mountain pine beetle response project record of...

USDA Forest Service

Black Hills National Forest

Custer, South Dakota

December 2012

MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE RESPONSE PROJECT

RECORD OF DECISION

Commonly Used Acronyms and Abbreviations

ARC At-Risk-Community BA Basal Area BF Board Foot BHNF Black Hills National Forest BMP Best Management Practices CCF Cubic Hundred Feet CDA Connected Disturbed Area CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CF Cubic Feet CFR Code of Federal Regulations CMAI Culmination of Mean Annual

Increment CPUA Concentrated Public Use Area CWD Coarse Woody Debris CWPP Community Wildfire Protection

Plan DBH Diameter Breast Height DEIS Draft Environmental Impact

Statement EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA Environmental Protection

Agency FEIS Final Environmental Impact

Statement FP Forest Plan FRCC Fire Regime Condition Class FS Forest Service FSH Forest Service Handbook FSM Forest Service Manual GIS Geographic Information System GPS Global Positioning System HFRA Healthy Forests Restoration Act ID Team Interdisciplinary Team

IPM Integrated Pest Management MA Management Area MBF Thousand Board Feet MIS Management Indicator Species MMBF Million Board Feet MPB Mountain Pine Beetle MPBRP Mountain Pine Beetle Response

Project MVUM Motorized Vehicle Use Map NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFMA National Forest Management Act NFS National Forest System NFSR National Forest System Road OHV Off Highway Vehicle PTA Potential Treatment Areas ROD Record of Decision S&G Standard(s) and Guideline(s) SDGF&P South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SOLC Species of Local Concern T&E Threatened and Endangered TMP Travel Management Plan TSI Timber Stand Improvement USDA United States Department of

Agriculture USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife

Service WYGF Wyoming Game Fish

Department WUI Wildland-Urban Interface

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individuals income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Record of Decision i

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 3

1.1 Why Here, Why Now? .......................................................................................................... 3

1.2 Location ................................................................................................................................ 3

1.3 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................. 5

1.4 Public Involvement and Collaboration ................................................................................. 5

1.4.1 Summary of Public Comments ...................................................................................... 6

1.4.2 Advisory Board Recommendations ............................................................................... 6

1.4.3 Notice of Availability and Objection Process ................................................................ 7

2. Project Summary ......................................................................................................................... 8

2.1 Issues ..................................................................................................................................... 8

2.2 Alternatives Considered ........................................................................................................ 9

3. Decision and Rationale ............................................................................................................. 11

3.1 My Decision ........................................................................................................................ 11

3.1.1 Vegetation Treatments ................................................................................................. 11

3.1.2 Road construction, reconstruction, temporary roads ................................................... 12

3.1.3 Treatments in Spearfish Canyon and Forest Plan Amendment ................................... 12

3.1.4 Adaptive Management, Design Criteria and Monitoring ............................................ 14

3.2 Rationale for My Decision ...................................................................................................... 21

3.2.1 Meets Purpose and Need .............................................................................................. 21

3.2.2 How Environmental Issues Were Considered and Addressed ..................................... 21

3.2.3 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Diversity .................................................................. 21

3.2.4 Wildfire and Fuels Hazard ........................................................................................... 23

3.2.5 Social............................................................................................................................ 24

3.2.6 Environmental Documents and Other Sources Considered in Making this Decision . 26

3.2.7 Use of Best Science ..................................................................................................... 26

4. Alternatives Analyzed in Detail and Reasons for Not Selecting Them .................................... 27

4.1 Alternative A ....................................................................................................................... 27

4.2 Alternative B ....................................................................................................................... 27

5. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ................................................. 28

6. The Environmentally Preferred Alternative(s) ......................................................................... 28

7. Findings Required by Laws and Regulations ........................................................................... 29

7.1 Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) 2003 .................................................................. 29

7.2 The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended ............................................ 30

7.3 The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 1969 ..................................................... 30

7.4 The Endangered Species Act, 1973 .................................................................................... 31

7.5 The Clean Water Act as amended ....................................................................................... 31

7.6 The Clean Air Act as amended ........................................................................................... 31

7.7 The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) 1976 ........................................................ 31

7.8 Consistency with the Land and Resource Management Plan ............................................. 32

7.9 Other State Laws ................................................................................................................. 33

8. Administrative Review ............................................................................................................. 34

9. Implementation ......................................................................................................................... 34

10. Contact Person ........................................................................................................................ 34

Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Record of Decision Page ii

Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemic on the Black Hills National Forest

Landscape Thinning in Advance of Mountain Pine Beetle

Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Record of Decision 3

Record of Decision

Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project

Final Environmental Impact Statement

USDA Forest Service

Black Hills National Forest

Custer, Fall River, Lawrence, Meade, and Pennington Counties, South Dakota

and Crook and Weston Counties, Wyoming

1. Introduction

1.1 Why Here, Why Now?

The mountain pine beetle (MPB), a native insect, has rapidly expanded in the western United States and in the Black Hills. According to the U.S. Forest Service’s (USFS) Western Bark Beetle Strategy (WBBS), approximately 41.7 million acres in the United States have been infested by pine beetles over the past 14 years. The situation has grabbed public attention in terms of scenery, increased dead fuel load, economic and natural resource impacts, and public safety. The WBBS calls for actions to address public safety, restore forests, and make forests more resilient to mountain pine beetle impacts. In the Black Hills area, some 405,000 acres have been affected by MPB since 1996. Each year the Forest has taken action to address the MPB in selected landscapes, and continues to increase its collaboration with partners addressing MPB and hazardous fuels. Localized actions to make the forest more resilient have been successful but have not kept pace with the MPB. As the beetle populations increased to epidemic levels, a broad spectrum of the public demanded more action. The Governors and state legislatures of South Dakota and Wyoming created initiatives to combat mountain pine beetles. Counties, states, federal, and private interests joined together in an “all lands” strategy to curb threats of MPB to Federal, State, communities, and private lands, natural resources, and livelihoods. Federally elected officials formally requested an emergency declaration and sought alternative arrangements from the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The Forest Service engaged CEQ and others to improve NEPA efficiency while not sacrificing sound environmental analysis. There is widespread support to develop a more adaptive approach in the Black Hills. As a result, the Forest developed this project at the forest landscape scale, with its adaptive design features to more swiftly address expanding MPB populations and reduce hazardous fuels.

1.2 Location

The project vicinity consists of public lands managed by the Black Hills National Forest (Forest), comprising approximately 1.2 million acres in western South Dakota and eastern Wyoming. The gross area within the administrative boundary of the Forest is 1.5 million acres. Approximately 300,000 acres of land of other ownerships lie within the Black Hills. These include the iconic Mount Rushmore National Memorial, Wind Cave National Park, Jewel Cave National Monument and Custer State Park. Many of the private lands near and within the Forest boundary are subdivided residential properties, small businesses, recreational ranches, and small working ranches.

Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Record of Decision Page 4

The project area includes nearly 250,000 acres of ponderosa pine forest stands at high risk for mountain pine beetle (MPB) infestation scattered across the 1.2 million acre Forest. The potential treatment areas do not include specially designated areas, e.g. Research Natural Areas, Botanical Areas, or Wilderness Areas; areas under separate environmental analysis, or other ownerships. Figure 1 displays the Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Area.

Figure 1 Project Area Map


1.3 Purpose and Need

The Black Hills National Forest proposes to implement multiple resource management actions within the MPBR Project. This proposal is guided by the Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan as amended by the Phase II Amendment; and the statutory authority and direction provided by the Healthy Forests Restoration Act and by other National level policy and guidance.

The purpose and need for the actions proposed in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) are to: reduce the threat to ecosystem components, including forest resources, from the existing insect and disease (mountain pine beetle) epidemic and help protect local communities and resources from large scale, severe wildfire. (An expanded description of the Purpose and Need is found in the FEIS, page 26.) Three alternatives have been considered in detail as documented in the EIS. Two of these alternatives are actions designed to address the purpose and need, to varying degrees, as guided by management direction. The EIS also discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts resulting from the three alternatives.

1.4 Public Involvement and Collaboration

An overview of the public involvement and collaboration efforts made during the MPBR Project is presented below. A more detailed description of Public Involvement and Collaboration can be found in Chapter 1 and Appendix A of the FEIS.

The ongoing MPB epidemic is of foremost concern in the project area. The Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003 (H.R. 1904) provides improved statutory processes for hazardous fuel (including insect/disease) reduction projects and healthy forest restoration on National Forest System lands. Guided by the Forest Plan and the HFRA, the MPBR Project proposed action has been developed to treat vegetation to reduce the threat to ecosystem components from the existing insect and disease (MPB) epidemic and reduce the potential for large-scale severe wildfires. Furthermore, the project intent is to limit effects to the environment from MPB and reduce the potential for loss of property or life due to large-scale wildfire.

Through varied public involvement and collaboration efforts, comments on the proposed action, potential concerns, and opportunities for managing the MPBR Project were solicited from Forest Service resource specialists, tribal representatives, members of the public, other public agencies, adjacent property owners, and organizations. A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on August 8, 2011. During the public scoping period, three public meeting were held to explain the actions proposed and reasons for the proposal. The presentation included the history of and progression maps of the MPB, the use of HFRA, Integrated Pest Management Techniques, the Proposed Action, and how to comment on the project. Following the presentation, members of the ID Team were available to answer questions and/or clarify the proposal. A total of 268 members of the public attended these meetings. Comments received during the ensuing scoping period were used to help in defining issues, develop alternatives and analyze effects.

