areas 23 (% of Project Area) 2,191 (1%) 1,380 (1%) 1,634 (1%)

Miles in Moderate Risk Area 24 13 17 

Low Risk Areas

Acres Potential Frequent Use Areas F

24 (% of Project Area) 3,839 (3%) 2,528 (2%) 3,315 (2%)

Acres Potential Infrequent Use Areas 25 (% of Project Area) 21,164 (13%) 14,586 (9%) 20,387 (12%)

Miles in Low Risk Area 412 251 352 

Cumulative Effects-Vegetation 

Fuels reduction, prescribed burning, livestock grazing, and timber management projects are currently 

planned and will continue to be planned for the District. These projects and any associated road use 

or construction have potential to impact vegetation. Projects are designed to minimize impacts to 

vegetation. 

Use of existing designated routes and associated 300 foot allowance for access to vehicle camping, in 

combination with the proposed actions, have potential to impact vegetation within the project area. 

Implementation of any of the alternatives considered in this analysis would not be expected to 

contribute to significant cumulative effects associated with vegetation. Anticipated future projects or 

activities are fewer in number and less disruptive from a resource extraction point of view than those 

projects or activities that have taken place in the past. 

3.4.3.4 Conclusion - Vegetation 

Because it is seldom possible to control or even document the past use or predict future use, estimates 

of the impacts caused by different use frequencies are imprecise. The ability to predict the effects of 

different intensities of various uses is low. However, the amounts of potentially affected area, 

projected within the context of moderate risk categories based on various elements of frequency, 

duration, timing, and vegetation resistance and resilience are displayed in the Potential Vegetation 

Impacts by Risk Category table above. It is recognized that not all estimated acreage will be affected 

and therefore results are on the conservative side. 

Under all alternatives, when compared against similar vegetation types, potential impacts from 

frequent use within the 0 to 4% slopes of the route’s corridor in moderate and low risk areas could 

occur in about 2-3% of the project area. Potential impacts from infrequent use within the route’s 

corridor in moderate and low risk areas could occur in about 10% and 14% of the project area, 

respectively. 

 

22 Frequent Use Areas with Moderate Risk: Areas of 0-4% slopes within 300’ of motorized routes in Ponderosa pine types with greater 

than 65% canopy cover. 

23 Infrequent Use Areas with Moderate Risk: Areas of greater than 4% slopes within 300’ of motorized routes in Ponderosa pine types 

with greater than 65% canopy cover. 

24 Frequent Use Areas with Low Risk: Areas of 0-4% slopes within 300’ of motorized routes in community types with less than 65% 

canopy cover. 

25 Infrequent Use Areas with Low Risk: Areas of greater than 4% slopes within 300’ of motorized routes in Ponderosa pine types with 

less than 65% canopy cover. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-111

Moderate risk category potential impact ranges from 1,470 (Alternative B) to 2,319 acres (Alternative 

A). This is about one percent of the project area. Low risk category potential impact ranges from 

17,114 (Alternative B) to 25,003 acres (Alternative A). This is about 7 to 11% of the project area. 

Table 3-32. Potential Vegetation Impacts by Risk Category - Sioux

Attributes Alternative A 

Change from No Action 

Alternative B 

Change from No Action 

Moderate Risk Areas

Acres Potential Frequent Use Areas Increases by 30 Acres Decreases by 8 Acres

Acres Potential Infrequent Use Areas Increases by 557 Acres Decreases by 254 Acres

Miles in Moderate Risk Area Increases by 7 Miles Decreases by 4 Miles

Low Risk Areas

Acres Potential Frequent Use Areas Increases by 524 Acres Decreases by 787 Acres

Acres Potential Infrequent Use Areas Increases by 777 Acres Decreases by 5,801 Acres

Miles in Low Risk Area Increases by 60 Miles Decreases by 1 Miles 

While impacts resulting from camping and vehicles can be locally very significant, the total area of 

impact is small when compared to various ecosystems of the project area. The level of acceptable 

impact over a given area is within the discretion of the deciding official for this project as outlined in 

the regulatory framework for this section. Selection of any alternative would be consistent with the 

regulatory framework relative to vegetation sustainability at the level of this project’s scale. 

3.4.3.5 Affected Environment – Weeds 

Introduction 

There is concern that travel management can influence the spread of noxious weeds and invasive 

plants. Also, the Forest Service has identified invasive species as one of the top threats to the health 

of National Forests. In this document, the terms “weeds”, “noxious weeds’ and “invasive plants” are 

used synonymously. Invasive weeds are defined as any non-native plant, which when established is 

or may become destructive and difficult to control by ordinary means of cultivation or other control 

practices. “Noxious” weeds are those non-native plants that are legally listed as weeds by the state or 

county. 

