Department of Agriculture Forest Final Environmental Service Impact Statement

Volume I

March 2010

Norbeck Wildlife Project

Hell Canyon Ranger District, National Forest Custer and Pennington Counties,

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

Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Custer and Pennington Counties, South Dakota

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest

Cooperating Agencies: South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks Responsible Official: Lynn Kolund, District Ranger Hell Canyon Ranger District 330 Mt. Rushmore Rd. Custer, SD 57730

For Information Contact: Kelly Honors, Team Leader 330 Mt. Rushmore Rd Custer, SD 57730 605-673-4853

Abstract The Hell Canyon Ranger District of the Black Hills National Forest has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. The Hell Canyon District proposes to improve habitat for game animals and birds within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve and to reduce the risks and consequences of a fire escaping from the Wilderness, as guided by the Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) as amended.

Mechanical and prescribed burning treatments are proposed to enhance forage, meadows, hardwood stands, shrubs, large trees, late succession and within stand diversity in that portion of Norbeck outside of the Black Elk Wilderness.

Four alternatives were considered in detail. Alternative 1 is the no Action Alternative; no management actions associated with this project would occur. Alternative 2 is the proposed action and includes a total of 6,001 acres of habitat enhancement treatments. Alternative 3 was developed in response to 4 of the 5 significant issues identified through scoping and includes habitat enhancement treatments on a total of 5,652 acres, outside of the Black Elk Wilderness. In addition, Alternative 3 proposes to prescribe burn 5,291 acres within the Black Elk Wilderness. Alternative 4 was developed in response to all 5 significant issues identified through scoping. Alternative 4 would implement habitat enhancement treatments on 6,119 acres outside of the Black Elk Wilderness and would prescribe burn on up to 5,291 acres within the Wilderness.

Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table of Contents

Abstract______iii Summary ______- 1 - Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action ______1 Document Structure ______1 Background ______1 Management Direction ______3 Forest Service Direction on Management of Fire in Wilderness ______4 Purpose and Need for Action ______5 Proposed Action ______6 Decision Framework ______7 Public Involvement ______7 Issues ______8 Chapter 2. Alternatives ______11 Introduction ______11 Alternatives Considered in Detail ______11 Alternative 1 – No Action ______11 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action ______11 Alternative 3 ______17 Alternative 4 ______23 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ______27 Monitoring ______29 Comparison of Alternatives ______30 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ______39 Introduction ______39 Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ______39 Wildlife Habitat ______40 Existing Conditions ______40 Environmental Consequences ______46 Alternative 1 – No Action ______47 Alternative 2 ______52 Alternative 3 ______59 Alternative 4 ______66 Wildlife ______76 Focus Species ______77 Management Indicator Species (MIS) ______112 Species of Local Concern (SOLC) ______124 Threatened, Endangered and R2 Sensitive Species ______161

Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Raptors ______163 Migratory Birds ______164 Silviculture ______166 Alternative 1 – No Action ______166 Common to All Alternatives ______166 Alternative 2 ______166 Alternative 3 ______167 Alternative 4 ______167 Black Elk Wilderness ______169 Existing Condition ______169 Environmental Consequences ______171 Fire and Fuels ______174 Existing Conditions ______174 Environmental Consequences ______183 Soils and Hydrology ______201 Soils ______201 Hydrology ______208 Scenery ______218 Existing Conditions ______218 Environmental Consequences ______219 Recreation ______228 Existing Conditions ______228 Environmental Consequences ______233 Range, Noxious Weeds and Botany ______237 Existing Condition ______237 Environmental Consequences ______241 Heritage Resources ______251 Existing Conditions ______251 Environmental Consequences ______254 Transportation ______255 Existing Condition ______255 Environmental Consequences ______258 Economics ______261 Financial Efficiency ______262 Short Term Uses and Long Term Productivity ______264 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ______265 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ______265 Cumulative Effects ______266 Environmental Justice ______266 Other Required Disclosures ______266 Chapter 4. List of Preparers and Distribution of the DEIS ______267 Preparers ______267 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Distribution of this FEIS ______270 Chapter 5. Literature Cited, Glossary, Index ______273 Literature Cited ______273 Glossary ______288 Index ______304

Table of Tables

TABLE 1. MANAGEMENT AREAS ACREAGE AND PERCENT WITHIN THE NORBECK WILDLIFE PRESERVE PROJECT AREA ______3 TABLE 2. SITES PROPOSED FOR MECHANICAL TREATMENT WHERE WHOLE TREE YARDING IS PREFERRED IN ALTERNATIVE 2 ______17 TABLE 3. SITES PROPOSED FOR MECHANICAL TREATMENT WHERE WHOLE TREE YARDING IS PREFERRED IN ALTERNATIVE 3 ______22 TABLE 4. ACRES OF HABITAT OBJECTIVES PROPOSED FOR ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH MECHANICAL (MECH) AND PRESCRIBED BURNING (RX BURN) TREATMENTS BY ALTERNATIVE ______30 TABLE 5. ACRES OF HABITAT OBJECTIVES ACHIEVED WITH PRESCRIBED BURNING CONCURRENT OR SEPARATE FROM MECHANICAL TREATMENTS ______30 TABLE 6. TYPES OF TREATMENTS PROPOSED FOR EACH HABITAT OBJECTIVE ______31 TABLE 7. ACRES OF MECHANICAL AND PRESCRIBED BURNING TREATMENTS BY ALTERNATIVE ______31 TABLE 8. EFFECTS TO SIGNIFICANT ISSUES BY ALTERNATIVE ______33 TABLE 9. EXISTING (2009) AND PROJECTED PINE STRUCTURAL STAGES FOR ALL ALTERNATIVES AT YEAR 2020; FOR AREAS WITHIN AND OUTSIDE OF THE BLACK ELK WILDERNESS ______37 TABLE 10. EXPECTED TIMBER VOLUMES BY ALTERNATIVE ______37 TABLE 11. COVER TYPES OF NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LAND IN THE NORBECK PROJECT AREA (26,727 ACRES) _ 41 TABLE 12. EXISTING ASPEN STRUCTURAL STAGES WITHIN THE NORBECK PROJECT AREA ______41 TABLE 13. EXISTING PINE STRUCTURAL STAGES WITHIN THE NORBECK PROJECT AREA ______42 TABLE 14. EXISTING WHITE SPRUCE STRUCTURAL STAGES WITHIN THE NORBECK PROJECT AREA ______43 TABLE 15. REGION 2 STRUCTURAL STAGES AND CORRESPONDING CONIFER SUCCESSIONAL STAGE ______46 TABLE 16. ACRES AND PERCENTAGE OF CONIFER SUCCESSIONAL STAGES IN MANAGEMENT AREA 5.4A ______46 TABLE 17. COMPARISON OF COVER TYPES FOR EXISTING CONDITION AND ALTERNATIVE 1AT YEAR 2020 ______47 TABLE 18. ALTERNATIVE 1 ASPEN STRUCTURAL STAGES IN YEAR 2020 ______48 TABLE 19. COMPARISON OF PONDEROSA PINE STRUCTURAL STAGES FOR THE EXISTING CONDITION AND ALTERNATIVE 1PROJECTED TO YEAR 2020 ______49 TABLE 20. EXISTING AND PROJECTED PINE STRUCTURAL STAGES FOR ALTERNATIVE 1 AT YEAR 2020; FOR AREAS WITHIN AND OUTSIDE OF THE BLACK ELK WILDERNESS ______50 TABLE21. ALTERNATIVE 1 PROJECTED WHITE SPRUCE STRUCTURAL STAGES WITHIN THE NORBECK PROJECT AREA IN YEAR 2020 ______50 TABLE 22. COMPARISON OF COVER TYPES FOR EXISTING CONDITION, NO ACTION AND ALTERNATIVE 2 AT YEAR 2020 ______53 TABLE 23. ALTERNATIVE 2 ASPEN STRUCTURAL STAGES IN YEAR 2020 ______54 TABLE 24. COMPARISON OF PONDEROSA PINE STRUCTURAL STAGES FOR THE EXISTING CONDITION, ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION, AND ALTERNATIVE 2, PROJECTED TO YEAR 2020. ______55 TABLE 25. EXISTING AND PROJECTED PINE STRUCTURAL STAGES FOR ALTERNATIVE 2 AT YEAR 2020; FOR AREAS WITHIN AND OUTSIDE OF THE BLACK ELK WILDERNESS ______56 TABLE 26. ALTERNATIVE 2 PROJECTED WHITE SPRUCE STRUCTURAL STAGES, PROJECT AREA IN YEAR 2020 _____ 57 TABLE 27. COMPARISON OF COVER TYPES FOR EXISTING CONDITION, NO ACTION AND ALTERNATIVE 2 AND 3 AT YEAR 2020 ______60 TABLE 28. ALTERNATIVE 3 ASPEN STRUCTURAL STAGES IN YEAR 2020: ______61

Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

TABLE 29. COMPARISON OF PONDEROSA PINE STRUCTURAL STAGES FOR THE EXISTING CONDITION, ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION, AND ALTERNATIVES 2 AND 3, PROJECTED TO YEAR 2020. ______63 TABLE 30. EXISTING AND PROJECTED PINE STRUCTURAL STAGES FOR ALTERNATIVE 3 AT YEAR 2020; FOR AREAS WITHIN AND OUTSIDE OF THE BLACK ELK WILDERNESS ______63 TABLE 31. ALTERNATIVE 3 PROJECTED WHITE SPRUCE STRUCTURAL STAGES WITHIN THE NORBECK PROJECT AREA AT YEAR 2020 ______64 TABLE 32. COMPARISON OF COVER TYPES FOR EXISTING CONDITION AND ALL ALTERNATIVES AT YEAR 2020 ___ 67 TABLE 33. ALTERNATIVE 4 ASPEN STRUCTURAL STAGES IN YEAR 2020 ______67 TABLE 34. COMPARISON OF PONDEROSA PINE STRUCTURAL STAGES FOR THE EXISTING CONDITION, AND ALL ALTERNATIVES, PROJECTED TO YEAR 2020 ______68 TABLE 35. EXISTING AND PROJECTED PINE STRUCTURAL STAGES FOR ALTERNATIVE 4 AT YEAR 2020; FOR AREAS WITHIN AND OUTSIDE OF THE BLACK ELK WILDERNESS ______69 TABLE 36. PROJECTED WHITE SPRUCE STRUCTURAL STAGES FOR ALL ALTERNATIVE WITHIN THE NORBECK PROJECT AREA IN YEAR 2020: ______69 TABLE 37. FOCUS SPECIES WITHIN THE NORBECK WILDLIFE PRESERVE (GRIEBEL ET AL. 2007) ______77 TABLE 38. HABITAT OBJECTIVES AND FOCUS SPECIES WHICH WOULD BENEFIT ______78 TABLE 39. ACRES OF MECHANICAL AND BURNING TREATMENTS FOR HABITAT OBJECTIVES BY ALTERNATIVE ____ 79 TABLE 40. CONIFER STRUCTURAL STAGES, IN PONDEROSA PINE, AT YEAR 2020 UNDER ALTERNATIVE 1 (‘NO ACTION’) ______81 TABLE 41. CONIFER STRUCTURAL STAGES, IN PONDEROSA PINE, AT YEAR 2020 UNDER ALTERNATIVE 2 ______81 TABLE 42. CONIFER STRUCTURAL STAGES, IN PONDEROSA PINE, AT YEAR 2020 UNDER ALTERNATIVE 3 ______82 TABLE 43. CONIFER STRUCTURAL STAGES IN PONDEROSA PINE AT YEAR 2020 UNDER ALTERNATIVE 4 ______82 TABLE 44. MIS LIST AND RATIONALE FOR INCLUSION IN PROJECT-LEVEL ANALYSIS ______113 TABLE 45. SOLC LIST AND RATIONALE FOR PROJECT-LEVEL ANALYSIS ______125 TABLE 46. R2 SENSITIVE SPECIES ANALYZED IN THE NORBECK WILDLIFE PROJECT ______161 TABLE 47. ACRES OF PONDEROSA PINE MECHANICALLY TREATED TO A LOW OR MEDIUM INSECT RATING BY ALTERNATIVE______168 TABLE 48. EXPECTED TIMBER VOLUMES BY ALTERNATIVE ______168 TABLE 49. FIRE REGIMES IN THE BLACK HILLS (USDA FOREST SERVICE 2005)______175 TABLE 50. FIRE REGIME CONDITION CLASS (FRCC) RATING DESCRIPTIONS (HANN ET AL., 2003) ______176 TABLE 51. FIRE HISTORY IN NORBECK FROM 1950 TO 2008 ______177 TABLE 52. NORBECK PROJECT LARGE FIRE HISTORY ______178 TABLE 53. BLACK ELK WILDERNESS LARGE FIRE HISTORY ______179 TABLE 54. EXISTING FIRE HAZARD RATINGS IN THE NORBECK PROJECT AREA - 2009 ______182 TABLE 55. FIRE HISTOGRAM SUMMARY ______199 TABLE 56. SOIL MAP UNITS IN THE NORBECK PROJECT AREA ______202 TABLE 57. EROSION HAZARD RATINGS OF MAJOR SOIL MAP UNITS IN THE NORBECK PROJECT AREA ______203 TABLE 58. ACRES OF MECHANICAL TREATMENT ON SOILS SUBJECT TO COMPACTION, BY ALTERNATIVE ______206 TABLE 59. HUC 6 WATERSHEDS ______208 TABLE 60. HUC 7 WATERSHEDS ______209 TABLE 61. WATERSHED CONDITION ______209 TABLE 62. WATERSHED CONDITION ______210 TABLE 63. BENEFICIAL USES______211 TABLE 64. DEVELOPED RECREATION: CAMPGROUND SITE STANDARDS ______228 TABLE 65. DEVELOPED RECREATION: DAY USE SITE STANDARDS ______229 TABLE 66. DEVELOPED RECREATION: TRAILHEAD SITE STANDARDS ______230 TABLE 67. DEVELOPED RECREATION: RESIDENCE TRACTS ______231 TABLE 68. TRAILS IN THE NORBECK WILDLIFE PROJECT AREA ______232 TABLE 69. TRAIL USE ______234 TABLE 70. HABITAT PREFERENCES OF FOUR R2 SENSITIVE AND SIX BLACK HILLS SOLC PLANTS ______245 TABLE 71. ROAD JURISDICTION FOR ALL ROADS IN THE NORBECK PROJECT AREA ______256 TABLE 72. NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM ROADS IN THE NORBECK PROJECT AREA ______256 TABLE 73. ROAD MANAGEMENT - SYSTEM ROADS – MILES FOR THE NORBECK PROJECT AREA ______257 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

TABLE 74. ROAD MANAGEMENT CLOSED MOTORIZED AND UNAUTHORIZED ROADS – MILES FOR THE NORBECK PROJECT AREA ______257 TABLE 75. TRAIL MANAGEMENT – SYSTEM TRAIL MILES THAT MAY BE USED FOR HAULING ______258 TABLE 76. ALTERNATIVE 2 MILES ______259 TABLE 77. ALTERNATIVE 3 MILES ______260 TABLE 78. ALTERNATIVE 4 MILES ______260 TABLE 79. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS RESULTS BY ALTERNATIVE IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ______263 TABLE 80. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS RESULTS BY ALTERNATIVE – WITHOUT THE PROPOSED HABITAT ENHANCEMENT TREATMENTS ALONG IRON CREEK TRAIL #15; RESULTS IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. ______264 TABLE 81. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS RESULTS BY ALTERNATIVE – WITHOUT THE PROPOSED PRESCRIBED BURNING WITHIN THE BLACK ELK WILDERNESS; RESULTS IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. ______264

Table of Figures

FIGURE 1. TYPICAL STAND STRUCTURE FOR EACH FIRE REGIME CONDITION CLASS (FRCC) ------176 FIGURE 2. FIRE HISTORY OCCURRENCE FROM 1950 TO 2008 ------178 FIGURE 3. NORBECK COMMUNITIES AT RISK ------180 FIGURE 4. EXISTING FIRE HAZARD RATING ------182 FIGURE 5. ALTERNATIVE 1 FINAL FIRE SIZE HISTOGRAM ------185 FIGURE 6. ALTERNATIVE 2 FINAL FIRE SIZE HISTOGRAM ------187 FIGURE 7. ALTERNATIVE 2 HABITAT OBJECTIVES ------188 FIGURE 8. ALTERNATIVE 3, NON-WILDERNESS ONLY, FINAL FIRE SIZE HISTOGRAM ------190 FIGURE 9. ALTERNATIVE 3 HABITAT OBJECTIVES ------191 FIGURE 10. ALTERNATIVE 3, WILDERNESS ONLY, FINAL FIRE SIZE HISTOGRAM------192 FIGURE 11. ALTERNATIVE 3 FINAL FIRE SIZE HISTOGRAM ------194 FIGURE 12. ALTERNATIVE 4 HABITAT OBJECTIVES. ------197 FIGURE 13. FIRE HAZARD IMPROVEMENT ------199 FIGURE 14. FSPRO FIRE SUMMARY ------200 FIGURE 15. PRESCRIBED BURNING HABITAT OBJECTIVE COMPARISON ------201 FIGURE 16. GRAZING ALLOTMENTS IN THE PROJECT AREA ------238