The Notice of Availability (NOA) for comment on the DEIS was published in the Federal Register on May 11, 2012. A public meeting was also held following the release of the DEIS. This meeting included a presentation including information from scoping and expanding on the proposed action and the alternative developed from scoping (Alternative C). Public comments were received on the DEIS through June 25, 2012. The Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Interdisciplinary (ID)


Team analyzed the public comments and provided agency responses to the comments on the DEIS (see Appendix A of the FEIS).

1.4.1 Summary of Public Comments

Public comment on the Draft EIS was rich and varied, and reflects, for the most part, respondents’ livelihood, lifestyle, and/or position/opinion on issues or concerns. The following are sample excerpts from original responses (see Appendix A of the FEIS): “Taking an adaptive approach in addressing the probability of stands that will be affected by mountain pine beetle coupled with the known methods to reduce mountain pine beetle infested stands can be effectively implemented in a timely manner with this project” Letter 6 Comment 1. “…Going half in by selecting Alternative B will not work from a strategic standpoint nor a public acceptance point…” Letter 21 Comment 2. “I prefer Alternative “C”… includes MA 4.2A Spearfish Canyon. This jewel of the Black Hills deserves added attention as it is a highly visible and high use area…” Letter 11 Comment 1. “…We however object to Alternative C much more than Alternative B and are especially concerned that you don’t log in Spearfish Canyon, so as to provide protection for the American dipper and Black Hills Mountain Snail” Letter 24 Comment 19.

1.4.2 Advisory Board Recommendations

The Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board (NFAB or Advisory Board), authorized by the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, is comprised of 16 members representing diverse interests in South Dakota and Wyoming. The Board members were briefed and collaborated on the project in its initial development. The Board was asked to study the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and provide recommendations to the Forest Supervisor. On June 20, 2012, the Board unanimously approved the following recommendations:

It is moved that the Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board recommend to BHNF Forest

Supervisor (the Deciding Officer) make the following determination:

1) The proposed activities and alternatives address the issues, respond to national policy, guidance and law and Forest Plan direction, and meet the purpose of and need for action in the MPBR Project DEIS.

2) The information in the analysis is sufficient to implement proposed activities. 3) Alternative C of the Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project be adopted as the Preferred

Alternative in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Project.

� The subcommittee believes that Alternative C maximizes the effectiveness of actions to respond to the Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB) epidemic in the Black Hills National Forest (BHNF) by reducing the devastating effects of the MPB on forest health and reducing the possibility or consequences of large-scale fires in the 248,000 acres of high-risk acres in the Wildland Urban Interface proposed for treatment under Alternative C.


� The subcommittee also believes that Alternative C represents the greatest opportunity for collaboration by the BHNF, the States of South Dakota and Wyoming, the local governments throughout the BHNF, and the people of the Black Hills region. The subcommittee recognizes and notes that Alternative C was developed in response to public comments received during the scoping process and comment period.

� The subcommittee believes that Alternative C is the preferred alternative and could be improved by clarification of the decision process and rationale for determining the choice of temporary or System roads, by providing information how frameworks that guide road building operate under adaptive management and by lowering the upper range of total potential new road construction.

� The subcommittee believes that the Final Environmental Impact Statement could be improved with a focused explanation on how monitoring will provide feedback and evaluation of design features, treatments, and effectiveness. The DEIS provides a figure on the adaptive management cycle and a description of monitoring that provides for an annual report. Given the emphasis on urgency and flexibility, it would be helpful to have a more frequent feedback interval to assess the effectiveness of treatments. The subcommittee urges the NFAB to recommend a brief, mid-year interim report that would assess how well the project has been able to respond to MPB activity, populations, volume and distribution in the project area.

� The subcommittee recognizes the urgency and need for immediate response in this epidemic. As such we challenge the BHNF in signing the Record of Decision as soon as possible, with an implementation deadline no later than 10/1/2012.

4) There is a need for a one-time, site-specific amendment to existing Forest Plan direction to address the public's concerns about Spearfish Canyon.

1.4.3 Notice of Availability and Objection Process

The Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for public review was published in the Federal Register on September 21, 2012. The Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project qualifies under the authority of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003 (P.L.108-148). This Record of Decision (ROD) is made in accordance with the HFRA pre-decisional objection process pursuant to Forest Service Regulations at 36 CFR 218, Subpart A. As such, a 30 day objection filing period began September 22, 2012, with publication of the legal notice in the Rapid City Journal, Rapid City, South Dakota and ended October 22, 2012. Alternative C Modified was identified as the agency’s preferred alternative in the FEIS and the cover letter transmitting the FEIS for public review.

Three formal objections were received. The objections included issues such as violations of NEPA and HFRA, the Forest Plan; failure to use certain data regarding MPB and fire risk; and effectiveness of thinning to reduce MPB. The Regional Forester responded to each objector with a finding of no violation of law, regulation or policy and concluded that no changes to the analysis documents are needed. The Forest held conference calls with each of the objectors to discuss potential resolution of objection issues. While no resolution of the issues was reached between the objectors and Deciding Official, the forest supervisor was able to utilize the objector’s concerns in the pre-decisional objection process. Additional information on the objection review is discussed later in this ROD under the ‘Administrative Review’ section.


2. Project Summary

An overview of the issues and alternatives is presented below to give the reader a better understanding of the context of the decision disclosed in this document. A more detailed description of the project can be found in Chapters 1 and 2 of the FEIS.

2.1 Issues

Comments received during the public scoping process were used to help define issues, develop alternatives and mitigation measures, and analyze effects. A total of 164 responses were received via letters, faxes, public meeting transcripts, personal-delivery, or email during the formal scoping process. Through review and analysis of scoping comments and input, the Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Core ID Team identified three (3) key issues related to the proposed activities (see FEIS, Chapter 1, Issues section and Chapter 2, Table 2-2). A brief description of the three key issues follows.

1. Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Diversity - The ongoing MPB epidemic is of foremost concern in the project area. The Forest Health Management aerial detection surveys of forest pest conditions on forested lands in and around the Black Hills since 1996 continue to show the progression and expansion of the MPB epidemic. In 2011, approximately 405,000 acres of NFS lands have been affected by MPB. The epidemic is killing mature pine trees, resulting in stand replacement on a landscape scale. The 250,000 acres of pine trees are rated as high risk for MPB infestation. A high level of mortality is expected throughout the area as a result of the ongoing epidemic. This would increase fuel loads and wildfire hazard, and poses a threat to ecosystem components and forest resources.

The proposed action seeks to maintain and enhance vegetation and wildlife diversity by removing infested pine trees to limit MPB spread locally. Reducing the amount of MPB caused mortality and maintaining mature pine trees within stands would reduce the potential for wildfire that could impact large areas of the forested ecosystem.

Most respondents commented on their support to limit the spread of MPB and reduce wildfire hazard. A few respondents commented directly on vegetation and wildlife habitat diversity. Generally, the emphasis of these comments was to leave the maximum amount of mature pine on the landscape. A concern was raised that efforts to suppress and prevent a potential insect infestation would result in reduced snag densities, tree diameters and longevity across the landscape.

2. Wildfire and Fuels Hazard - The need to reduce fuels, and the potential for large-scale wildfire are currently of foremost concern with the public and the agency in this area. The seven Community Wildfire Protection Plans designate most of the proposed treatment areas as wildland-urban interface. There are 56 at-risk-communities and these issues have understandably been elevated to a higher level of concern with the local public, given the massive MPB epidemic and wildfires that have been experienced recently throughout the West and certainly within the Black Hills.

Comments from local, State, and Federal elected officials indicated that the Forest Service needs to be proactive and do more to address the ongoing MPB epidemic and wildfire and fuels hazard on National Forest lands with emphasis focused on the wildland-urban interface areas and private property boundaries.

The proposed action includes removing recently infested MPB trees. Many of the stands with a high/very high wildfire hazard also have a high risk for MPB. The proposed action recognizes that


wildfire in this setting cannot be eliminated, but by managing vegetation and fuels, fire severity and intensities may be reduced.

3. Social - The Project area lies within the wildland-urban interface (WUI) and contains numerous at-risk communities. The many people who live within and adjacent to the area strongly value its forested setting and the experiences and lifestyle associated with this environment. Landowners are concerned about property values and their health and safety as related to the ongoing MPB epidemic and the potential threat of large-scale wildfire. Values at risk on the approximately 300,000 acres of private land within the project are characterized by: extensive structure and subdivision development, 56 at-risk-communities, utility infrastructure, businesses, highways, roads, fences, outbuildings, recreation sites, and community watersheds. The MPB Response project area contains many distinctive features that visitors look for when visiting National Forest System lands – solitude, fishing, hunting, camping, hiking, and motorized and non-motorized travel within a short distance of their communities. The local public strongly supports using multiple management tools (including commercial timber harvest) to reduce the potential for insect/disease infestations and reducing the potential for large-scale wildfire. Public comments also support commercial harvest because it utilizes a renewable resource and provides a needed commodity, employs local residents, adds favorably to the local and State economy, is environmentally acceptable, and can make an important difference in quickly and effectively reducing insect/disease infestations and wildfire potential. There were comments about the need to preserve the scenic beauty of the area, and to maintain the balance of the need for insect/fuel treatment with the amount of development/use within the area. Some respondents question whether the proposed thinning to reduce stand density would actually reduce mountain pine beetle risk. These respondents prefer an approach of either no active management or the use of prescribed burning as the way to naturally thin stands. There was a remarkable expression of urgency and expectation by locals participating during the public involvement period. They clearly felt that the agency should act quickly and do something significant and effective to safeguard their well-being and the resource amenities from the MPB epidemic and potential impacts of large-scale wildfire.