Use of motorized routes contributes to the spread of weeds. Weeds can significantly alter the 

composition of native plant communities resulting in decreases in habitat quality for wildlife, reduced 

forage for livestock, increased erosion and increased sediment levels in streams, and decreases in 

aesthetic/recreational quality of wild lands (Sheley, R and J. Petroff. 1999). 

The District follows many strategies to reduce populations of weeds and to prevent further infestation. 

For instance: best management practices are followed (Forest Service Manual Section 2080 

(FSM2080)); standard and special provisions are included in timber sale contracts; a Forest-wide 

special order requiring weed-free hay and feed for stock has been implemented; weed-free gravel in 

road construction projects is required, and competitive seeding of disturbed sites is done with native 

vegetation. All districts on the Forest have implemented integrated weed management programs that 

include prevention through public education, along with biological, mechanical and chemical weed 

suppression. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-112 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

Regulatory Framework 

Nearly all users and interested parties desire complete prevention and eradication of noxious weeds on 

the Forest, but not necessarily at the expense of their use and enjoyment of the Forest. Neither are 

there sufficient resources or technology available to completely eradicate existing weed infestations 

within the planning horizon. The 1987 Custer National Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service. 1986) 

directs control of noxious weeds as a priority item (FP Page II-3) where the goal is to implement an 

“integrated pest management program aimed at controlling new starts, priority areas of minor 

infestations. Holding actions will be implemented on areas of existing large infestations.” 

Additionally, the Forest Service Manual 2080 (1. b. (5)) requires a weed risk assessment be conducted 

for all projects that could spread weeds. Additional regulatory framework for integrated weed 

management is found in the 2006 Custer NF Weed Management FEIS (USDA Forest Service. 2006), 

which is incorporated by reference into this analysis. The overall goal of is to maintain or restore 

healthy plant communities that are relatively weed resistant, while meeting other land-use objectives 

such as forage production, wildlife habitat maintenance, or recreational land maintenance. 

Overview - Weeds 

An extensive scientific literature review was recently conducted for the 2006 Custer NF Weed 

Management EIS (project file). Weeds have many vectors for dispersal, such as people, wind, water, 

and animals. Although wind and water contribute to weed dispersal, travel management does not 

influence these forms of seed dispersal; consequently, they are not addressed in this analysis. 

Research has shown that motorized vehicles tend to have a greater capacity for spreading weeds than 

non-motorized travel (Tyser and Worley, 1992). The current weed inventory for the Custer National 

Forest shows this same correlation; more weeds are present along motorized routes than along nonmotorized routes. The bulk of the remaining Sioux District infestations occur in areas that have been 

burned by wildfire. According to the Custer weed survey data as of 2006, of the infestations 

occurring near motorized routes, about 70 percent of the infestations occur within the first 100 feet of 

motorized routes. 

Current Weed Conditions 

Some weed species are extremely hardy, competitive, and have the ability to displace native plant 

species and permanently alter the structure, composition and function of native plant communities. 

These species are considered very invasive and are typically listed as noxious by States. Of the 2000 

plus vascular plant species that have been documented on the Custer National Forest, seven are 

considered noxious weeds on the District. Currently there are approximately 494 recorded acres 

infested with noxious weeds in the District boundary. Sites are generally small and widely scattered 

with many populations occurring along main National Forest System roads. Canopy density averages 

between 5-35 percent. Canada thistle, spotted knapweed, leafy spurge, and some houndstongue are 

the predominant noxious weed species on the District. 

Human Influence 

Human activities of grazing, timber harvest, road construction, recreation (camping, fishing, hunting, 

trail riding, back packing) and forest administration contribute, to various degrees, to the introduction 

and spread of weeds. Motorized vehicles and equipment contribute the most to introduction and 

spread of noxious weeds because of vehicle mobility and size, and/or distance of travel within a given 

time. Weed seeds become stuck in tire tread and in under carriage mud, pulled off and lodged in the 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-113

framework, drug out upon unloading from passenger and cargo compartments or deposited with 

contaminated cargo (e.g., gravel, hay, straw). 

Trend 

Nationally, National Forest System lands have an estimated six to seven million acres that are infested 

with noxious weeds. This figure is increasing at an exponential rate of 8-12 percent per year. An 

increase in inventoried infestations has occurred over the past 20 years due, in large part, to large scale 

wildfires and better inventory. In addition to annual appropriations, various grants and partnerships 

have been successful in adding resources to annual control measures. Treatment priority criteria are 

used because resources are generally not sufficient to treat all infestations (USDA Forest Service, 

2006). Spread vector areas such as motorized routes are high in priority for treatment. The Custer 

National Forest could experience further invasion in the very near future, especially in light of some 

of the large scale wildfires that have occurred and will likely continue to occur. 