Volume II - Appendices

Appendix A – Vicinity Map and Treatment Activities Maps

Appendix B – Design Criteria

Appendix C – Monitoring Plan

Appendix D – Treatments by site

Appendix E – Findings: Silviculture

Appendix F – Past, Present, Future Activities

Appendix G – Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation

Appendix H – Post-Sale Projects

Appendix I – Response to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Commonly Used Acronyms and Abbreviations

AM Animal Months NEPA National Environmental Policy Act APE Area of Potential Effect NFMA National Forest Management Act ATV All Terrain Vehicle NFSR National Forest System Road AUM Animal Unit Month BA Basal Area NHPA National Historic Preservation Act BABE, Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation NOA Norbeck Organic Act BA/BE BCC Birds of Conservation Concern NOI Notice Of Intent BCR Bird Conservation Region NRHP National Register of Historic Places BEW Black Elk Wilderness NWP Norbeck Wildlife Preserve BHNF Black Hills National Forest NWPA Norbeck Wildlife Project Area BHNF Black Hills National Forest Revised Land and NWSI Natural Watershed Sensitivity Index LRMP Resource Management Plan BMP Best Management Practice P.L. Public Law CCF Hundred Cubic Feet PNV Present Net Value CDA Connected Disturbed Areas POL Products Other than Logs CEQ Council on Environmental Quality R2 Forest Service Region 2 (Rocky Mountain Region) CFR Code of Federal Regulations RIS Resource Information System CSP RMBO Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory DBH Diameter at Breast Height RMRS Rocky Mountain Research Station DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement RNA Research Natural Area DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources ROD Record of Decision EIS Environmental Impact Statement ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum RX Prescribed, Prescription (fire or silviculture) SD South Dakota EPA Environmental Protection Agency SDGFP South Dakota Game Fish and Parks FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement SDNHP South Dakota Natural Heritage Program FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency SHPO State Historic Preservation Office FPS&G Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines SHR Stream Health Rating FRCC Fire Regime Condition Class SIO Site Integrity Objective FS Free Selection SOLC Species of Local Concern FSM Forest Service Manual SOPA Schedule of Proposed Action FSPro Fire Spread Probability SS Structural Stage FSR Forest Service Road TES Threatened, Endangered, & Sensitive Species GIS Geographic Information Systems TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load GST Group Selection and Thin TSI Trophic State Index ha Hectare USC United States Code HABCAP Habitat Capability Model USDA United States Department of Agriculture HUC Hydrologic Unit Code USFS United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service IDT, ID Interdisciplinary Team USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service Team KOA Kampgrounds of America USGS United States Geological Survey LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan VD Variable Density Thin MA Management Area VHEHR Very High Erosion Hazard Rating MBBH Monitoring Birds of the Black Hills WCP Watershed Conservation Practice MIS Management Indicator Species WCPH Watershed Conservation Practice Handbook MOU Memorandum of Understanding WIZ Water Influence Zone MPB Mountain Pine Beetle WUI Wildland Urban Interface MRNM Mount Rushmore National Memorial

Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Summary The Black Hills National Forest proposes to manage vegetation to benefit game animals and birds in the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve by selectively treating vegetation within the Preserve. Management actions would occur on National Forest System land only.

The project area is located approximately 4 miles northeast of the town of Custer, SD (see Map 1 in Appendix A). The gross acreage of the project area is 26,727 acres administered by the Forest Service. This includes most of the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve except for a 659-acre disjunct parcel known as Section 2. An additional 6,826 acres administered by other agencies or privately owned, and also in the Preserve, lies adjacent to the project area and is not included in this analysis.

This action is needed because the current condition of the preserve does not meet the intent for which it was established, that is as a functioning wildlife preserve managed to fulfill a habitat need in the regional landscape for a defined list of “game animals and birds” in accordance with the mandate of the Norbeck Organic Act. In addition, the current mountain pine beetle (MPB) infestation in Norbeck is having on-going effects and these effects are changing the existing conditions.

Public involvement on this project began prior to the formal scoping period. In June of 2006 a team a Resource Specialists from other Forests and Agencies completed a Landscape Assessment of the Norbeck area. This assessment included the results of interviews with a variety of publics who were identified as having an interest in management of this area. Another opportunity for public input occurred with an open house which was held on October 23, 2006 in Custer.

Public scoping of the Proposed Action was initiated with publication of the Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register on July 31, 2007. In addition, scoping documents, defining the proposed action, were sent to approximately 250 individuals, tribal representatives, groups, government entities and other interested members of the public. The proposed action included vegetation treatments designed to enhance habitat for the benefit of game animals and birds, in particular, those species identified in the Norbeck Focus Species list (Griebel et al., 2007) developed in cooperation with South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. After receiving public comments, the proposed action was modified to defer prescribed burning in the Wilderness and to change how goshawk nest areas are treated.

Comments received during scoping were used to define the significant issues which were used to develop alternatives to the proposed action. The alternatives are briefly described below. Chapter 2 further describes these alternatives in detail.

§ Alternative 1 - No Action § Alternative 2 - Proposed Action – This alternative was modified after being sent to the public for scoping. The modification included deferring the proposed burning within the Black Elk Wilderness and altering proposed treatments within goshawk nest areas. After further review, prescribed burning within the Wilderness, as originally designed in the proposed action, would have undesirable impacts to Wilderness values and character. In addition, some planned treatments in goshawk nest areas (180 acres) would not have maintained adequate canopy cover to meet Forest Plan standards. The following are changes to the original Proposed Action (Alternative 2):

S- 1 -

Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

o The initial proposed action included 7,391 acres of prescribed burning within the Black Elk Wilderness. All Rx burning within the Wilderness is deferred in Alternative 2. o Treatments proposed within goshawk nest areas (180 acres) would be changed from removal of all 9” DBH and below pine to precommercial thinning up to 6” diameter trees, 150 foot no treatment buffers around the nest trees and no treatment pockets of 1/50 acre in size. This would apply in all 180-acre nest areas. o The habitat objective for treatment along the byway is changed from ‘Goshawk Habitat Enhancement’ to ‘Stand Diversity’ (this is a terminology change only, not a change of prescription) § Alternative 3 – This alternative was developed to respond to significant issues #1-Effects on Wilderness Values; #2- Effects on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat; #3-Effects on Large Trees; and #5 Potential for Escaped Fire to Occur. A total of about 4,723 acres of mechanical treatments and 7,502 acres of prescribed burning, including 5,291 acres of burning within the Black Elk Wilderness, are proposed. The proposed Wilderness prescribed burning is designed to achieve the objective of protecting identified values outside the Wilderness from a fire escaping from the Wilderness while limiting potential impacts to Wilderness values and character. Approximately 1,282 acres of the proposed burning would occur on sites also proposed for mechanical treatments, outside of the Black Elk Wilderness. § Alternative 4 – This alternative was developed to respond to significant issue #4, Effects of Mountain Pine Beetles on Wildlife Habitat, as well as significant issues #1-Effects on Wilderness Values; #2- Effects on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat; #3-Effects on Large Trees; and #5 Potential for Escaped Fire to Occur. A total of about 5,190 acres of mechanical treatments and 7,502 acres of prescribed burning, including up to 5,291 acres of burning within the Black Elk Wilderness, are proposed. The full extent of burning in the Wilderness would be based on a review of site specific conditions at the time of implementation of burning. Retention of advanced regeneration and live mature stands or groups of trees would be emphasized in the Wilderness. Approximately 1,282 acres of the proposed burning would occur on sites also proposed for mechanical treatments, outside of the Black Elk Wilderness. The Norbeck Wildlife project purpose and need provides the focus and scope of the proposal as related to National and Forest-level policy and direction. Given the purpose and need, the Responsible Official, District Ranger, will review the analysis contained in this document and supporting information in the project file to reach a decision on this project. The decision will include, but not be limited to: § Whether to undertake vegetation treatments to improve habitat conditions for game animals and birds in Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. § Whether to conduct prescribed burning within the Black Elk Wilderness. § If so, what actions are appropriate and under what conditions actions would take place. § Whether to approve actions requiring a project specific Forest Plan Amendment for Alternative 3 to allow a departure from Forest Plan Standard 4104: “Visual effects of prescribed fire will comply with the approved scenic integrity objective of an area.” The Wilderness area has a Very High scenic integrity objective and the prescribed burning within the Wilderness, as designed in Alternative 3, may not meet this standard.