2.2 Alternatives Considered

Three alternatives were considered in detail in the FEIS. These are briefly discussed below. A more detailed comparison of all the alternatives can be found in Chapter 2 of the FEIS.

Alternative A (No Action) – The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the study of the no action alternative, and to use it as a basis for comparing the effects of the proposed action and other alternatives. This alternative assumes no implementation of any elements of the proposed action or other action alternatives. However, such things as ongoing fire suppression efforts, noxious weed treatments, and recurring road maintenance on Forest roads would continue as directed by the Forest Plan.

The no action alternative represents no attempt to actively respond to the purpose and need for action or the issues raised during scoping for this project. For example, there would be no effort


to modify existing vegetation or related fuels conditions in the project area. The effort to reduce the widespread MPB epidemic and associated fuel loads would not be undertaken.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) – Alternative B was developed in response to the purpose and need and represents the proposed action. Alternative B is designed to treat the vegetation to reduce the potential for Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB) infestations. Integrated Pest Management techniques are proposed for areas at high risk and most susceptible to MPB infestation, with the objective of treating and removing infested trees before beetles can disperse. Adaptive Management as described in the FEIS, would help determine which, if any, Integrated Pest Management techniques would be utilized. Techniques such as: cut and chunk, chipping, and cut/hand-pile/burn, and cut/equipment-pile/burn would be scattered across the landscape and generally adjacent to or along private property and roads to remove pockets of infested trees. Insecticide spraying (e.g. carbaryl) would generally occur in developed campgrounds, FS facilities, and on scattered legacy trees and would use chemicals appropriate for a forested environment. Semiochemical use would be limited along the ‘leading edge’ of the BHNF MPB Strategy. Semiochemical techniques to attract MPB may occur generally southeast of Custer, SD adjacent to Custer State Park and generally west of Spearfish, SD towards the SD-WY State line; north of Sundance in cooperation and coordination with Forest Health entomologists and the States of SD and WY. Cable and Helicopter logging would generally occur in high value areas on slopes greater than 40 percent. Commercial and non-commercial thinning to remove recently infested and non-infested trees would generally occur across the landscape on slopes generally less than 40 percent on up to 1,000 contiguous acres. Alternative B proposes no new road construction, commercial and cable units would utilize existing roads.

Vegetation management in this alternative is characterized by a number of treatments. There would be approximately 41,140 acres of commercial and approximately 7,260 acres of non-commercial (products other than logs (POL)) thinning over an approximate five to seven year period to remove MPB infested trees to lower mountain pine beetle risk and wildfire hazard. Commercial treatments would not be authorized in Non-motorized Backcountry (MA 3.32). Commercial and non-commercial thinning would generally occur on slopes less than 40 percent. Sanitation harvest to remove infested trees may be conducted in areas near or adjacent to identified stands in order to limit the expansion of MPB populations. Most harvest would be conducted using whole tree logging methods in order to reduce after-harvest fuel loading.

Alternative C – Alternative C was developed in response to comments received during the scoping period. Under this alternative, approximately 124,000 acres would be treated mechanically (commercial and non-commercial). Alternative C includes all aspects of Alternative B. Integrated Pest Management techniques would occur on portions of approximately 248,000 acres to reduce the spread of MPB across NFS lands to manage and protect ecosystem components. Adaptive Management as described in the FEIS and Chapter 3.1.3 of the ROD, would help determine which, if any, Integrated Pest Management techniques would be utilized. Alternative C includes three additional elements: 1) Landscape level thinning in advance of large beetle infestations to reduce stand densities and the risk of MPB infestation, thereby reducing the wildfire hazard, and creating landscape-scale fuel breaks; 2) Treatments in MA 4.2A Spearfish Canyon and 3) Up to 220 miles of road construction (60 miles new System and 160 temporary).

Alternative C proposes timber harvest via cable logging and use of tractors and skidders, as well as some road construction, in MA4.2A. Due to the high occurrences of Cooper’s mountain snail, Species of Local Concern (SOLC) snails, and the visibility of constructed roads to facilitate cable


logging in MA4.2A these actions would not be consistent with Standards 3103 and 4.2A-9101. Therefore, a Forest Plan amendment is proposed as part of Alternative C, to allow these actions to take place within MA4.2A. This amendment would apply only to actions approved under this project, and would not be an enduring amendment for other decisions, nor would it change the wording of Standards 3103 and 4.2A-9101 in the Forest Plan.

3. Decision and Rationale

3.1 My Decision

This Record of Decision documents my decision and rationale with respect to the Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project alternatives as presented in the Mountain Pine Beetle Response FEIS. The Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project purpose and need provides the focus and scope for the proposed action and alternatives as related to Forest and national level policy and direction (FEIS, Chapter 1). Given this purpose and need, I have reviewed the proposed action (Alternative B), the issues identified during the public scoping, the alternatives, and the environmental consequences of implementing the proposed action and alternatives disclosed in the FEIS. Furthermore, I have carefully considered public comments received on the Draft EIS. These comments were invaluable to me in weighing management options. Public feedback, the analysis disclosed in the FEIS, information contained in the project record, management direction and policy considerations and utilizing the objector’s concerns in the pre-decisional objection process contributed collectively to determining the selected action. Based on this review, I have decided to implement “Alternative C Modified” as

the Selected Action. Alternative C Modified is described in the Cover Letter that was sent out with the FEIS. My decision incorporates components analyzed and described in Alternatives A-C, and are within the range of effects disclosed in the FEIS. The Selected Action is presented in Tables 1 and 2 and displayed in Maps 4-6. The Selected Action includes the following activities.

3.1.1 Vegetation Treatments

Vegetation treatments in the Selected Action as shown in Table 1 include a wide variety of techniques such as cut and chunk of scattered, individual trees to commercial timber harvest and non-commercial thinning applied on a broader landscape-wide scale, as described in the FEIS. Most non-commercial thinning overlaps commercial treatment acres. Forest thinning at a larger scale serves to reduce MPB habitat, reduce fuel loads, increase tree growth, and create landscape-scale fuel breaks to reduce the potential for large-scale high intensity wildfire.

The Selected Action will thin approximately 122,000 acres, slightly less than Alternative C. Thinning in Spearfish Canyon will be focused on the wildland urban interface areas and this adjustment in total acres reflects that change from Alternative C (See 3.1.3 below for treatments related to Spearfish Canyon).

Most commercial thinning, or similar treatments that substantially reduce stand density, will be conducted using whole tree harvest methods or methods achieving a similar result in order to reduce fuel loading. Fuel reduction methods will also be included in non-commercial treatments, as needed. Sanitation harvest to remove infested pine trees and reduce stand densities may be conducted in areas near or adjacent to identified stands in order to limit the expansion of MPB populations. Commercial thinning activities will generally emphasize retaining the larger diameter trees while meeting the insect and fire hazard reduction objectives.


3.1.2 Road construction, reconstruction, temporary roads

Road work that supports vegetation treatments is included in the Selected Action. This includes constructing up to 50 miles of new system road and constructing approximately 160 miles of temporary roads (see Map 6). More detailed discussion of road work and road management activities is presented under Alternative C in the FEIS.

3.1.3 Treatments in Spearfish Canyon and Forest Plan Amendment

Under the Selected Action, thinning and road construction in Spearfish Canyon are focused in the wildland urban interface. Vegetation treatment methods will be designed to protect scenic and unique natural resource values of the canyon watershed. This is a reduction from Alternative C which included broader landscape thinning in the canyon. Roads, if needed, will be temporary and constructed on gentle terrain, generally less than 30 percent slope (see Map 5).

Figure 2 Area Displaying Gentle to Steep Slopes in Spearfish Canyon

Forest Plan Amendment Alternative C in the FEIS proposes timber harvest via cable logging and use of tractors and skidders, as well as some road construction, in Management Area (MA) 4.2A, Spearfish Canyon. The Selected Action will reduce impacts to Cooper’s mountain snails and scenery, although some limited impacts could occur. Due to the high occurrences of, and potential effects to, Cooper’s mountain snail, and the visibility of roads that might be constructed to facilitate treatments, these actions would not be consistent with Forest Plan standards 3103, which protects certain known snail colonies; and 4.2A-9101, which protects scenic quality in Spearfish Canyon. This decision amends the Forest Plan to allow for implementation of actions focused within the WUI in Management Area 4.2A. Sanitation activities such as cut and chunk and cut/hand pile/burn are consistent with FP Standard 3103, and may be utilized on all acres within Spearfish Canyon.


Forest Plan Guideline 5602 provides that activities inconsistent with the scenic integrity objective (SIO) will be prohibited unless the site specific decision changes the SIO. However, I did not find either option allowed by the guideline (prohibit the activity or change the SIO) to be appropriate in Spearfish Canyon. Since Guidelines are discretionary, I find that it is appropriate to retain the SIO for future projects but authorize activities inconsistent with the SIO in this decision while attempting to minimize the long term impacts to the SIO. The Selected Action with focused thinning in Spearfish Canyon is intended to maintain the High SIO long-term. There will be some short-term localized impacts to visuals if roads are constructed. If roads are constructed, design features (e.g. close all constructed roads, re-contour, reseeding, etc.) will be incorporated and over time the corridors will blend to meet the High SIO (Guideline 5602). Any future management activities in MA 4.2A Spearfish Canyon would also need to meet the High SIO.