To counter the continuing spread, the Forest has had an active prevention and control program to 

reduce the impacts of invasive noxious weeds for over 25 years. Chemical weed control has 

historically been the primary tool for noxious weed control in the analysis area. 

Effects Analysis Methodology 

The degree of risk from some of the most threatening species can be evaluated when completing 

project weed risk assessments. The probability of exposure of each site to plant propagules affecting 

dispersal, the susceptibility of an area to species’ establishment, and the level of threat to susceptible 

areas can be evaluated. Overlaying weed inventories and designated public motorized routes, with 

this susceptibility assessment can further identify areas that are potentially at risk from invasion. A 

spatially explicit analytic model using a Geographic Information System (GIS) was used to map and 

calculate the acres at risk to invasive weeds (Project Record). 

Level of Risk 

Susceptibility, threat, and probability of exposure can be combined to model the degree of risk across 

a project area from some of the most threatening weed species. A risk assessment (Mantas, 2003) was 

completed for several weeds occurring in the USFS Northern Region, East of the Continental Divide 

(Hhttp://www.fs.fed.us/r1/cohesive_strategy/datafr.htm). This information was referenced in 

determining area susceptibility and threat levels. 

Weed Susceptibility. 

Susceptibility is an estimate of the vulnerability of different habitats to colonization and establishment 

of a weed species. Even without any disturbance on the landscape, some areas are susceptible to the 

infestation by invasive plants. Because most of the weed species that occur on the District are 

considered aggressive in most non-forested and sparsely forested settings, these vegetation types are 

considered to be susceptible to weed invasion. Approximately 90% of the District is naturally 

susceptible to weed invasion. These areas are usually open areas with limited or no shade from tree 

overstory. 

A 400 foot buffer from each side of a motorized route was used for each alternative and helps assess 

indirect effects. This accounts for allowable dispersed camping within 300 feet of a route, along with 

a 100 foot addition for potential weed spread beyond the 300 foot dispersed camping allowance. 

These specific Alternative buffers were intersected with areas rated as susceptible to weed infestation 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-114 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

Weed Threat 

Threat refers to the estimated degree of change in structure, function or composition that a weed 

species would have on a potential natural vegetation type. Because the noxious weed species that 

occur on the District are considered aggressive, they all occur in the high threat class. 

Weed Exposure 

Exposure refers to the probability that an area would be exposed to seeds from noxious weeds. The 

exposure classes used in this analysis are high exposure (motorized routes designated for public use) 

and low to no exposure (motorized routes designated for administrative use only F

26 and non-motorized 

travel). An average of 70% of a road related infestations on the Forest occur within the first 100 feet 

of the buffer, about 82% occurs within the first 300 feet, and 95% occurs within the first 400 feet of 

motorized routes. 

Existing weed infestions within a 400 foot buffer from motorized routes was used to assess direct 

effects from exposure to weeds since most of the weed infestations, associated with motorized routes, 

are found within this distance. The effects analysis assumption used is that weed establishment in 

areas susceptible to weed infestation can spread within this 400 foot distance within the ten year 

planning horizon of the travel management decision if left untreated. However, road related 

infestations are given high priority for treatment since motorized routes are typically primary vectors 

for spread. Exposure to weed spread within 400 feet of a motorized route is less that that portrayed in 

the following table due to the likelihood of weed treatment and the fact that the bulk of road-related 

infestations occur within the first 100 feet. Therefore, the 400 foot buffer was used as a conservative 

approach for an analysis measurement. 

3.4.3.6 Environmental Consequences – Weeds 

Direct and Indirect Effects-Weeds 

The direct effect of motorized travel routes within susceptible areas for weed invasion is an increase in 

weed density and distribution from vehicle and camping activities. The following table is used to 

make Alternative comparisons. The corridor associated with the Alternative A has the most acres 

currently infested with weeds (209 acres), and Alternative B has the least (149 acres). The motorized 

routes going through infested areas range from 30-42%. 

Table 3-33. Weed Infestations and Public Motorized Routes – Sioux 

Alternative A Alternative B No Action Alternative 

Total Infested Acres within 400’ 

Buffer 209 149 201 

Percent of Infested within 494 

Inventoried Net Acres of Weeds 27 42% 30% 41% 

Miles of Designated Routes 

bisecting Weed Infestations 16 11 15 

 

26 Motorized routes designated for administrative use fall within a controlled setting either through permit with associated terms and 

conditions or use by Forest Service employees where best management practices are required. Also, these routes tend to have less 

frequent travel and low duration of use which also lessen impacts compared to more frequent use by the general public who always are 

not aware of protective measures to take in preventing and combating noxious weeds. 