S- 2 - Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action Document Structure The Forest Service has prepared this Draft Environmental Impact Statement in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This Environmental Impact Statement discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized as follows:

§ Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action: The chapter includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and the issues derived from that public input. § Chapter 2. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This chapter provides a more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on significant issues raised during scoping. This Chapter also provides summary tables of proposed activities and a comparative display of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative. § Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives, and the baseline from which the incremental effects are derived. § Chapter 4. List of Preparers and Distribution § Chapter 5. Literature Cited, glossary, and Index § Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the environmental impact statement. Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Hell Canyon Ranger District office in Custer, South Dakota. Background The Norbeck Organic Act of June 5, 1920 authorized the establishment of Custer State Park Game Sanctuary “…for the protection of game animals and birds and to be recognized as a breeding place therefore.” The sanctuary was officially established by proclamation on October 9, 1920 by President Woodrow Wilson. The name Custer State Park Game Sanctuary was changed to Norbeck Wildlife Preserve (Preserve) on October 6, 1949 (16 USC 675, 1998).

Discussions on the bill urged cooperation between the State of South Dakota and the federal government “…in this game preserve and in the protection of wild animals, [and stated that] the object is to set aside certain portions of the Harney National Forest ...for the protection of game” (Cong. Record, 5/29/1920).

The Norbeck legislation is rather unique in that similar legislation was passed for very few other areas in the nation. The original broad Congressional direction for management of the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve was interpreted by subsequent case law and further legislation in 2002 (see following section). It is clear that the mandate of the Norbeck Organic Act (the NOA)

1

Chapter 1 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

predominates over other statutes for management within the Preserve, and that a full range of management tools may be used to accomplish objectives of the NOA.

In the 1927 Master Plan for Protection and Administration of the Preserve, the Forest Service detailed events leading to the establishment of Norbeck. The Plan explained that then-Governor Peter Norbeck of South Dakota “…desired to add this feature [the presence of game] to the Custer State Park” (Master Plan, pg. 3). The Plan noted the Sanctuary had been withdrawn from mineral entry and homesteading, and then withdrawn again by the Act and Proclamation, and that “…this second withdrawal is the dominant withdrawal.” The Plan (Master Plan, pg. 11) concluded that “…preference will be given to the use as a game sanctuary and its use for such other purpose will be restricted or denied….” The Plan went on to allow for timber removals from the area.

Subsequent agency plans for Norbeck have followed the lead of the 1927 Master Plan in realizing that the primary use is for game animals and birds, and that all actions in the Preserve are to benefit these species. Management plans drawn up in 1973, 1979, and 1989, and two generations of Forest Plans (1983 and 1997) have increasingly emphasized reversing the decline of wildlife habitat values by removing encroaching pine in meadows, and stands of hardwoods and shrubs, as well as providing for a variety of stand ages and densities in conifer communities. Decisions in Needles and Grizzly projects in 1994 and 1995 prescribed commercial and non- commercial timber harvest to initially thin dense pine stands and enhance hardwoods and meadows. These activities allowed for safer use of other management tools such as prescribed fire.

Administrative appeals and lawsuits followed, forcing delays in planned actions. Lawsuits in 1974 and 1994 asserted that commercial timber harvest is inappropriate within the Preserve. A 1999 lower court ruling on the 1994 lawsuit supported the Forest Service interpretation of its mandate in the Preserve. In 2001, however, the Tenth Circuit remanded this decision on appeal. The Tenth Circuit focused on the roles of the Norbeck Organic Act (NOA) and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) in the planning process for actions in Norbeck, and ruled that the mandate of NOA supersedes that of NFMA.

Except for some limited salvage, virtually no vegetation management had taken place in the Preserve since the late 1960s. Then, on August 2, 2002, P.L. 107-206 was signed into law by President George Bush. In Section 706 of this Act, Congress provided further direction on management intent within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. Specifically, Congress recognized that forest health conditions within Norbeck were deteriorating, and authorized and directed that two vegetation management projects (Needles and Grizzly) long stalled by litigation should proceed. The Act also added about 3,600 acres of Norbeck to the Black Elk Wilderness, and prescribed for consultation with South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks (SDGFP) in future management actions within Norbeck. Congress also directed that the Forest Service “…is authorized to use the full spectrum of management tools including prescribed fire and silvicultural treatments to benefit game animal and bird habitat in meeting the purposes of the Norbeck Organic Act.”

On September 7, 2004, the Forest Service and the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks (SDGFP) executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding the management and monitoring of the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. Under that MOU, both parties cooperated in the development of a list of game animals and birds on which to focus habitat objectives for Norbeck. In May, 2007 the list of focus species for Norbeck was finalized. Since that time, the Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB) has had an on-going effect to Norbeck, which is changing the existing conditions on a continual basis. The most recent mapping of MPB activity in the project

2 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 area and the anticipated rate of spread estimates that the MBP outbreak will have advanced through the project area within the next 3-5 years. It is expected that by 2013, the greatest effect from the beetles would be realized. The goal of this project is to improve habitat conditions for game animals and birds on National Forest System land within Norbeck Wildlife Preserve, and to reduce the risks and consequences of fire escaping from the Black Elk Wilderness.

The project area is located approximately 4 miles northeast of the town of Custer, SD (see Map 1 in Appendix A). Primary access routes through the project area are State Highway 87, 89, 244 and US Highway 16A. The segments of these roads which occur within the project area aer designated as the Peter Norbeck National Scenic byway.

The gross acreage of the project area is 26,727 acres administered by the Forest Service. This includes most of the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve except for a 659-acre disjunct parcel known as Section 2. Due to its detached location, the Section 2 parcel was analyzed recently under a separate decision. An additional 6,826 acres administered by other agencies or privately owned, is within the Preserve. The project area also includes the Black Elk Wilderness which was designated by Congress on December 22, 1980, and originally encompassed approximately 9,820 acres (PL 96-560). It was expanded to its current size, 13,542 acres, through legislation on August 2, 2002 (PL 107-206). Management Direction The project area is comprised of four management area (MA) designations: MA1.1A Black Elk Wilderness, MA2.2 Research Natural Area (entirely within the Black Elk Wilderness), MA 4.2B Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway and MA 5.4A Norbeck Wildlife Preserve (see Table 1) per the Black Hills National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (BHNF LRMP, as amended). These management areas are displayed on Map 2 in Appendix A.

Table 1. Management Areas acreage and percent within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve Project Area

Percent of Management Area Emphasis Acres Project Area Black Elk Wilderness (includes 1.1A Upper Pine Creek RNA of 850 13,542 51 % acres) 2.2 Research Natural Area (850)* (3 %)* 4.2B Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway 1,673 6 % 5.4A Norbeck Wildlife Preserve 11,512 43 % Project Area Total 26,727 100 % * The Pine Creek Research Natural Area is also included in the acreage and percentage for the Black Elk Wilderness per the Revised BHNF LRMP, as amended.

Forest Plan direction for the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve emphasizes habitat for game animals and birds. To provide for a variety of focus species, Norbeck should contain a variety of habitats including open areas; shrubs; tree stands of different ages, densities and species; and healthy streamside areas.

More specifically, the following Forest Plan habitat goals and objectives for Norbeck were used to develop the proposed action:

3

Chapter 1 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Goal 5.4A-202: Manage forest cover types to provide variety in stand sizes, shape, crown closure, edge contrast, age structure and interspersion

Objective 5.4A-203: Manage for the following conifer successional stages:

15-10 percent to provide forage 25-50 percent in the young and mature stages 20-25 percent in natural succession (late-successional landscape) Objective 5.4A-204: Enhance shrub productivity.

Objective 5.4A-205: Retain or restore acres of aspen and birch within Norbeck.

Objective 5.4A-206: Retain or restore acres of oak and white spruce within Norbeck.

Objective 5.4A-210: Provide wildlife cover and forage.

a. Provide thermal cover for big game on at least 30 percent of the planning unit. b. Manage for 5 to 10 percent of each 640 acres in 1-to 10-acre openings to provide forage. In addition, the following Forest Plan direction for the Black Elk Wilderness was used to develop the proposed action:

Goal 1.1A-403: Restore fire in Wilderness to its natural role in the ecosystem.

Standard 1.1A-4101: Manage fire and fuels to promote the fire regime ecosystem.

Guideline 1.1A-4102: Emphasize the use of prescribed fires...to reduce unnatural buildups of fuels and to simulate conditions representative of a ponderosa pine fire regime

Forest Service Direction on Management of Fire in Wilderness Forest Service direction pertaining to the management of fire in Wilderness areas is contained in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2324.2. There are two objectives listed for fire management in Wilderness (FSM 2324.21): 1. Permit lightning caused fires to play, as nearly as possible, their natural ecological role within Wilderness 2. Reduce, to an acceptable level, the risks and consequences of wildfire within Wilderness or escaping from Wilderness

Policy direction at FSM 2324.22 (1) states that there are two types of prescribed fires that may be approved for use within Wilderness: those ignited by lightning and allowed to burn under prescribed conditions and those ignited by qualified Forest Service officers. Circumstances which would allow management-ignited fire to occur within Wilderness are summarized in FSM 2324.22 (6): Forest Service managers may ignite a prescribed fire in Wilderness to reduce unnatural buildups of fuels only if necessary to meet at least one of the Wilderness fire management objectives set forth in FSM 2324.21 and if all of the following conditions are met: a. The use of prescribed fire or other fuel treatment measures outside of Wilderness is not sufficient to achieve fire management objectives within Wilderness. b. An interdisciplinary team of resource specialists has evaluated and recommended the proposed use of prescribed fire.