Table 1 below lists the activities by Alternatives and the Selected Action

Activity Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Selected Action

Cut and Chunk* 0 All Acres (242,000) All Acres (248,000) All Acres (248,000)

Cut and Chip* 0 All Acres All Acres 246,000

Cut-hand pile-Burn* 0 All Acres All Acres All Acres

Cut-Equipment Pile-Burn*

0 Generally slopes less than 40 percent

Generally slopes less than 40 percent

Generally slopes less than 40 percent

Insecticide Spray 0 Campgrounds/Admin Sites/Legacy Trees

Campgrounds/Admin Sites/Legacy Trees

Campgrounds/Admin Sites/Legacy Trees

Semiochemical** 0

Synthetic attractants would be used on a limited basis based on entomologist recommendations.

Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative B

Commercial/Non-commercial Timber Harvest***

0 48,400 acres over five to seven years

124,000 acres over five to seven years

122,000 acres over five to seven years

Ground Based 0 Generally less than 40 % slopes

Generally less than 40 % slopes

Generally less than 40 % slopes

Cable 0

Cable Harvest utilize existing roads/routes; generally greater than 40% slopes

Cable Harvest; generally greater than 40% slopes

Cable Harvest; generally greater than 40% slopes

Helicopter 0 Generally areas greater than40% slopes

Generally areas greater than 40% slopes

Generally areas greater than 40% slopes

Construct New System Roads

0 0 60 Miles 50 Miles

Construct Temporary Roads

0 0 160 Miles 160 Miles

Convert to System Roads

0 15 Miles 46 Miles 46 Miles

*MPB infested trees would be cut/chunked/chipped/burned in all areas based on the Forest MPB Strategy **Use of semiochemicals, such as Attractants, is a method which would be utilized in coordination with Forest Health and

the States of SD and WY entomologists. ***Alt B would remove infested trees as well as an adequate buffer surrounding the infested trees. Alt C would focus

more on the resiliency area of the Forest Strategy.


Table 2 below provides a comparative display of the alternative effects relative to the key issues (Acres and outputs are approximate).

1. Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Diversity Alt A Alt B Alt C Selected

Action

MPB Risk Rating – Low (acres) 0 48,400 124,000 122,000

MPB Risk Rating – High (acres) 248,000 193,600 124,000 126,000

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

Fire Hazard Rating (Low) Post Treatment 0 0 0 0

Fire Hazard Rating (Moderate) Post Treatment 0 48,400 124,000 122,000

Fire Hazard Rating (High / Very High) Post Treatment 248,000 199,600 124,000 126,000

Wildland Urban Interface (acres) 206,000 200,000 206,000 206,000

Level 3-5 System Roads - Ingress/Egress (miles) 177 162 177 177

3. Social-Economical Alt A Alt B Alt C

Cooperative Efforts with County, State, Other Groups and Individuals (poor to best)

Poor Better Best Best

Total Cost (million) N/A -$27.849 -$72.702 -$72.702

Commercial Thinning Treatments (acres) 0 41,140 105,400 103,400

Non-Commercial Thinning Treatment 0 7,260 18,600 18,600

Volume (over five to seven years)

Sawtimber CCF 0 403,140 1,032,920 1,013,320

POL CCF 0 14,520 37,200 37,200

3.1.4 Adaptive Management, Design Criteria and Monitoring

My decision adopts adaptive management, design criteria and monitoring as described below and in the FEIS. The adaptive management approach is proactive and well suited for a rapidly changing forest. Given the dynamic nature of a MPB infestation it allows resource professionals to work closely with nature, the flexibility to anticipate and respond with a suite of techniques available and prioritized to be in the right places at the right time.

Adaptive management, design criteria, and monitoring descriptions are being included in some detail for understanding, and it is a very important element of the decision. The following description, flow charts, and monitoring guide the project implementation; and adaptive management allows adjustments through evaluation and learning. A key feature of learning and adaptive management is to incorporate new science or new considerations, as appropriate, where compatible with the objectives and standards for this project. The required monitoring and reporting is included at the end of this section.

Adaptive Management is a decision process that promotes flexible decision making that can be adjusted in the face of uncertainties as outcomes from management actions and other events become better understood. Careful monitoring of these outcomes both advances scientific understanding and helps adjust policies or operations as part of an iterative learning process. Adaptive management also recognizes the importance of natural variability in contributing to ecological resilience and productivity. It is not a ‘trial and error’ process, but rather emphasizes learning while doing. Adaptive management does not represent an end in itself, but rather a means to more effective decisions and enhanced benefits. Its true measure is in how well it helps meet environmental, social, and economic goals; increases scientific knowledge; and reduces tensions among stakeholders.


Adaptive management focuses on learning and adapting, through partnerships of managers, scientists, and other stakeholders who learn together how to create and maintain sustainable ecosystems.

• Adaptive management helps resource managers maintain flexibility in their decisions, knowing that uncertainties exist.

• Adaptive management provides managers the latitude to change direction.

• Adaptive management will improve understanding of ecological systems to achieve management objectives

• Adaptive management is about taking action to improve progress towards desired outcomes.

Figure 3 Adaptive Management Cycle

The goal is to use what we learn during project implementation to guide our future actions. The MPBR Project resource specialists use professional judgment along with collaborating with researchers and others to use the best available science to address the on-going MPB epidemic.

In the Black Hills, reducing stand density is a proven method for reducing susceptibility of stands to MPB caused mortality. Recent research continues to emphasize that overall, the lower the residual stand density, the greater the reduction in beetle caused mortality, in even and uneven aged stands (Schmid et al. 2007 and Negron et al. 2008). Long-term research has consistently shown that stands with reduced basal area are less likely to sustain a MPB epidemic than unthinned stands, Schmid, J.M.; Mata, S.A. 2005. Mountain pine beetle-caused tree mortality in partially cut plots surrounded by unmanaged stands. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-54. Fort Collins, CO: USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 11 p; and Schmid, J.M.; Mata, S.A.; Kessler, R.R.; Popp, J.B. 2007. The influence of partial cutting on mountain pine beetle-caused tree mortality in Black Hills ponderosa pine stands. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-68 Fort Collins, CO: USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 19 p.) Selection of Integrated Pest Management Techniques

The Project is based on known methods to reduce MPB effects using an adaptive management approach because it is not possible to determine when or the precise level of MPB activity, but reasonable estimates can be made based on the current extent of the epidemic, the expanding MPB


brood populations available to infest new trees, and the large volume and wide distribution of high risk stands in the project area. The adaptive matrix in Figures 4 and 5 help determine, which, if any, integrated pest management techiques and design criteria would be utilized in the MPBR Project potential treatment areas.

Figure 4 Selection of Potential Treatment Areas (PTA)


Figure 5 Section of PTA – ID Team Review


Integrated Pest Management Framework

The basic framework to better understand the tools, techniques, purpose, scope/scale and various management evaluation points are shown in Table 3. The narrative for scope/scale and the management evaluation points describes when and how to proceed with the tool or technique, unless noted otherwise. (This provides clarification from the table presented in the FEIS.)

Table 3 Integrated Pest Management Framework

Tools and

Techniques Purpose Scope/Scale

Management Evaluation

Points

Timber Sale Contracts

Ground-based

Logging

Reduce or remove the likelihood of

trees being successfully attacked by

the mountain pine beetle (MPB)

either by reducing stand diameter or

reducing stand density and fuels

Use of resiliency type treatments

(e.g. thinning, uneven-aged

management, sanitation) of high

priority areas with mechanized

equipment in stands with

commercial size timber >9 inches

dbh using existing roads or

constructing new temporary or

system roads. Small sales are

generally 20 to 250 acres and large

sales 1000 acres to 4000 acres.

Actions are consistent with

treatment objectives and ROD

Incipient epidemic in

watershed

Redesign/curtail when sales

are not cost effective and

commercially viable to all

contractors. Re-evaluate no-

bid sales.

Generally slopes <40%

Monitor the effectiveness of

treatments (presence/absence

of MPB) at reducing MPB and

conserving other resource

values through the use of

design criteria.

Cable Logging Reduce or remove the likelihood of






(e.g. thinning) of high priority areas

with mechanized equipment in

stands with commercial size timber

>9 inches dbh using existing roads

or constructing new temporary or

system roads. Sales generally

greater than 50 acres using or

building system roads




watershed

Generally slopes >40%

Helicopter

Logging







(e.g. thinning, un-even aged

management, sanitation) of high

priority areas with mechanized





system roads. Sales generally

greater than one million CCF.




watershed

Generally slopes >40%


Tools and

Techniques Purpose Scope/Scale

Management Evaluation

Points

Stewardship

Contract







(e.g. thinning) of high priority areas

or restoration treatments (e.g. fuel

reduction) with mechanized





system roads. Sales are where

service work such as non-

commercial thinning and products

other than logs (< 9 dbh) to be done

in conjunction with harvesting of

commercial timber.

Design of sales are cost

effective and economically

viable to all contractors.

Consideration of no-bid

timber sales for stewardship

sales through appropriated

funds.

Non-commercial Treatments

Cut and Chunk Lower beetle populations and

decreasing the likelihood of

infestations spreading to adjacent

trees.

Hand falling of bug infested trees in

small isolated outbreaks at stand

level.