27 Most of the remaining acreage not occurring adjacent to motorized routes are a result of wildfire effects or animal vectors. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-115

The following table summarizes indirect effects. Indirect effects include the risk of vegetation 

becoming infested from vehicles carrying and dropping weed seeds into areas susceptible to weed 

growth. Once aggressive weeds are introduced into the susceptible area, it would continue to spread 

and displace native plants, even if the area is not disturbed. 

The indirect effect for each alternative is based on the total number of acres susceptible to weeds that 

intersected the respective Alternative’s buffer of motorized routes. For each Alternative, about 90% 

of the buffered areas are susceptible to weed infestations. Alternative A has the greatest area at highrisk of weed invasion near motorized travel routes (34,572 acres), while Alternative B has the least 

(22,136 acres). The areas of high susceptibility are summarized in the following table: 

Table 3-34. Susceptibility to Weed Infestation by Alternative - Sioux 

Susceptible Area within Route Corridor F

28 Alternative A Alternative B No Action 

Susceptible Acres 34,572 21,874 30,604 

Area, within Route Corridor, Infested with Weeds (Acres) 1 1 1 

Cumulative Effects-Weeds 

All of the activities identified as past and present activities in the beginning portion of this chapter, 

have influenced the spread of weeds. Future activities have the potential to spread weeds. 

The common elements associated with most weed infestations are ground disturbance, wildfire, and 

use of motorized vehicles. Once the weeds are introduced into an area they generally continue to 

spread into adjacent areas. Weeds will continue to be spread as a result of resource management and 

other human activities. The mitigation measures that are addressed in the Forest Service Manual 2080 

are being implemented and will help to slow the spread of weeds. 

If a disturbance (such as a fire or timber harvest) occurred in a high-risk area with an existing weed 

problem and the area has motorized routes, the cumulative impact will exasperate the problem. In this 

situation the weeds may spread quickly to new areas and may rapidly increase in density. Having 

motorized travel in these areas may carry the weeds to new locations. The best management practices 

outlined in Forest Service Manual 2080 will help to reduce the spread rate but may not prevent the 

spread altogether. 

Current on-going activities may have a cumulative negative effect by increasing the introduction and 

spread of noxious weeds. Livestock grazing may transport weed seed between private or other lands 

and the Forest, or from place to place on the Forest, by carrying seed in the hair or digestive tract. 

Livestock may also increase seed germination by reducing vegetation competition in areas of 

improper grazing and by ground disturbance in areas of excessive trailing. Wildlife and birds can 

similarly transport weed seed in hair, feathers and digestive tracts. Weed seeds are also transported by 

wind and water and wildfire provides improved germination. 

 

28 400 foot buffer from motorized route under all alternatives except for those portions of routes under Alternative B that do not allow 

dispersed vehcile camping. A 100 foot buffer was used on those routes. See Methodology section. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-116 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

3.4.3.7 Conclusion - Weeds 

Since there is a high association with motorized routes and weed infestations, Alternatives A and No 

Action have a higher probability for weed spread than Alternative B. 

Table 3-35. Summary of Changes in Effects Compared to the No Action Alternative - Sioux

Change from the No Action Alternative Alternative A Alternative B 

Exposure to Current Weed Infestations

Change in motorized route corridor exposure to 

weed infestation acreage from No Action (% change 

from No Action)

Motorized route corridor 

exposure to 

weed infestations 

increased by 8 acres (4%) 

Motorized route corridor 

exposure to 

weed infestations 

reduced by 52 Acres (26%) 

Weed Susceptibility

Change in acreage of Weed Susceptible areas, 

within motorized route corridor, from No Action (% 

change from No Action)

Weed Susceptible Area 

increased by 

3968 (17%) Acres 

Weed Susceptible Area 

reduced by 

8730 Acres (28%) 

Many agents will continue to transport weeds and weed seeds, regardless of the decision on travel, but 

the fewer the agents, the less weed spread. However, removing all use would defeat the purpose of the 

public lands, and is not public policy, and still would not totally eliminate the spread of weeds. 

Therefore, noxious weed management requires a balance of use restriction, public education, 

implementation of best management practices (BMPs), and effective treatment measures. The more 

the public voluntarily accepts and implements weed prevention practices, less restrictions and 

expensive weed control will be required. 