4 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1

c. The interested public has been involved appropriately in the decision. d. Lightning-caused fires cannot be allowed to burn because they will pose serious threats to life and/or property within Wilderness or to life, property, or natural resources outside of Wilderness. Purpose and Need for Action The purpose of the Norbeck Wildlife project is to meet habitat objectives for focus species, which is the list of specific game animals and birds developed to help focus habitat objectives. The species list was developed in cooperation with the South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks and is based on the habitats that Norbeck has the potential to provide in conjunction with the habitats needed in the regional landscape. The Norbeck focus species list (Griebel et al. 2007) includes:

· mountain goat · bighorn sheep · Rocky Mountain elk · white-tailed deer · Merriam’s turkey · northern goshawk · golden-crowned kinglet · brown creeper · ruffed grouse · mountain bluebird · song sparrow · black-backed woodpecker

The majority of the project area consists of dense ponderosa pine stands. Habitat for some of the focus species (song sparrow, ruffed grouse, mountain bluebird, mountain goat, and bighorn sheep) is limited due to pine invading hardwoods, riparian areas, and meadows. Open-canopied stands of pine that provide forage for white-tailed deer, elk, mountain goat and bighorn sheep are also limited. A dense undergrowth of small pines has suppressed grasses, shrubs, and forbs needed by these focus species.

Based on 2006 forest inventory data, nearly 89 percent of MA 1.1A (Black Elk Wilderness) is in dense ponderosa pine structural stages (3B, 3C, 4B, 4C and 5). The contiguous landscape of dense ponderosa pine within the management area differs from historic mosaics of densities found across the Black Hills (Brown and Cook, 2006). Likewise, the majority (79%) of the Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway (MA 4.2B) is mature ponderosa pine (Structural Stages 4A, 4B, 4C and 5).

Management Area 5.4A is dominated by ponderosa pine cover type. Approximately 95 percent of the management area is typed as ponderosa pine. Ponderosa pine cover type in the management area is concentrated in the 4B and 4C structural stages. The 2006 distribution of cover types and structural stages creates homogenous areas of dense, mature ponderosa pine. Other cover types (grass, bur oak, quaking aspen and white spruce) and structural stages exist, and comprise only seven percent of the management area.

5

Chapter 1 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Forest inventory data from 2006 shows that habitat conditions favor those focus species that prefer dense ponderosa pine at the expense of those that prefer open ponderosa pine, hardwoods, meadows, spruce, shrubs and grass sites within forested stands.

The Black Elk Wilderness is located in the center of the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. Many of the wildlife habitats in Norbeck are at risk from large scale, high intensity fire due to years of fire suppression in the Black Elk Wilderness. The majority of the project area has a fire hazard rating of very high based on the availability of fuels to sustain a fire. The very high fire hazard that exists in the Norbeck project area results from disruption of historic fire regime, creating a landscape dominated by large contiguous stands of dense ponderosa pine with high loading of surface and ladder fuels. In addition, recent areas of tree mortality, caused by mountain pine beetle, would increase fuel concentrations on the ground resulting in very high fuel accumulations. In an area such as Norbeck where high risk coincides with high hazard, the probability of fire with undesirable consequences is more likely and could be detrimental to many unique values existing in and around this project area.

If a large wildfire was ignited in the Black Elk Wilderness, there is likelihood of the fire escaping the Wilderness. Four local at-risk communities (Keystone, Hill City, Custer, and Hayward) are located within three miles of the Wilderness area boundary. Other values at-risk in the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve include habitat for game animals and birds such as snags, hardwoods, riparian areas, thermal cover, spruce, and mid- to late-successional ponderosa pine stands. Additionally, the Upper Pine Creek Research Natural Area (RNA), Mt. Rushmore National Memorial, Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway, Custer State Park, and various recreational developments, private businesses and interspersed private lands with residences are in close proximity and also at-risk.

In the last three years, a mountain pine beetle outbreak has been occurring in the Black Elk Wilderness. Heavy mortality of ponderosa pine in affected areas has resulted in changed habitat conditions in the Wilderness area. It is estimated that dense ponderosa pine structural stages (3B, 3C, 4B, 4C and 5) within the Wilderness have decreased from 87 percent in 2006 to 57 percent in 2009. Fire hazard still remains very high in the majority of the Wilderness (89%) and outside of the Wilderness (77%).

In light of desired habitat conditions for focus species and existing conditions within the project area, there is a need to restore meadows, riparian corridors, hardwood stands, and diverse understory in that portion of Norbeck outside of the Black Elk Wilderness by removing pine while maintaining a large tree component in both pine and spruce stands. In addition, there is a need to reduce the risks and consequences of a fire escaping from the Black Elk Wilderness. Proposed Action The following is a brief summary of the proposed action developed by the ID Team. All alternatives are presented in more detail in Chapter 2.

The proposed action was developed to address the Purpose and Need for action. Specific actions include vegetation treatments, using both mechanical means and prescribed fire. Approximately 6,000 acres would be treated to meet habitat objectives. All proposed activities would occur outside of the Black Elk Wilderness. Some stands would be left untreated to benefit northern goshawk, brown creeper and turkey as well as provide cover for elk and white-tailed deer. No roads would be reopened or created inside the Black Elk Wilderness. No changes in travel management or public access within Norbeck Wildlife Preserve are planned for this decision.

6 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1

This proposed action alternative was modified after being sent to the public for scoping. The modification included deferring the proposed burning within the Black Elk Wilderness and altering proposed treatments within goshawk nest areas. Decision Framework The Responsible Official is the District Ranger, who will evaluate the proposed action, alternatives, and environmental analysis; then considering public comment, will reach a decision that is in accordance with the purpose and need for this project.

The decision will include, but not be limited to:

§ Whether to undertake vegetation treatments to improve habitat conditions for game animals and birds in Norbeck Wildlife Preserve § Whether to undertake prescribed burning in the Black Elk Wilderness to reduce the risks and consequences of a fire escaping from the Wilderness § If so, what actions are appropriate and under what conditions actions would take place § Whether to approve actions requiring a project specific Forest Plan Amendment for Alternative 3 to allow a departure from Forest Plan Standard 4104: “Visual effects of prescribed fire will comply with the approved scenic integrity objective of an area.” The Wilderness area has a Very High scenic integrity objective and the prescribed burning within the Wilderness, as designed in Alternative 3, may not meet this standard. This environmental impact statement is not a decision document. This EIS discloses the environmental consequences of implementing the proposed action and alternatives to that action. The Forest Service decision will be stated and explained in a separate Record of Decision (ROD). Public Involvement Public involvement on this project began prior to the formal scoping period. In June 2006 a team of resource specialists from other Forests and Agencies completed a Norbeck Wildlife Preserve Landscape Assessment of the Norbeck area (USDA Forest Service 2006). This assessment included the results of interviews with a variety of publics who were identified as having an interest in management of this area. Another opportunity for public input occurred at an open house that was held on October 23, 2006 in Custer. The purpose of this open house was to share information about the area with the public, and to discuss possible management options to improve habitat for game animals and birds. Also, various members of the public were contacted by South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks during identification of the focus species list (Griebel et al. 2007). Approximately 25 individuals, groups and agencies outside of the South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Department were asked for their input on the proposed list. The comments received were used to help refine the final list.

Scoping as defined by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) includes refining the proposed action, identifying preliminary issues, and identifying interested and affected persons. Public scoping was initiated July 31, 2007 when a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register. An amended NOI was published on July 14, 2009.

A scoping document was sent on August 1, 2007 to approximately 250 individuals, tribal representatives, groups and other governmental entities. This scoping document explained the purpose and need for the project, provided maps of the project, and solicited comments on the

7

Chapter 1 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

proposed action. The District received a total of 43 responses from individuals, groups, tribes, state agencies, and other organizations. Comments were received via e-mail, letter, phone, and FAX. Copies of the letters, emails and documentation of phone conversations can be found in the project file.

The Norbeck Wildlife project was listed in the Black Hills National Forest’s Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) starting in the 3rd Quarter of 2007. The SOPA provides one of the means of keeping the public informed of the progress of individual projects. The SOPA is also made available to the public on the Black Hills National Forest website.