Redesign/curtail when

Scenery or fuel limits are

exceeded.


proximity and scale of pockets

of treatments are in excess of

20 tons/acre or more.

Cut and Chunk,

cut/hand-

pile/burn

Lower beetle populations and



trees, where excessive fuel loading is

a concern and visibly and socially

sensitive areas are present.



level and to also addresses visually

and socially sensitive areas with

fuel loading concerns.


residual stand is affected by

number and size of piles

Cut and Chunk,

mechanical

cut/mechanical

pile/burn

Lower beetle populations and



trees, where excessive fuel loading is

a concern and visibly and socially

sensitive areas are present.

Hand/mechanical falling of bug

infested trees in small isolated

outbreaks at stand level and to also

addresses visually and socially

sensitive areas with fuel loading

concerns


residual stand is affected by

number and size of piles

Insecticide

Spray

Protection of high value trees to the

public from being infested by beetles

Spray high value trees such as trees

within campgrounds or legacy trees

Curtail when application

limits stated on product label

cannot be met.

Semiochemicals Attract beetles and remove infested

trees to decrease the likelihood of


areas.

Very small scale or experimental

scale

Curtail when application

limits stated on product label

cannot be met.

Cut and Chip Lower beetle populations and



trees in high visibility areas



level near existing roads

No existing road access.

Chips are less than 4 inches in

depth and 50% of the area has

exposed mineral soil


The IPM framework is based on our existing knowledge and adjustments made through implementation, monitoring, and evaluation or other applicable research occurring during the life of the project.

Monitoring

The MPB Response Project is an adaptive management project. Monitoring plays an important role in providing feedback on which design features were implemented, which were effective, and whether adaptations are needed to treatment design to make them more effective (Figure 1).

Monitoring MPB Response Project activities would consist of two types of monitoring – implementation monitoring and effectiveness monitoring. Implementation monitoring would measure whether applicable design criteria, BMPs and Forest Plan standard and guidelines are correctly implemented. Effectiveness monitoring would measure how implemented treatments are effective at protecting resources as well as reducing MPB risk.

Project leaders and contract administrators (for contracted activities) would perform much of the implementation monitoring during project implementation. Other resource specialists would monitor specific progress including application of design criteria and mitigation measures related to their resource of concern. This allows managers to adjust management if certain items are being missed during the implementation process. This type of monitoring will also contribute to the development of the annual MPBR Project Monitoring Report.

Effectiveness monitoring measures whether the treatments implemented with the design criteria, BMPs and Forest Plan standard and guidelines are achieving the desired out comes. A sample of each type of treatments in the MPB Response Project would be selected each year from the annual Report for effectiveness monitoring and evaluation. Ten percent of the sites for each type of treatment activity would be monitored each year. Monitoring would occur through pre-field review and field visits. The pre-field review would include reviewing implementation notes and applicable standards, guidelines, design criteria and BMPs. Field visits would be accomplished in an interdisciplinary fashion to facilitate cross-sharing of effectiveness information and identification of needed changes to project activities. Monitoring would consist of determining if treatments were effective at controlling MPB and conserving other resource values through use of the design criteria.

Effectiveness monitoring information would be evaluated and documented along with any recommended changes in The MPBR Project Implementation and Monitoring Report. The Annual project Monitoring Report will include findings on the effectiveness of treatments and conservation measures and recommendations for changes, if needed. If monitoring finds resource protection objectives are not being achieved, then:

• Vegetation treatment operations can be modified or reduced and/or • Resource protection measures can be improved or changed • Monitoring to determine the source of impact and apply appropriate mitigation can be

improved or increased.

The Selected Action includes the NFAB recommendation to provide a brief, mid-year interim report that would assess how well the project has been able to respond to MPB activity, populations, volume and distribution in the project area.

Design Features

Design features include standard practices such as Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs), Best Management Practices, and others. They are actions that are applicable and expected to be


implemented as a matter of standard operating procedures consistent with the theme of a given alternative. Design criteria are applied in order to protect resources and forest users, as well as minimize impacts resulting from implementing action alternatives (see Appendix B of the FEIS).

3.2 Rationale for My Decision

Alternative C Modified is my Selected Action because it best meets the purpose and need for action, as determined by management direction and conditions on the ground; and it responds very well to the issues and public comments. The key to my decision is how well mountain pine beetle and fire

hazard reduction needs are addressed. For clarity, I provide a discussion below of my rationale in terms of Purpose and Need, Management Direction, Issues, and Public Response to the DEIS.

3.2.1 Meets Purpose and Need

Alternative C Modified best meets the purpose and need of the project. Both Alternatives B and C would implement a variety of techniques to reduce the threat to ecosystem components from the MPB epidemic, help protect forested areas on adjacent private and state lands, and help protect local communities and resources from severe large scale wildfire. The differences are in scale. Alternative C, as shown in Table 2, will lower the MPB risk and fire hazard rating on over twice the area of Alternative B, by reducing stand densities and hazardous fuels. As stated in the FEIS, page 26, there is a need to be more efficient and timely in treating newly infested areas of MPB across the Forest. As an adaptive management project, this approach provides a more timely and effective response as well as allowing the Forest more flexibility in responding to MPB outbreaks by allowing the use of a suite of tools to reduce or blunt MPB. Secondly, there is a need to manage hazardous fuel loading associated with the MPB epidemic and conduct sanitation/salvage operations to minimize the potential for large high intensity/high severity wildfires. Compared with other approaches, such as waiting for the MPB flight to begin NEPA, the Selected Action will allow a more timely response, at a larger scale, to treat newly infested areas before the MPB emerges and attacks additional trees. This will better protect the forest and reduce risks of outbreaks spreading on to private, state and other lands.

3.2.2 How Environmental Issues Were Considered and Addressed

• Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Diversity

• Wildfire and Fuels Hazard

• Social

3.2.3 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Diversity

My decision to select Alternative C Modified reflects careful consideration of a broad spectrum of issues concerning vegetation and wildlife habitat diversity. The FEIS discloses the effects of alternatives (including no action) on an array of vegetative components and the interrelated effects on a large number of management indicator species, sensitive species, and species of local concern. I will illustrate several examples to explain my rationale. Forest Vegetation – Insects and Disease

The public expressed a huge concern about the mountain pine beetle epidemic. Most commenters called for large-scale action while some cited the benefits of natural processes occurring with no


treatment. The Forest Plan direction states “consider preventative vegetation management practices, including silvicultural treatments, to protect forested stands from insect and disease epidemics (Phase II Amendment, Page II-47). Also, Phase II Goal 10 states “(w)here outbreaks of mountain pine beetle could present risks to management objectives, reduce acreage of ponderosa pine stands that are in medium or high risk for infestation”. I credit the public and other agencies that asked the Forest Service to thin or reduce stand density on more area than was presented in the Proposed Action. This led to the development of Alternative C in the EIS. After reviewing the effects on forest vegetation and other forest ecosystem components, I believe Alternative C Modified meets the stated direction and goals by employing the preventative practices and substantially reducing the acres of high risk ponderosa pine stands, over twice the area of Alternative B (see Table 2.) In addition, the treatments in wildland urban interface will have indirect beneficial effects on pine forests on the neighboring private, state, and other federal lands, another large concern raised by the public. Snags

Snags are an important vegetation component for wildlife habitat diversity. The Selected action uses adaptive management and sets limitations on treatment areas. The untreated high risk areas will provide snag habitat in a mosaic pattern over the short term. Snags are essential to many species in the short and long term. Treated areas and remaining green trees in untreated areas serve as potential snags for the long term. Some commenters stated that Alternative C would have fewer snags than no treatment. The analysis agrees and discloses that treatments under Alternative C are expected to reduce the number of large diameter trees compared with Alternative A (No Action). Others commented that more or all areas should be treated, greater than Alternative C. Retention of snags, composition of forest structural stages, and protection of special habitats are important feature in the Selected Action, as noted in the discussion on wildlife species. Planned treatments are designed to meet Forest Plan Goal 2: “…Hard and soft snags will be present in sufficient quantities and distribution to conserve species…” Black-backed woodpecker

The black-backed woodpecker, a Region 2 Sensitive Species and Management Indicator Species, is closely tied to insects and snags, is expected to persist under the Selected Action, and are expected to be abundant over the next five to seven years. In the long term, populations are expected to decline as MPB killed trees fall down. Adequate habitat for maintaining viable populations is achieved by maintaining snag and downed wood standards, and keeping conditions moving toward the structural stage objectives at the Forest level. Concerns were raised about the effects of spraying on woodpeckers. Spraying is confined to localized areas and is not expected to affect MPB populations across the Forest, or adversely affect species that prey on MPB, such as black-backed woodpeckers. Goshawks

Goshawks are a Region 2 Sensitive Species and a subject of ongoing research. They use a mosaic of structural stages for foraging with their home range (Kennedy 2003). Snags, downed logs, and woody debris are important component of the post-fledgling family and foraging habitat. The Selected Action employs adaptive management and offers more opportunities to protect known goshawk nests from MPB activity than Alternatives A and B. Approximately five miles of road construction could occur within ½ mile of known goshawk nests. Under adaptive management,


treatments can be modified to reflect the most recent monitoring and research, to better protect and enhance goshawk habitat. The Selected Action complies with all FP Standards protecting goshawk habitat. The biological evaluation (BE) determination for both action alternatives was “may impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.” Cooper’s Mountain Snail

The mountain snail is a Region 2 Sensitive Species. They are found on calcareous soils with heavy litter and widely present in portions of Spearfish Canyon. Treatments such as thinning open up the canopy to sunlight, and snails are known to not use these areas until moist conditions return. On the other hand, high intensity fire can eliminate snail habitat (Anderson, 2005). I selected Alternative C Modified with focused treatments in the wildland urban interface within MA 4.2A Spearfish Canyon. Because the possibility of road construction could adversely affect snails, and the potential that some snail sites could be impacted by thinning, a Forest Plan amendment is being included as part of my decision. I weighed the potential localized impact to snails with the other goals to reduce insect damage and reduce fuels where appropriate in the wildland urban interface within MA 4.2A Spearfish Canyon. The Selected Action complies with all FP Standards protecting snail habitat, except as addressed in the FP amendment. The biological evaluation (BE) determination for both action alternatives was “may impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.” Rocky Mountain Elk

Elk are a species of local interest and several comments concerned elk and their habitat. It is expected that elk populations may increase in response to increased forage over the long term. Under the Selected Action, I considered forage loss where new road surfaces are constructed. Alternative C Modified allows the greatest flexibility to create a juxtaposition of more open forest and design treatments to enhance aspen and hardwoods.