Per existing policy, a noxious weed risk analysis will be done for each project and appropriate BMP 

measures (FSM 2080, R1 Supplement 2000-2001-1) included in each environmental analysis, permit, 

and contract and will help reduce cumulative effects. Each project and public use area will be 

monitored for noxious weeds and the implementation and effectiveness of BMP mitigation measures, 

prioritized by the degree of risk. The Forest Service will continue prevention, public education and 

appropriate weed treatment measures. 

All action alternatives are consistent with the Laws, Regulations, Policy, and Federal, Regional, State, 

and Custer Forest Plan. Of these regulatory directions, only the FSM 2080 addresses travel 

management with respect to weed management. A weed risk assessment is part of this analysis and 

meets this policy. 

3.4.3.8 Affected Environment – Sensitive Plants 

Introduction 

Forest Service sensitive species are defined as “Those plant and animal species identified by a 

Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by: a) significant current 

or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density or b) significant current or predicted 

downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution. 

Regulatory Framework 

The 1987 Custer National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and Forest 

Service Manual 2670.22 Sensitive Species provides direction for sensitive plants. Forest Service 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-117

policy regarding biological evaluations is summarized in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2672.4. The 

intent of the biological evaluation process is to assess the potential impacts of proposed management 

activities, and ensure that such activities will not jeopardize the continued existence of species listed, 

or proposed to be listed, as Endangered or Threatened by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

species designated as sensitive by the Regional Forester. 

Affected Environment – Sensitive Plants 

Only species with known locations or potential habitat on the District are addressed in the analysis 

and outlined in the following table. Five species are known to occupy habitat and have documented 

occurrences in the District. One sensitive species is suspected to be present on the District. 

Table 3-36. R-1 Sensitive Plant Species - Sioux

Sensitive in 

Common & 

Scientific 

Name 

Type 29

F Global 

Rank 30

F State 

Rank 31

F

BHabitat MT SD 

Closest known 

population 

Flowering 

Period 

Fruiting 

Period 

BADLANDS / SPARSE TO DRY HILLSLOPES

Dakota 

buckwheat 

(Known) 

Eriogonum 

visheri

2 G3 S3 

Barren, often bentonitic 

badlands slopes and 

outwashes in the plains. 

Elev. 3,140-3,760 

 X 

Slim Buttes - Irish 

Butte (S. of Mtn 

Ranch Sp. #1) 

July - Sept 

Barr’s 

milkvetch 

(Suspected) 

Astragalus 

barrii

2 G3 S3 

Gullied knolls, buttes, and 

barren hilltops, often on 

calcareous soft shale and 

siltstone. Elev. 2,940 - 

4,000 

X X West of Ekalaka 

Hills 

May-early 

June May-June 

SANDY, GRAVELLY, CLAYEY PRAIRIES AND WOODLANDS

Ovalleaf 

milkweed 

(Known)

Asclepias 

ovalifolia

3 G5? S1 

Sandy, gravelly or clayey 

soils of prairies and 

woodlands Elev. 3,760-

3,840 

X Long Pines below 

Icebox Spring July – Aug Aug -Oct 

MESIC CONDITIONS

Mountain 

bluebells 

(Known) 

Mertensia 

ciliata

3 G5 S1 

Forested slopes-damp 

thickets in course to 

medium textured soils. 

Valley bottoms associated 

with springs, seeps, and 

spring fed water courses; 

occasionally found in nonwetlands. Intermediate 

shade tolerance. Very 

drought intolerant. Its Slim 

 X 

Known in Tepee 

Canyon of Slim 

Buttes; 

West Short Pines – 

1912 Collection 

(land ownership 

unknown) 

Late spring to 

summer 

 

29 Scale of risk, per Region 1 Species at Risk Protocol: Type 1: Threatened, Endangered or Proposed (ESA); Type 2: Range-wide 

Imperilment; Type 3: Regional/State Imperilment 30 and 30 The international network of Natural Heritage Programs employs a standardized ranking system to denote global (range-wide) 

and state status (Association for Biodiversity Information 2001). Species are assigned numeric ranks ranging from 1 (critically

imperiled) to 5 (demonstrably secure), reflecting the relative degree to which they are “at-risk”. 1 = Critically imperiled because of 

extreme rarity and/or other factors making it highly vulnerable to extinction; 2 = Imperiled because of rarity and/or other factors 

demonstrably making it vulnerable to extinction; 3 = Vulnerable because of rarity or restricted range and/or other factors, even though it 

may be abundant at some of its locations; 4 = Apparently secure, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the 

periphery; 5 = Demonstrably secure, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery; T = Rank for 

subspecific taxon (subspecies, variety, or population); appended to the global rank for the full species, e.g. G4T3 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-118 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

Table 3-36. R-1 Sensitive Plant Species - Sioux

Sensitive in 

Common & 

Scientific 

Name 

Type 29

F Global 

Rank 30

F State 

Rank 31

F

BHabitat MT SD 

Closest known 

population 

Flowering 

Period 

Fruiting 

Period 

Butte population is located 

on the lower slope of a 

steep north facing slope. 