A public meeting was held on May 19, 2009 in Hill City. A news article appeared in the Rapid City Journal on May 14, 2009 that discussed the project and provided details of the public meeting. News releases were also sent to the local Custer and Hill City papers. Additional public involvement has occurred with various presentations to interested groups such as the Norbeck Society and the Black Hills Sportsmen Club. Several presentations on the Norbeck Wildlife project have been given to the National Forest Advisory Board (NFAB) since 2007, and a field review of the area with NFAB occurred on August 19, 2009. All NFAB meetings are advertised in the Federal Register and are open to the public.

A Notice of Availability (NOA) was published in the Federal Register on November 27, 2009, announcing the availability of the DEIS and initiating the 45-day comment period. A legal notice of the opportunity to comment on the DEIS was published in the Rapid City Journal on November 27, 2009.

A public field trip to the project area occurred on December 2, 2009, following release of the DEIS. This field trip was attended by seven members of the public and two SDGFP employees.

A total of 49 comment letters on the DEIS were received during the comment period. See Appendix I in the FEIS for responses to comments. None of these comments generated a need for re-analysis or required major substantive changes in the document. All letters are contained within the project file. Issues The Forest Service separated the issues into two groups: significant and non-significant issues. Significant issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Non-significant issues were identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations explain this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “…identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)…” A list of non-significant issues and reasons regarding their categorization as non- significant may be found in the project record.

The Forest Service identified the following significant issues during scoping:

Issue #1: Effects on Wilderness Values – Several commentors were concerned that the prescribed burning included in the Proposed Action was not consistent with the Wilderness Act or with the values and character of Wilderness. Others thought that the burning should be designed to replicate the same biological effects as produced by natural fire events. They believe

8 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 any actions proposed inside Black Elk Wilderness must be justified by asserted benefits to Wilderness values and character.

This issue was used to modify Alternative 2 and to develop Alternatives 3 and 4. Issue #1 is also carried forward for analysis.

Measures: Acres treated within the Wilderness, impacts on Wilderness values and character, Issue #2: Effects on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat – Several commentors were concerned with the effects of the project on various components of wildlife habitat. Others were concerned that the vegetation treatments described in the proposed action would not achieve the purpose and need for the project. Several suggested changes/additions to make the project more effective or to better describe the treatments.

This issue was used to develop Alternatives 3 and 4 and is carried forward for analysis.

Measures: Acres of habitat type, effects to focus species and their habitat, acres of pine by structural stage Issue #3: Effects on Large Trees – Many commentors were concerned that the proposed action did not ensure that enough large diameter trees would be retained for wildlife needs, nesting, roosting, foraging, and to maintain high scenic integrity around recreation residences, roads, and other seen areas.

This issue was used to develop Alternatives 3 and 4 and was also used to develop design criteria for all alternatives. It is also carried forward for analysis.

Measures: Acres of pine sites in a 4A condition and likely to survive the mountain pine beetle outbreak, and acres of large tree retention within meadow and hardwood cover types. Issue #4: Effects of Mountain Pine Beetle on Wildlife Habitat - There is internal and external concern about possible impacts to habitats in Norbeck from the spread of mountain pine beetles (MPB) currently at outbreak levels in the Black Elk Wilderness. Based on information provided by Kurt Allen, Rocky Mountain Research Station (RMRS) Forest Entomologist (Allen 2008 and Allen 2009), MPB could have severe impacts on wildlife habitat in Norbeck, in particular large trees and mature conifer stands. Mortality is predicted to be very high in most dense pine stands. Direct management of MPB within the Wilderness area is not possible. However, treatments within Norbeck outside the Wilderness area can help reduce the impacts from mountain pine beetle on habitat for game animals and birds.

This issue was used to develop Alternative 4 and will be carried forward for analysis.

Measures: Acres of pine treated to a low and moderate insect risk Issue #5: Potential for Escaped Fire to Occur – There is internal and external concern regarding the potential for escaped prescribed fire, as well as escaped wildfire, to occur. An escaped prescribed fire is a management ignited fire that extends beyond planned boundaries. An escaped wildfire is when a fire, which is not management ignited, extends beyond suppression objectives stated in the Forest Plan. The Wilderness and Scenic Byway have suppression objectives of less than10 acres, and the remaining portion of the project area has a suppression objective of less than15 acres. Some commentors were concerned that proposed prescribed burning could adversely affect wildlife habitat provided by forested stands if not designed properly with regard to intensity and timing. Others were concerned about the risk to adjacent private property from the chance of escaped wildfire.

9

Chapter 1 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

This issue was used to develop Alternatives 3 and 4 and was also used to develop design criteria for all alternatives. It is also carried forward for analysis.

Measures: Acres of prescribed burning, reduction in fire hazard rating, reduction in risk to values-at-risk from fire escaping from the Wilderness.

10 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2

Chapter 2. Alternatives Introduction This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Norbeck Wildlife project. It includes a description of each alternative considered. Maps of the alternatives are provided in Appendix A. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, sharply defining the differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public. Some of the information used to compare the alternatives is based upon the design of the alternative and some of the information is based upon the environmental, social and economic effects of implementing each alternative. Alternatives Considered in Detail The Forest Service developed four alternatives, including the no action and proposed action alternatives. The alternatives considered in detail by the interdisciplinary team are discussed below. This section provides a summary of activities proposed to occur during implementation of any action alternative. The amount (acres, miles) of any particular activity in an alternative is approximate, based on inventory and survey estimates. Exact figures may vary slightly during preparation of a timber sale, prescribed burn, or other project based upon various factors such as topography, non-uniform site structure, fuels, refinement of the standard of road needed, etc.

Alternative 1 – No Action The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the study of the no action alternative as a basis for comparing the effects of no action to effects from the action alternatives. The no action alternative assumes no implementation of any element of the action alternatives within the Norbeck project area. This alternative represents no attempt to actively respond to the purpose and need for action or the issues presented during scoping. No effort would be made to modify existing habitat conditions within the project area; however, this alternative does result in changes to the landscape as a result of an existing mountain pine beetle outbreak.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action The Norbeck Wildlife project proposes to manage vegetation to benefit game animals and birds, specifically those species identified in the Norbeck focus species list (Griebel et al. 2007) for the main portion of Norbeck. These species include mountain goat, bighorn sheep, Rocky Mountain elk, white-tailed deer, Merriam’s turkey, bluebird, golden-crowned kinglet, brown creeper, ruffed grouse, song sparrow, northern goshawk and black-backed woodpecker. Map 9 in Appendix A displays the proposed habitat objectives. These habitat objectives would be achieved with mechanical treatment, prescribed burning or a combination of both. Habitat enhancement treatments would occur on a total of 6,001 acres. Maps 12 and 15 in Appendix A display the treatments proposed to achieve the defined habitat objectives for Alternative 2. A total of about 4,935 acres of mechanical treatments and 2,158 acres of prescribed burning are proposed. Approximately half (1,092 acres) of the proposed burning would occur on sites also proposed for mechanical treatments. None of these actions would occur within the Black Elk Wilderness portion of the Norbeck project area. Habitat Objectives proposed in Alternative 2 include:

· Large tree enhancement on 836 acres to benefit brown creeper, turkey, goshawk and black-backed woodpecker. The habitat objective would be accomplished using

11 Chapter 2 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

mechanical means and follow-up prescribed burning. Mechanical large tree enhancement treatments include preparation cuts, products other than logs (POL) thinning, pre-commercial thinning and understory removals. All of these treatments enhance large trees by reducing the density of smaller trees within stands. This would reduce the competition for sunlight, moisture and soil nutrients. Mechanical treatments would be implemented as follows: o Preparation cut – 154 acres: thinning from below in mature even-aged sites to 60 square feet of basal area per acre. This commercial treatment retains an even- aged structure while developing the crowns and windfirmness of the largest trees. A non-commercial POL thinning is included in this preparatory cut treatment. The site changes to structural stage 4A and is resistant to mountain pine beetle-caused mortality. o POL and pre-commercial thinning – 672 acres: these treatments reduce the density of small-diameter ponderosa pine to concentrate future growth on the most desirable, largest trees. Products other than logs thinning harvests trees up to 9 inches diameter breast height (DBH), while pre-commercial thinning harvests trees up to 5 inches DBH. Neither treatment affects ponderosa pine greater than 9 inches DBH. The density of these trees determines the site’s structural stage and susceptibility to mountain pine beetle-caused mortality. o Understory removal – 10 acres: treatment removes all ponderosa pine trees under 9 inches DBH in dense, mature sites. The purpose is to concentrate growth on the overstory to encourage development of large trees, and to protect those trees from possible crown fire by removing ladder fuels. o Prescribed burning would occur as a follow-up treatment on 38 acres with a large tree habitat objective. Burning would follow completion of mechanical treatments. · Stand diversity enhancement on 2,550 acres to benefit mountain goat, elk, white-tailed deer, bighorn sheep, turkey, goshawk, ruffed grouse, and black-backed woodpecker. The habitat objective would be accomplished using mechanical means and prescribed burning. Mechanical treatments for the Stand diversity habitat objective include; group selection, variable density thinning and free selection treatments to 60 square feet of basal area per acre. All of these treatments require commercial and non-commercial entries. o Group Selection – 871 acres: treatment would create an uneven-aged structure across the entire site by creating even-aged groups of different ages within the treated site. Groups are up to 2 acres in size and are scattered throughout the sites. Groups would occupy approximately 20 percent of the site. The openings created by the group selection treatments contribute to forage. The rest of the site would be variable density thinned to 40, 50 or 60 square feet of basal area per acre. o Variable Density Thinning – 439 acres: this treatment maintains an even-aged structure by generally thinning from below using different residual densities across the site to achieve a target basal area per acre. The objective is to provide stand diversity within these sites. Target basal area is 30, 40 or 60 ft²/ac across the site. The density at any point within the site could range from 30-90 ft²/ac to avoid even residual tree spacing.