3.2.4 Wildfire and Fuels Hazard

One of the project’s main purposes and an issue of public concern is to help protect local communities and resources from large scale wildfire by reducing hazardous fuels. Due to the complex pattern of private property, homes, businesses, and critical infrastructure, major concerns exist with respect to the wildland urban interface (WUI) and at risk communities, specifically relating to public safety. As a result of increased fuel loading, more of the Black Hills is available for, and potentially affected by, large, intense wildfire. The recent and projected MPB activity within and adjacent to the project area, changes in fuel profiles are expected, in turn, altering the fire hazard and potential fire behavior. Coupled with public safety, I want to underscore firefighter safety in my decision. The Selected Action, presents the best opportunity to treat fuels with a strategic design; designs that will give firefighters tactical advantages in many situations, and certainly less risk to threats from large expanses of hazardous fuels. My decision underscores the advantages of breaking up large continuity of fuels; implementing treatments to better protect ingress/egress routes and to protect values in the wildland urban interface; before the fire bell rings. I will provide a comparison of these advantages.


The effects of Alternative C and Alternative C Modified account for nearly two and a half times the area of hazardous fuel reduction compared with Alternative B. The added fuel treatments under the Selected Action will move the forest closer to Condition Class 1 or 2, i.e. closer to the historic range of fuel composition, frequency, severity and pattern on nearly 122,000 acres. In simple terms, those are fuel conditions that are more favorable to the firefighter.

The State of Wyoming, State Forestry Division and others recognized the added ability to address treatments in the wildland urban interface, increased ability to cooperate and treat along ingress/egress routes and reduce threats to communities under the Selected Action. The Selected Action will better meet the hazardous fuel reduction goals of the several Community Wildfire Protection Plans in the project area. Several individuals, groups and local governments called for action to protect values at risk in Spearfish Canyon. In my decision, I am focusing fuel treatments in the wildland urban interface portion of the canyon. Due to the special features, objectives, and terrain, costs will be much higher than average and therefore more limited compared with other areas.

3.2.5 Social

This is a unique project, yet it has some common features. The social issues with this project commonly overlap with many of the natural resource issues and laws governing National Forest System lands. The Healthy Forest Restoration Act provides a statutory process for hazardous fuels (including insect/disease) reduction projects and healthy forest restoration on National Forest System lands. This has a direct tie to the high level of collaboration that occurs in the Black Hills in general, and on this specific project. As stated with other issues, a large portion of the public requested that the Forest Service treat more area with prevention measures. A House of Representatives Congressional Field Hearing focused on the MPB was held near Hill City, SD. Federally elected officials from both parties have asked for an emergency declaration to more swiftly address the MPB epidemic. Collaboration and interest in this project is high. The White House Council on Environmental Quality has provided guidance in response to the issues. There is widespread interest at all levels to provide new approaches that can speed appropriate action and comply with environmental law. The Advisory Board has collaborated and carefully studied the EIS and provided advice; its advice is to adopt Alternative C. Groups and individuals stated concerns about the Proposed Action. Some filed objections and stated remedies to address their concerns. The unique aspects of this project are the scale and the adaptive management approach to respond to the MPB and reduce hazardous fuels. I will address the social/resource concerns and unique features of this project.

Scenery

The MPB killed trees grab the public’s attention. Under the No Action Alternative, the MPB adversely affects scenery. In my Selected Action, the opportunity to treat more areas prior to a large MPB infestation will allow more options to meet scenic integrity objectives compared with other alternatives. I recognize there will be scenic tradeoffs with road construction, however, a very small percentage of roads are planned on steeper terrain where they are most visible. Visual effects will be mitigated with closure. Roads in Spearfish Canyon are to be constructed only where needed in the wildland urban interface and on gentle terrain, however, it is possible a road may not meet a High Scenic Integrity Objective in the short term. Roads, Watershed, and Botany

Roads are a social and economic benefit in many cases but also a known contributor to water and wildlife impacts, and can change the recreation setting. A large investment in roads is necessary to


commercially treat and access over 120,000 acres as shown under Alternative C. A large investment is needed to properly evaluate, design and rehabilitate roads to reduce impacts. I reviewed the impacts of roads on many resources, such as the effects of stream crossings in various watersheds (detailed in Chapter 3 of the FEIS) and the potential impacts to sensitive plants and fish. The Environmental Protection Agency provided review of the analysis, and highlighted several factors incorporated into the analysis and my decision. It is apparent the location, design criteria, and use of Best Management Practices play an important role in how road impacts can be reduced as disclosed in the FEIS. The water influence zones and wetlands, will receive special attention, and are shown on Map 3. The Advisory Board recommended Alternative C as the preferred alternative and recommended that it could be improved by lowering the upper range of total new road construction. Under the Selected Action I am limiting the new system road construction to 50 miles. This should provide access to the wildland urban interface and priority suitable lands. The temporary road estimates will remain the same. Temporary roads provide a means to safely and efficiently whole tree skid (reducing hazardous fuels) away from roads open to the public. Very large piles remain next to these roads for a few years until utilized for biomass or are burned. Potential roads shown in the EIS will be constructed only if needed for treatment under adaptive management and will not be constructed unless consistent with design criteria and FP standards. In my decision, commercial logging activities (including associated road construction) will not occur until an incipient epidemic of MPB is occurring in the watershed. Approximately 57% of the potential treatment areas have been surveyed for sensitive plants and 70% have been surveyed for cultural resources. Based on the existing survey information, planned surveys and knowledge of our specialists, I believe there is sufficient disclosure to make an informed decision under adaptive management. Appropriate surveys will be done prior to road construction. Road locations may be adjusted as needed to meet design criteria and/or to avoid impacts to sensitive or cultural resources. Cultural Resources and Tribal Consultation

Cultural resources are at risk with road construction and surface disturbing activities. Under the Selected Action, surveys will be conducted in advance of activities per the terms of the Programmatic Agreement with the States of South Dakota and Wyoming. Appropriate avoidance or mitigation will be made along with measures to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act. I have consulted with Tribes on this project in face-to-face meetings. Tribes have been invited to participate in the Programmatic Agreement and will continue to be consulted during implementation. Recreation and Public Safety

Most of the Black Hills is blanketed by ponderosa pine and a healthy forest provides a desirable and safer forest for recreation activities. Tourism ranks second in the South Dakota economy and the local tourism leaders are very interested in forest health for its industry. Under Alternatives B and C, priority investments would be made to protect large legacy trees in campgrounds and developed areas by spraying. Also, cut/chunk or sanitation and prompt removal of MPB infested trees as needed to protect public safety and slow the spread of MPB. The Selected Action will


provide more acres to be proactively thinned adjacent to public use areas which will reduce the ongoing need for MPB mitigation and fuel reduction. In my decision, I recognize there will short term disruption to trails, roads, and other recreation uses to address forest health, and some long term recreation opportunity changes with additional roads or changes in scenery. Forest Products Industry

The forest products industry is large and well established in the Black Hills and is highly dependent on raw material on the National Forest. Continued, expansive loss of trees to MPB and catastrophic fire would be devastating to the existing industry, its associates, and communities. The Selected Action represents the best mix of proactive treatments to blunt the MPB epidemic and reduce hazardous fuels while protecting other ecosystem values. Timber volume estimates for the Selected Action are shown in Table 2. Economy

The direct cost of implementation is estimated near $70 million for all treatments. The values at risk to MPB and severe wildfire have not been estimated but they are immense due to infrastructure, jobs, lives, and adjacent private land values. Under the Selected Action, treatments will be implemented based upon the available budget and the efficacy of treatments. Annual project monitoring and evaluation under adaptive management will allow adjustment in techniques to be most cost efficient to the taxpayer. Cooperation

The interest and cooperation on this project is impressive. The Selected Action responds to common encouragement among counties, State agencies, Governors, conservation districts, conservation leader members, elected officials, tribes, the Advisory Board and others to address the MPB and reduce fuels. A number of these organizations are directly involved in the Community Wildfire Prevention Plan implementation and the Regional Black Hills Mountain Pine Beetle Strategy. In these examples, there is ongoing learning and cooperation, often under an “all lands” approach. The design of the Selected Action, including adaptive management, compliments and enhances current monitoring and evaluation, and improved resource management.