Elev. 5,500 plus 

Pregnant sedge 

(Known) 

Carex gravida 

var. gravida

3 G5 S1 

Open woods, often in 

ravines with deciduous 

trees, on the plains. Elev. 

3,880 - 4,000.

X Chalk Buttes July 

Prairie gentian 

(Known) 

Gentiana affinis

3 G5 S2 

Wet meadows, shores, 

springs, seepage areas and 

low prairie. Elev. 5,870-

9,740. 

 X 

Collected in 1910 

from “Cave Hills” 

& described as 

abundant. Spring 

fed springs (most 

in hardwood 

draws) in the N. 

and S. Cave Hills 

were extensively 

surveyed in 1994. 

No plants were 

found.

Aug - Sept 

The following table outlines routes where potential impacts could occur. 

Table 3-37. Motorized Routes Adjacent to Sensitive Plant Populations - Sioux 

Route Name Route ID# Sensitive Plant 

Lost Farm / Belltower 3819 Ovalleaf milkweed 

Trenk Pass 3816 Heavy sedge 

Effects Analysis Methodology-Sensitive Plants 

The analysis is based on known sensitive plant occurrences as provided by the Montana Natural 

Heritage Program (MNHP 2008), recent survey findings, and habitat potential or habitat/site 

characteristics (landtype, habitat type, aspect, and elevation). Information used came from data on file 

at the Custer National Forest, literature review (Heidel and Deholm 1995, Heidel and Deholm 1996, 

Heidel 2001, Heidel et. al. 2002, Heidel 2004, Barton and Crispin 2003, Hansen and Hoffman 1987, 

Mincemoyer 2006, MNHP 2008, NatureServe 2007, Ode 1987, Schmoller, 1993, Schmoller 1995, 

USDA Forest Service 2001, USDA 2008, USDI 2005, Vanderhorst et. al. 1998, SDNHP 2008, and 

WYNDD 2008). 

The potential direct effects are direct mortality which may come from more frequent ground 

disturbing activities within or near sensitive plant populations, such as camping or infrequent 

disturbance from accessing dispersed campsites. To estimate frequent disturbance potential, a 0-4% 

slope was overlain in GIS within the motorized route access corridor for parking/vehicle access to 

dispersed camping (300 foot buffer for vehicle access to dispersed camping for each alternative). 

Indirect effects may come from frequency and duration of camping use resulting in more difficult 

recovery due to soil compaction and vegetation composition change (including weeds) which may 

out-compete sensitive plants. A 400 foot buffer was applied to each alternatives’ designated routes to 

address access to dispersed camping allowance (300 feet) and additional area for weed spread 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-119

potential (an additional 100 feet). Weed spread assumptions are found in the Weed section of this 

chapter. 

Direct and indirect vulnerabilities and exposures are evaluated to make a biological assessment effects 

determination on each species. 

3.4.3.9 Environmental Consequences – Sensitive Plants 

Direct and Indirect Effects-Sensitive Plants 

Actions proposed in all Alternatives have the potential to affect populations of sensitive plants. The 

potential direct effects from motorized routes are direct mortality of plants which may come from 

ground disturbing activities within sensitive plant populations, such accessing dispersed camping sites 

and dispersed camping. 

Indirect effects may come from accessing dispersed camp areas and camping use. These uses can 

create more difficult plant recovery due to soil compaction and vegetation composition change 

(including weeds) which may out-compete sensitive plants. 

Some activities associated with the roads and trails do have the potential to negatively affect 

individual plants, but should not cause population viability losses. Vehicle or human travel outside the 

road or trail prism could negatively impact plants through direct removal or damage. Weed 

establishment along roads and trails could out-compete desired vegetation and negatively affect 

sensitive plant species. Most road and trail maintenance activities that stay within the existing prism 

would not pose a direct threat to those plant populations that are established along roads or trails. 

Vulnerability and Exposure 

Two known species’ populations are exposed (see table above) and moderately vulnerable to direct 

effects from travel management. All of the species habitats have potential for being susceptible to 

noxious weed spread as an indirect effect of travel management (see Weed section of this chapter). 

Population or habitat exposure and vulnerabilities to direct and indirect effects are displayed in the 

following table. 