12 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2

o Free Selection - 614 acres: this treatment maintains and enhances uneven-aged structure by interspersing dense groups of large trees with openings, hardwoods and thinned areas and reduces overall density of the site to 60 ft2/ac. o Prescribed burning is proposed both as a stand-alone treatment (626 acres) and as a follow-up treatment (248 acres concurrent with mechanical treatments) in mechanically treated areas. Prescribed burning would occur after completion of the mechanical treatments. The stand-alone burning would create a less evenly spaced stand structure by causing mortality in various sized trees. · Hardwood enhancement on 620 acres to benefit ruffed grouse, elk, white-tailed deer, and song sparrow. This habitat objective would be accomplished using mechanical means and prescribed burning. Mechanical treatment for the hardwood enhancement habitat objective includes hardwood release on 596 acres. This treatment consists of removing all conifers within 100 feet surrounding treated hardwood sites. Conifers greater than 9 inches DBH would be removed from the site and those less than 9 inches DBH would be hinged on site to provide protection from browsing. This treatment enhances hardwood habitat by removing the pine seed source from within and surrounding hardwood sites. Ponderosa pine produces relatively heavy seed that typically doesn’t disperse further than 1.5 tree heights. This prolongs the time hardwood sites remain free of pine encroachment and competition. Hardwood sites would be increased by 100 feet surrounding the boundary. o Prescribed burning is proposed mainly as a follow-up treatment (199 acres concurrent with mechanical treatments) in mechanically treated areas, but also as a stand-alone treatment (24 acres). Prescribed burning would occur after completion of the mechanical treatments. · Forage enhancement on 759 acres to benefit mountain goat, bighorn sheep, elk, white- tailed deer and turkey. The habitat objective would be accomplished using mechanical means and prescribed burning. Mechanical forage enhancement treatments include the clearcut and group retention treatments. Both of these treatments require commercial and non-commercial entries for completion. o Clearcut – 210 acres: treatment removes all conifers from a pine site to stimulate browse and forage production for wildlife. The created openings would range in size from 0.2-40 acres. Any hardwood inclusions would remain. o Group Retention – 211 acres: treatment reduces the density of ponderosa pine to 20 ft2/acre of basal area across the entire site. This treatment achieves 20 ft2/acre of basal area by mixing small clumps of dense (up to 120 ft2/acre of basal area) ponderosa pine with large openings. This treatment provides forage and browse production while retaining a small amount of vertical structure in the site. o Prescribed burning is proposed both as a stand-alone treatment (338 acres) and as a follow-up treatment (357 acres concurrent with mechanical treatments) in mechanically treated areas. Prescribed burning would occur after completion of the mechanical treatments. The stand-alone burning would create openings and improve forage conditions by causing mortality in various sized trees. · Shrub enhancement on 52 acres to benefit elk, white-tailed deer, turkey and song sparrow. The habitat objective would be accomplished using mechanical means and prescribed burning. Mechanical shrub enhancement treatment would be achieved on 52 acres by removing conifers within 100 feet surrounding treated shrub sites. This treatment enhances shrub habitat by removing the pine seed source surrounding shrub sites. Ponderosa pine produces relatively heavy but typically doesn’t disperse further

13 Chapter 2 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

than 1.5 tree heights. This prolongs the time shrubs remain free of pine encroachment and competition. Shrub sites would be increased by 100 feet surrounding the boundary. This treatment requires commercial and non-commercial entries for completion. o Prescribed burning is proposed as a follow-up treatment (52 acres concurrent with mechanical treatments) in mechanically treated areas. Prescribed burning would occur after completion of the mechanical treatments to remove remaining small conifers. · Meadow enhancement on 276 acres to benefit elk, white-tailed deer, turkey and bluebird. The habitat objective would be accomplished using mechanical means and prescribed burning. The meadow enhancement objective is achieved mechanically through pine encroachment treatment (198 acres). This treatment consists of removing all ponderosa pine within and 100feet surrounding treated meadow sites. This treatment enhances meadow habitat by removing the pine seed source surrounding meadow sites. Ponderosa pine produces relatively heavy but typically does not disperse further than 1.5 tree heights. This prolongs the time meadows remain free of pine encroachment and competition. Meadow sites would be increased by 100 feet surrounding the boundary. This treatment requires commercial and non-commercial entries for completion. o Prescribed burning is proposed mainly as a follow-up treatment (198 acres concurrent with mechanical treatments) in mechanically treated areas, but also as a stand-alone treatment (78 acres) to remove remaining small conifers. Prescribed burning would occur after completion of the mechanical treatments. · Late succession enhancement on 830 acres to benefit brown creeper, goshawk, turkey and black-backed woodpecker. The habitat objective would be accomplished using mechanical means only. Mechanical late succession enhancement treatments include free selection to 80 square feet of basal area per acre, and POL thinning for late succession. o Free selection – 425 acres: treatment reduces the overall site density to 80 ft2/acre of basal area by interspersing dense, un-thinned groups of ponderosa pine with openings, hardwood inclusions and thinned areas. This maintains and enhances an uneven-aged structure with vertical and horizontal diversity representative of some pre-European ponderosa pine forests. This treatment requires commercial and non-commercial entries for completion. o POL thinning for late succession – 405 acres: treatment is a strictly non- commercial treatment thinning ponderosa pine under 6” diameter at breast height (DBH). This POL thinning treatment would retain a 4C structural stage in the treated sites. · Spruce enhancement on 78 acres to benefit brown creeper and golden-crowned kinglet. The habitat objective would be accomplished using mechanical means only. The spruce enhancement objective would be achieved with a spruce release and a commercial thinning of pine in mixed stands. o Spruce Release – 24 acres: This treatment consists of removing all ponderosa pine within and 100’ surrounding treated spruce sites. This treatment enhances spruce habitat by removing the pine seed source surrounding spruce sites. Ponderosa pine produces relatively heavy but typically does not disperse further than 1.5 tree heights. This prolongs the time spruce remain free of pine encroachment and competition. Spruce sites would be increased by 100 feet surrounding the boundary. This treatment requires commercial and non- commercial entries for completion.

14 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2

o Commercial Thinning of 50 percent of pine – 54 acres: Treatment is proposed in a mixed spruce/pine site in Sunday Gulch and would enhance the existing spruce component in the site while retaining the large pine component. This treatment would thin, from below, approximately half of the pine component, leaving the largest pine trees on site. A POL thinning would follow this treatment. Prescribed burning proposed under Alternative 2 would occur within the timeframes of August 1 through May 1, yearly. Additional design criteria relative to timing of prescribed burning would also apply (see Appendix B). Natural features such as rock walls, water features or vegetation openings and existing disturbed areas, such as roads and trails would be utilized as control lines where available. Control lines would be created where these natural barriers or existing roads and trails are not available.

It is anticipated that it would take approximately 10 years to fully implement the proposed prescribed burning in Alternative 2. Each burn unit would have a single entry during this time. Therefore, an average of approximately 200 acres would be burned each year. The size of burn units implemented at any single point in time would depend upon ground conditions and objectives to be met. It is estimated that individual burn units would vary in size from fifty to several hundred acres.

The prescribed burning method to be used would be manual application of fire using drip torches or similar means. This method is most commonly used on the Black Hills National Forest.

The proposed burning would occur on National Forest System lands only. No burning would occur within permitted summer home group lots. Where burning occurs adjacent to private property, including permitted summer homes, structure protection engines and/or hand crews would be stationed where needed to protect property. Adjacent landowners, or their agents, would be notified in advance when prescribed burning is proposed adjacent to non-National Forest Lands.