3.2.6 Environmental Documents and Other Sources Considered in Making this Decision

A number of other documents have been specifically incorporated by reference into the analysis in the EIS for this project. Some of these documents include:

• The 1997 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Black Hills National Forest and its associated EIS and ROD; the Revised Forest Plan as amended by the Phase II Amendment, and associated EIS and ROD; collectively referred to as the “Forest Plan”;

• Various annual monitoring reports;

• Western Bark Beetle Strategy and Black Hills Pine Beetle Strategy;

• Recommendations from the Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board;

• Resource reports and other supporting documentation and analysis

3.2.7 Use of Best Science

The record shows that extensive literature citations have been reviewed and considered by resource specialists in preparation of the EIS as evidenced by the literature cited sections in the specialist


reports. Many commenters submitted literature citations stating that treatments do not prevent the risk of wildfires occurring. I agree. The treatments are designed to change the fire behavior and will reduce the risk of a heavy extreme fuel-driven wildfire event. In addition, the Team considered and acknowledged incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty and risk. Furthermore, the Integrated Pest Management framework is based on our existing knowledge and adjustments made through implementation, monitoring, and evaluation or other applicable research occurring during the life of the project.

4. Alternatives Analyzed in Detail and Reasons for Not Selecting Them

4.1 Alternative A

Alternative A is the “no action” alternative. Some commenters value MPB as part of the natural ecosystem and favored not taking action on a large scale in order to protect special habitats for snag-dependent species, snails, American dipper, and other habitats from mechanical disturbance. Some commenters pointed out specific areas, such as Beaver Park, where MPB activity has subsided from a large influx of MPB some ten years ago, and suggested I review the conditions in this inventoried roadless area. The commenter advocated that thinning to reduce stand density is ineffective. I visited Beaver Park with the entomologist and reviewed the forest conditions resulting from past treatments in the vicinity and observed the untreated areas. Currently, there are scattered pockets of MPB activity, similar to MPB activity in the northeastern flank of the Forest. No treatment is planned in the roadless area and certain stands will remain at high risk to MPB.

I did not select Alternative A (the No Action Alternative) because it did not meet the purpose and need for action which is keyed to mountain pine beetle and fire hazard reduction. The vast majority of the public is requesting action to address the situation. Mountain pine beetle activity across the forest, which includes the areas covered in MPBR, are in an epidemic state. In some areas, there are some very large and active pockets of current beetle caused mortality and so they are already being impacted by epidemic conditions. In other areas included in PBR current beetle activity is lower. However, beetle activity can be found to some degree across the entire project area. This epidemic is killing mature pine trees and stand conditions are favorable to sustain an epidemic resulting in the loss of the mature pine overstory. It is adding to fuel loads and increasing wildfire hazards in an area that already has a high wildfire hazard rating.

I am choosing to not delay management action because of the potential effects to life, property, and natural resources from the MPB epidemic and increased wildfire hazard. Alternative A does not meet Forest Plan direction. It also does not respond well to comments received during scoping or on the DEIS.

4.2 Alternative B

Alternative B was developed in response to the purpose and need and represents the proposed action as the project was initiated. I did not select Alternative B, in large part, because it does not meet the purpose and need as well as Alternative C, nor does it respond as well to comments received during scoping and on the DEIS. A stated Purpose of the project is to develop a vegetation condition that “reduces the threat to ecosystem components, including forest resources, from the existing mountain pine beetle


epidemic”. Long-term research has consistently shown that stands with reduced basal area are less likely to sustain a MPB epidemic than unthinned stands, Schmidt, J.M.; Mata, S.A. 2005. Alternative B does this on a smaller scale in comparison with Alternative C. As one member of the public stated “going half in by selecting Alternative B will not work from a strategic standpoint nor a public acceptance standpoint (Letter 21, Comment 2). This comment reflects the sentiments of a large portion of the public requesting the Forest Service treat more area with prevention measures, and many advocated for limiting the amount of new road construction. The MPBRP ID Team studied and disclosed the effects of additional preventative thinning and road construction under Alternative C, particularly as it relates to resources that we are required to protect and sustain. The results, as disclosed in the FEIS, are that we will be able to protect and sustain important resources with the design features of Alternative C. Furthermore, the Selected Action will reduce new system road construction. Given these factors, I did not select Alternative B because it did not meet the purpose and need as well in comparison with other alternatives nor did it as fully address public requests for more preventative treatments.

5. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

Additional alternatives to the Proposed Action were considered based on issues and concerns expressed during the Scoping period. The FEIS disclosed seven alternatives that were considered, but eliminated from detail study per the HFRA, Section 104(c)(1)(C), specifies consideration of additional alternative(s) meets the purpose and need of the project. Some of the comments recommended actions that were outside the scope of the purpose and need, could be incorporated into design and mitigation measures included in the proposed action, and some were incorporated into an additional alternative (Alternative C) for detailed study. One proposal to include use of broad scale thinning in conjunction with MPB baiting was beyond our local known research to consider on a large scale under this project.

6. The Environmentally Preferred Alternative(s)

Disclosure of one or more environmentally preferable alternatives is required [Section 101 NEPA; 40 CFR 1505.2(b)]. The environmentally preferable alternative is not necessarily the alternative that will be implemented and it does not have to meet the underlying need for the project. It does, however, have to cause the least damage to the biological and physical environment and best protect, preserve, and enhance historical, cultural and natural resources.

Region 8, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), provide comments on the DEIS. The DEIS did not indicate a preferred alternative. In their comments, Region 8 EPA compared the two action alternatives (EPA does not rate the No Action alternative):

“Although Alternatives B and C received an EC-2 rating in this review, we do not view them as equivalent. The difference in proposed new road construction mileage between the two action alternatives is substantial – 0 miles under Alternative B and up to 250 miles under Alternative C (70 miles of new system roads and 180 miles of temporary roads). Although design criteria were developed to protect aquatic resources from road construction impacts and it is the USFS’s intent to close all temporary and newly constructed system roads after harvest completion, the difficulty of eliminating impacts and ensuring complete closure of these roads may result in long-term sediment loading to aquatic resources compared to Alternative B”.


Following the release of the FEIS, Region 8 EPA submitted comments on the FEIS. The following references the Aquatic Resource section:

“The FEIS in Chapter 3 includes an expanded Watershed section which provides more detail related to existing watershed conditions and updated surface water and water quality information. In addition, a map of wetlands and watershed influence zones within the Forest has been added to Appendix E. The direct and cumulative effects on target watersheds have been clarified and project design criteria have been expanded to include reservoirs in the types of water bodies protected. The site-specificity of this analysis, as it pertains to preventative thinning to reduce stand susceptibility to beetles and fire, is not as detailed as we have seen in other vegetation management projects. However, given the lack of surface water features within the project area, the design criteria for preventing soil loss, and the strong revegetation rate on much of the Forest, it does not appear this project will lead to significant impacts to aquatic resources”.

In the case of the Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project, I have determined that there could be two environmentally preferred alternatives depending on which perspective one takes. From a short-term, non-disturbance perspective (less than 5 years), the No Action Alternative (Alternative A), followed by Alternative B, meets many of the criteria for being environmentally preferred. In the short term, Alternative A has the lowest risk of contributing to additional soil erosion, maintains the highest number of snags for wildlife, provides the most habitat for sensitive species, and has the least risk of damaging cultural resources or potentially affecting water quality. However, it risks significant long-term negative effects from the ongoing MPB infestation and large-scale wildfire that has high potential for occurrence in the area if management action is not taken. From a long term perspective, Alternative C, followed by Alternative B, is considered the environmentally preferred alternative. Although, as disclosed in the FEIS, activities do generate some short-term disturbance related to vegetation management impacts to soil, scenic, and other resources, it nevertheless reduces significant long-term environmental risks, particularly reducing the continuity of heavy fuels across landscapes and near communities.

7. Findings Required by Laws and Regulations

Another aspect of the process for selecting an alternative is ensuring that the decision actions comply with all legal requirements and policy. The Selected Action meets the following legal requirements.

Federal Laws

7.1 Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) 2003

The Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) was signed by President Bush in 2003. The Act contains a variety of provisions to expedite the approval of hazardous fuel reduction and forest health restoration projects on specific types of Federal land that are at risk to wildland fire or insect and disease epidemics. The MPBR Project area meets the insect and disease criteria set forth by HFRA in Title I, Sec. 102(a)(4). Members of the public questioned whether HFRA authorizes the Forest Service to implement treatments across a wide area without determinations that: 1) the treatments are “immediately adjacent” to the MPB epidemic, and 2) there is an imminent risk the epidemic will spread. The Forest Service interprets Title I, Sec. 102(a)(4) as authorizing treatments when two conditions exist: 1) there is an epidemic on federal land, and 2) the epidemic poses a


significant threat to an ecosystem component or forest or rangeland resource on federal land. The “immediately adjacent” and “imminent risk” factors are only applicable when the epidemic has not yet spread to federal land or when there is no significant threat to components or resources on federal land. See, Interim Field Guide, http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/hfi/field-

guide/web/page08.php#threats. I made the necessary finding that the MPB epidemic existed on federal land and posed a significant threat to forest resources in two letters dated August 2nd and 11th 2011. Refer to Appendix D in the FEIS for copies of these determination letters. The following demonstrates the MPBR project’s consistency with applicable portions of HFRA:

• With the plan amendment, the selected action is consistent with the Forest Plan (see 7.8 below)

• The selected action does not include treatments in designated wilderness, wilderness study areas or other Federal land where the removal of vegetation is prohibited by an act of Congress or Presidential proclamation.