Table 3-38. Sensitive Plant Exposure and Vulnerability - Sioux 

Species Direct Effects – Populations / Habitats Vulnerable to 

Direct Disturbance 

Indirect Effects - Habitat 

Vulnerable to Weed Spread 

Species with Known Populations 

Dakota buckwheat 

Eriogonum visheri

Low; known populations do not occur within 300 feet of 

designated routes under any alternative. 

Moderate vulnerability - 

habitat can be vulnerable to 

weed spread, but Low 

exposure - populations not 

within 400 foot indirect 

effects corridor. 

Ovalleaf milkweed 

Asclepias ovalifolia

Moderate; one route crosses through one known 

location – no known historic dispersed camping 

adjacent to the route. 

Moderate vulnerability - 

habitat can be vulnerable to 

weed spread. Moderate 

exposure – habitat within 

400 feet of designated 

routes under any alternative. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-120 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

Table 3-38. Sensitive Plant Exposure and Vulnerability - Sioux 

Species Direct Effects – Populations / Habitats Vulnerable to 

Direct Disturbance 

Indirect Effects - Habitat 

Vulnerable to Weed Spread 

Mountain bluebells 

Mertensia ciliata

Low; known populations do not occur within 300 feet of 

designated routes under any alternative. 

Moderate vulnerability - 

habitat can be vulnerable to 

weed spread, but Low 

exposure - populations not 

within 400 foot indirect 

effects corridor. 

Pregnant sedge 

Carex gravida var. 

gravida

Moderate; one route crosses through one known 

location – no known historic dispersed camping 

adjacent to the route. 

Moderate vulnerability - 

habitat can be vulnerable to 

weed spread. Moderate 

exposure – habitat within 

400 feet of designated 

routes under any alternative. 

Prairie gentian 

Gentiana affinis

Low; known populations do not occur within 300 feet of 

designated routes under any alternative. 

Moderate vulnerability - 

habitat can be vulnerable to 

weed spread, but Low 

exposure - populations not 

within 400 foot indirect 

effects corridor. 

Suspected Species 

Barr’s milkvetch 

Astragalus barrii

Low; there are no known populations within the project 

area. 

Moderate vulnerability - 

habitat can be vulnerable to 

weed spread, but Low 

exposure - populations not 

within 400 foot indirect 

effects corridor. 

There are no direct or indirect effects to Barr’s milkvetch, prairie gentian, mountain bluebells or 

Dakota buckwheat. There could be direct or indirect effects to individuals of the pregnant sedge and 

ovalleaf milkweed populations. 

Direct and indirect vulnerabilities and exposures, outlined in previous tables, were given an adjective 

rating and evaluated to make a biological assessment effects determination for each species as 

displayed in the following table. Implementation of any alternative would not be anticipated to move 

any sensitive plant species within the project area toward federal listing. 

Table 3-39. Effects Determination - Sioux 

Species Effects Components Alternative A Alternative B No Action 

Alternative 

Known Populations 

Vulnerability - Direct Low Low Low 

Exposure - Direct Low Low Low 

Vulnerability - Indirect Moderate Moderate Moderate

Exposure - Indirect Low Low Low 

Dakota 

buckwheat 

Eriogonum 

visheri

Effects Determination NI F

32 NI NI

 

32 NI = No Impact 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-121

Table 3-39. Effects Determination - Sioux 

Species Effects Components Alternative A Alternative B No Action 

Alternative 

Vulnerability - Direct Moderate Moderate Moderate 

Exposure - Direct Moderate Moderate Moderate 

Vulnerability - Indirect Moderate Moderate Moderate

Exposure - Indirect Moderate Moderate Moderate 

Ovalleaf 

milkweed 

Asclepias 

ovalifolia

Effects Determination MIIHF

33 MIIH MIIH 

Vulnerability - Direct Low Low Low 

Exposure - Direct Low Low Low 

Vulnerability - Indirect Moderate Moderate Moderate

Exposure - Indirect Low Low Low 

Mountain 

bluebells 

Mertensia 

ciliata

Effects Determination NI NI NI

Vulnerability - Direct Low Low Low 

Exposure - Direct Low Low Low 

Vulnerability - Indirect Moderate Moderate Moderate

Exposure - Indirect Low Low Low 

Prairie gentian 

Gentiana affinis

Effects Determination NI NI NI

Vulnerability - Direct Moderate Moderate Moderate 

Exposure - Direct Moderate Moderate Moderate 

Vulnerability - Indirect Moderate Moderate Moderate

Exposure - Indirect Moderate Moderate Moderate 

Pregnant sedge 

Carex 

gravida 

var. 

gravida

Effects Determination MIIH MIIH MIIH 

Suspected Species Habitat 

Vulnerability - Direct Low Low Low 

Exposure - Direct Low Low Low 

Vulnerability - Indirect Moderate Moderate Moderate

Exposure - Indirect Low Low Low 

Barr’s 

milkvetch 

(Suspected 

Astragalus 

barrii

Effects Determination NI NI NI

Cumulative Effects-Sensitive Plants 

Fuels reduction and timber management projects are currently planned and will continue to be planned 

for the District. These projects and any associated road use or construction have the potential to 

detrimentally impact individual plants and/or populations through direct plant removal or damage, 

ground disturbance, forest vegetation successional shifts, or habitat alteration (e.g. shade reduction) 

within or adjacent to plant populations. Prescribed burning and/or wildfire (natural and humancaused) also have the potential to detrimentally impact sensitive plants. These actions, without 

mitigation, may kill individual plants or entire populations, modify habitat (understory and overstory 

vegetation) to an unsuitable condition, or remove the habitat entirely. Permitted grazing has potential 

to impact sensitive plants. However, prior to implementation of future management decisions, sitespecific analysis and field surveys, where appropriate, would be completed to identify sensitive plant 

populations, determine potential effects to the populations from the actions, and design alternatives 

and/or prescribe mitigation measures to minimize impacts. Typically, adverse actions to plant 

populations would be avoided. 

 

33 MIIH: May Impact Individuals or Habitat but will not Likely Contribute to a trend towards Federal Listing or Loss of Viability to the 

Population or Species 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-122 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

Roadside low density infestations of various noxious weeds are found adjacent to routes, but none are 

known to exist near known populations of sensitive plant species that occur within 400 feet of 

motorized route corridor under any alternative. 

Travel along these routes by Forest users increases the potential that weed seed will be spread to other 

portions of the motorized route system and may establish within or adjacent to sensitive plant 

populations. Invasive species pose a risk to sensitive plants through direct competition. Herbicide 

application to manage invasive species also has the potential to kill sensitive plants. To help protect 

sensitive species, the 2006 Custer Weed Management EIS and Record of Decision directs that 

periodic inspections of known populations for the presence of invasive weeds is done. Herbicide 

applications along roads and trails would comply with product label requirements and protection 

measures described in the 2006 Custer Weed Management EIS. 

Implementation of any of the alternatives considered in this analysis would not be expected to 

contribute to significant cumulative effects. Anticipated future projects or activities are fewer in 

number and less disruptive from a resource extraction point of view than those projects or activities 

that have taken place in the past. Past activities or projects have not precluded the establishment and 

existence of known sensitive plant populations throughout the project area where appropriate habitats 

are found. Therefore, continuation of lower impact projects or activities would not be anticipated to 

contribute significantly to cumulative effects. 

3.4.3.10 Conclusion - Sensitive Plants 

Under all alternatives, four of the six species assessed are anticipated to have no impact. Any 

alternative may impact individuals or habitat but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal 

listing or loss of viability to the population or species relative to two known species. 

Table 3-40. Effects Determination Summary - Sioux 

Species Alternative A Alternative B No Action Alternative 

Known Populations 

Dakota buckwheat 

Eriogonum visheri No Impact F

34 No Impact No Impact 

Ovalleaf milkweed 

Asclepias ovalifolia MIIHF

35 MIIH MIIH 

Mountain bluebells 

Mertensia ciliata No Impact No Impact No Impact 

Prairie gentian 

 Gentiana affinis No Impact No Impact No Impact 

Pregnant sedge 

 Carex gravida var. gravida MIIH MIIH MIIH 

Suspected Species Habitat

Barr’s milkvetch 

 Astragalus barrii No Impact No Impact No Impact 

 

34 NI: No Impact 

35 MIIH: May Impact Individuals or Habitat but will not Likely Contribute to a trend towards Federal Listing or Loss of Viability to the 

Population or Species 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3 Page 3-123

Table 3-41. Summary of Number of Species by Effects Determination - Sioux

Effects Determination Alternative A Alternative B No Action 

Alternative 

Number of Species with No Impact 4 4 4 

Number of Species with potential to effect individuals 

or Habitat but will not Likely Contribute to a trend 

towards Federal Listing or Loss of Viability to the 

Population or Species 2 2 2 

All alternatives are consistent with the Laws, Regulations, Policy, and Federal, Regional, State, and 

Custer Forest Plan. Selection of any alternative would be consistent with the regulatory framework 

relative to sensitive plants. 
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Page 3-124 Sioux Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 3

- End of Chapter 3 -