• I determined that the MPB epidemic on Federal land poses a significant threat to forest resources on federal land and this determination is supported by the FEIS.

• Collaboration with counties, states, and federal officials, individuals and groups was conducted throughout project development.

• The primary purpose of the project is to reduce the significant threat to ecosystem components, including forest resources, from the existing MPB epidemic and help protect local communities and resources from large scale, severe wildfire.

7.2 The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) states that federal agencies must take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. The implementing regulations for Section 106 of the NHPA are found at 36 CFR §800, “Protection of Historic Properties”. The Forest has determined that this undertaking has the potential to affect historic properties. To comply with the NHPA, in consultation with Tribal governments and the general public, the Forest has developed a programmatic agreement (PA) with the South Dakota State Historic Preservation Officer and the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Officer. A PA is necessary (pursuant to 36 CFR §800.14(b)(1)(ii)) because the effects of the project cannot be fully determined prior to signing a Record of Decision. A PA is also preferable (pursuant to 36 CFR §800.14(b)(1)(i)) as a result of the multi-state scope and similar and repetitive nature of the project. The agreement, signed and executed on November 26, 2012, provides stipulations and procedures the Forest will follow during project implementation.

7.3 The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 1969

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires Federal agencies to consider and disclose the effects of proposed actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The Act’s requirement to prepare an environmental impact statement is designed to provide decision makers with a detailed accounting of the likely environmental effects of a proposed action prior to adoption and to inform the public of (and encourage comments on) such effects. NEPA establishes the format and content requirements of environmental analysis and documentation. The FEIS analyzes the alternatives and displays the environmental effects in conformance with NEPA standards. The process of preparing the Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project EIS and ROD was completed in accordance with NEPA.


7.4 The Endangered Species Act, 1973

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 USC 1531 et seq.) requires that any action authorized by a Federal agency not be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat of such species. The project decision is in compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). There are no threatened, endangered or proposed species within the Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Area. Therefore, no consultation was required with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The bald eagle was recently de-listed under ESA. Potential effects to bald eagles and other sensitive species, along with documentation regarding species covered under ESA, were included in a biological assessment / biological evaluation and summarized in Chapter 3 Wildlife section of the FEIS.

7.5 The Clean Water Act as amended

The Clean Water Act, as amended, regulates discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States. Section 402 (33 U.S.C. 1342) of the Clean Water Act prohibits discharging pollutants into waters of the United States from a point source without first obtaining a permit from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or a primacy state. Both the State of South Dakota and the State of Wyoming have primacy to administer the Section 402 permit programs in their respective states. At present, discharges from nonpoint silvicultural activities, including runoff from logging roads, are exempt from 402 permit requirements by regulation (40 CFR 122.3(e) and 122.27(b)). Neither South Dakota or Wyoming currently require Section 402 stormwater permits for discharges from logging roads, but this may change in the future. If requirements change during implementation of this project, any necessary permits for road work associated with this project will be obtained as required by law. Section 404 (33 USC 1344) of the Clean Water Act prohibits discharging dredged or fill material into waters (including wetlands) of the United States without first obtaining a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wetlands are regulated in accordance with federal Non-Tidal Wetlands Regulations (Sections 401 and 404). No dredging or filling is part of this action and no such permits are required. The Selected Action will meet and conform to the Clean Water Act as amended in 1982. This act establishes a non-degradation policy for all federally proposed projects. The Selected Action is not likely to degrade water quality below standards set by the States of South Dakota and Wyoming. This will be accomplished through planning, application, and monitoring of State Best Management Practices and other mitigations measures and design criteria of project activities. The project will comply with the CWA. (FEIS, pgs. 54-87).

7.6 The Clean Air Act as amended

The Clean Air Act of 1970 and its amendments provide for protecting and enhancing the nation’s air resources. The Selected Action will be implemented to meet the National Ambient Air Quality standards through avoidance of practices that degrade air quality below health and visibility standards.

7.7 The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) 1976

The NFMA amended the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act (RPA) of 1974. All alternatives were developed to be in full compliance and consistent with NFMA as summarized below.


New NFMA regulations at 36 CFR 219 were finalized on April 9, 2012. The transition language at 36 CFR 219.17(c) explains that the new regulations supersede any prior regulation and no obligations for project decisions remain from any prior planning regulation, except those that are specifically included in a unit’s existing plan. In addition, the new regulations do not govern projects until a plan is amended or revised under the new regulations.

The NFMA law (16 U.S.C. 1604(i)) requires me to ensure that permits, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other activities carried out on the Black Hills National Forest are consistent with the Forest Plan. Accordingly, I have reviewed the components of my decision against Forest Plan direction, and find they are consistent in that:

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

• I have reviewed the BHNF FY 2009 Monitoring and Evaluation Report and Region 2 MIS guidance for projects. The effects of planned activities on management indicator species are consistent with the Forest Plan.

• Planned activities are consistent with management area direction (see FP amendment #13).

• Planned activities comply with Forest Plan standards (see FP amendment #13).

Resource Management Requirements: The NFMA directs the Secretary of Agriculture to establish certain resource management guidelines included in the agency directives system. I find that the activities in this project decision comply with the NFMA law and corresponding guidance in the directives system, as follows:

• Irreversible resource damage will not occur. The project will not cause irreversible resource damage, such as to soil productivity or watershed condition. (FEIS, Chapter 3).

• Adequate restocking is assured.

• No clearcutting is proposed.

• No harvest will occur for timber production purposes on lands classified as unsuitable for timber harvest (see Silviculture report in project file).

• No created openings will be larger than 40 acres.

• Culmination of Mean Annual Increment (CMAI) requirements are met (see Silviculture report in project file).

7.8 Consistency with the Land and Resource Management Plan

The 1997 Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) supported by its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), is the Forest programmatic document required by the rules implementing the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (RPA), as amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA). The Forest Plan was amended by the Phase II Forest Plan Amendment Record of Decision made in October 2005, and became effective March 2, 2006. This amendment provides revised and new goals, objectives, standards and guidelines focused on: protecting communities, property, and forest values by reducing severe insect and fire hazards; conserving plant and animal species and habitats for the long term supported by the best available science; designating research natural areas.

This decision to implement treatments on this area is consistent with the intent of the Forest Plan’s long-term goals and objectives (FEIS, pages 19-24). The project was designed in conformance with Forest Plan standards and incorporates appropriate Forest Plan guidelines.


Consistency with Forest Plan: The scope of analysis for a Forest Plan’s management indicator species is determined by the Forest Plan’s management direction, specifically, its standards and guidelines (Chapter II) and monitoring direction (Chapter IV). The Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) contains no obligation to conduct project-specific monitoring or surveying for MIS (Phase II ROD, pp. 8, 20; Forest Plan as Amended, pg. I-11, Objective 238). The Forest Plan establishes monitoring and evaluation requirements that do not require population monitoring for MIS, but rather employ habitat capability relationships (Phase II ROD, pp. 20; Forest Plan as Amended, pg. I-11, Objective 238). Effects of the proposed project to species designated as MIS by the Forest Plan, as amended by the Phase II Amendment, have been considered. Due to the scale of the proposed project in relation to habitats available across the Forest, there will be no effect on Forest-wide habitat trends for any MIS species. Project effects on MIS are discussed in the FEIS beginning on page 166. The project is consistent with, or moves toward accomplishing Objectives 201 (aspen); 238 a, b, and c (various MIS); and 239 (spruce). Similarly, project effects on Species of Local Concern (SOLC) are discussed in the FEIS beginning on page 182. The project is consistent with, or moves toward accomplishing Objectives 213 (riparian habitat) and 221 (SOLC). Forest Plan Amendment: The public was notified in the Corrected Notice of Intent on February 23, 2012, that a Plan amendment would be part of this proposal and the decision. The public was advised of the need for this amendment, and its components were described in the DEIS that was issued for public comment. Documentation of the NFMA significance review of amendment components is contained in the project file. There is a need to amend the Forest Plan to allow implementation of this decision. I have determined that one amendment to the Forest Plan is needed and appropriate as part of my decision to implement Alternative C as Modified. This amendment, Forest Plan Amendment No. 13, is described in the “Decision” section on page 12 of this document. The transition language of the new planning regulations at 36 CFR 219.17(b) allow use of previous 1982 planning regulations for amending a Forest Plan. The 1982 version of the regulations require a determination of Forest Plan significance for any amendment. The significance criteria are in Forest Service Manual 1926.5. I have determined that Forest Plan Amendment No. 13 does not constitute a significant change to the Forest Plan. This decision does not change any management requirement in the Forest Plan designed to protect resources. Further, I have determined that the amendment will have no effect on the long-term relationship of goods and services projected by the Revised Forest Plan, and that this amendment does not substantially change desired land conditions as stated there.

7.9 Other State Laws

South Dakota and Wyoming State Best Management Practices (BMPs) are incorporated into project design.

Maps

Map 1 – Vicinity

Map 2 – Management Areas

Map 3 – Water Influence Zones and Wetlands

Map 4 – Selected Action Potential Treatment Areas

Map 5 – Selected Action Potential Treatment Areas – Spearfish Canyon

Map 6 – Selected Action Transportation

Map 2

November 2012December, 2012

Map 3

December, 2012

Map 6

December, 2012