The potential exists for adjacent owners, such as Custer State Park, to participate in cooperative burning in conjunction with proposed burning on National Forest. Formal agreements must be in place for cooperative burning. These agreements allow for less ground preparations and would also reduce the overall complexity of implementation allowing for a more landscape level approach for fire hazard reduction. All burning would comply with the most current established direction for implementation of management ignited fire, such as outlined in the Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning and Implementation Procedures Guide (USDA Forest Service et al. 2008).

See table 5, for a comparative listing of habitat enhancement treatments by alternative. Map 12 in Appendix A displays the proposed mechanical treatments. Areas proposed for prescribed burning are displayed on Map 15 in Appendix A. A listing by site of proposed treatments is displayed in Appendix D.

Note: Alternative 2 as described above includes two design changes from the original proposed action. The first regards prescribed burning within the Black Elk Wilderness and the second pertains to the design of treatments within goshawk nesting areas.

1. This alternative originally proposed approximately 7,391 acres of prescribed burning within the Black Elk Wilderness to restore a more natural fire regime and to reduce the risks and consequences of fire escaping from the Wilderness. After further review, it was determined that prescribed burning, as originally designed in this

15 Chapter 2 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

alternative, could have undesirable consequences to Wilderness values and character. The original prescribed burn boundary essentially included the southern half of the Wilderness. The effects of burning to elements of Wilderness values and character would have extended directly into the core of the Black Elk Wilderness. The extent of impact to Wilderness ecology and aesthetics, as well as the opportunity for solitude and natural conditions would have been detrimental to the overall Wilderness condition. Therefore, the original proposal for prescribed burning has been dropped from this alternative, responding to significant issue #1. 2. Treatments within goshawk nesting areas have also been modified from the original alternative to respond to significant issue #2. The original proposed action would remove all conifers less than 9 inches DBH from goshawk nesting habitat. This edited alternative proposes that only trees 6 inches DBH and less would be removed, 150 foot no-treatment buffers would be established around nest trees and small untreated pockets would remain throughout the nesting areas. To access the treatment areas about 11.4 miles of year round and seasonally closed National Forest System road and 22 miles of unauthorized road beds would be temporarily re-opened. Approximately 1.7 miles of new temporary roads would be constructed. None of these roads would be opened to the public during habitat enhancement activities. All of these roads would be closed once the habitat improvements are completed. No roads would be re-opened or created inside the Black Elk Wilderness. No changes in travel management or public access within Norbeck Wildlife Preserve are planned for this decision.

Alternative 2 would produce approximately 42,500 hundred cubic feet (CCF) of sawlog volume and approximately 10,000 CCF of products other than logs as a byproduct of the mechanical habitat improvement treatments.

In areas where slash has been identified for lop and scatter, such as adjacent to private lands, non forest lands and arterial and collector roads, fuel breaks would be developed using methods such as whole tree yarding, and mechanical pile and burn to reduce the risk from wildfire.

Design Criteria – Alternative 2 The following are design criteria specific to Alternative 2. Additional design criteria that apply to all alternatives are located in Appendix B of this EIS.

§ The season of operations for mechanical treatment (including log hauling) would be limited to August 1 through February 28.1 The season of operations for prescribed burning would be limited to August 1 through May 1.2 § Remove all conifers within 100 feet around meadows and hardwood stands in all treated stands to retard conifer regeneration and to expand meadows and hardwood stands. (Guideline 2107) § Remove all conifers from within and within 30’ around the perimeter of hardwood inclusions within all treated conifer stands to retard conifer regeneration and to expand

1 Guideline 5.4A-3205 was modified for this project in an effort to reduce the length of time needed to complete mechanical treatments, provide opportunity for springtime burning and still meet the habitat requirements of game animals and birds. The wildlife biologists from both agencies agree this is an appropriate modification to reduce the overall project length of mechanical and prescribed burning activity in the area. Also, there is minimal winter wildlife use and the area is not critical winter range. 2 Burning timeframe is the same for all alternatives outside the Black Elk Wilderness.

16 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2

hardwoods. Hardwood inclusions are defined as a group with at least 10 stems, 5 feet tall and at a minimum, occur within a 20 foot diameter or less. (Guideline 2107) § Activity fuels would be lopped and scattered, where possible, with the following exceptions: sites where prescribed burning is proposed, sites adjacent to arterial or collector roads or trails, and sites adjacent to summer home groups or developed recreation sites. The following are sites proposed for mechanical treatment where Whole Tree Yarding is the preferred slash treatment (Alternative 2). (Guideline 2307)

Table 2. Sites proposed for mechanical treatment where whole tree yarding is preferred in Alternative 2

Alternative 2 Location Sites 030209 5, 16, 18, 27, 34, 38, 59, 73, 76-84 030210 1-3, 7, 10, 12, 16, 24, 45, 46, 60 030302 6, 45 061701 8, 10, 15-18, 21, 25, 28, 35 061703 1, 12, 30, 33, 34, 36 061704 1, 6, 11, 19

§ Do not treat slopes greater than or equal to 40 percent in the following sites: 03209-7, 061701-30 and 061701-31. § Defer from mechanical treatment an approximate 300-foot buffer (10 acres) along the southern boundary of site 061701-30 to provide thermal/hiding cover adjacent to created forage. (Objective 5.4A-210)

Alternative 3 This alternative was developed to respond to significant issues #1-Effects on Wilderness Values; #2- Effects on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat; #3-Effects on Large Trees; and #5 Potential for Escaped Fire to Occur. A total of about 4,723 acres of mechanical treatments and 7,502 acres of prescribed burning, including 5,291 acres of burning within the Black Elk Wilderness, are proposed. Approximately 1,282 acres of the proposed burning would occur on sites also proposed for mechanical treatments, outside of the Black Elk Wilderness. Map 10 in Appendix A displays the proposed habitat objectives. These habitat objectives would be achieved with mechanical treatment, prescribed burning or a combination of both. Maps 13 and 16 in Appendix A display treatments proposed to achieve defined habitat objectives for Alternative 3.

Significant Issue # 1 is addressed in Alternative 3 by modifying the original proposed boundary and extent of prescribed burning within the Black Elk Wilderness. The initial proposed action included approximately 7,391 acres of prescribed burning on essentially the whole southern half of the Wilderness, extending directly into the center Wilderness core. Alternative 3 addresses Issue #1 by reducing prescribed burning to 5,291 acres and also altering the configuration of proposed burning to the perimeter of the Wilderness only.

Significant issue #2, effects to wildlife and wildlife habitat, is addressed by deferring all late succession enhancement treatments within all goshawk nesting areas (180 acres each) to avoid modifying the current stand conditions. In addition, habitat enhancement treatments center more

17 Chapter 2 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

on creating within stand diversity than forage. Hardwood enhancement and meadow enhancement treatments are also increased with this alternative. Some areas deferred in the proposed action are included for forage or stand diversity habitat enhancement treatment in this alternative. Prescribed burning to maintain previously created openings for mountain goats is also included in Alternative 3.

Effects to large trees, significant issue #3, was addressed through increasing acres of large tree enhancement treatment as well as through specific design criteria to retain conifers at least 20 inches DBH within some hardwood and meadow sites and around the perimeter of hardwood and meadow sites and hardwood inclusions.

To address significant issue #5, the IDT reviewed pertinent direction (FSM 2324.2) relative to the use of fire within Wilderness areas, and considered opportunities to include project design to decrease the potential for escaped fire within and outside of the Wilderness. Values-at-risk were identified along the outside perimeter of the Wilderness, which determined where prescribed burning could be effective to protect those values from wildfire escaping from the Wilderness. Prescribed burning would occur within approximately 0.5 miles of these values, based on the potential for spot fires (spotting). Spotting occurs when wind driven embers from a fire land outside of the boundary of a fire, igniting additional ‘spot’ fire. The actual distance of the proposed burn boundary varies dependent upon physical features such as large rock walls or existing trails which could be utilized as control points (see Map 16 in Appendix A). The values at risk that were identified include, non-National Forest lands (Mount Rushmore National Memorial, Custer State Park and private lands), summer home groups and developed recreation sites. The prescribed burning, as designed, is consistent with Policy direction at FSM 2324.22 (6). The management ignited fire would reduce the risks and consequences of a fire escaping from the Wilderness, to identified values at risk. A total of 5,291 acres of prescribed burning within the Black Elk Wilderness is included with this alternative.

In summary, habitat enhancement treatments in Alternative 3 would occur on a total of 5,652 acres, shrub enhancement (52 acres) and spruce enhancement (78 acres) are the same as proposed in Alternative 2 while all other habitat enhancement treatments in this alternative vary in scope or design from those in the proposed action. Habitat Objectives proposed in Alternative 3 include:

· Large tree enhancement on 966 acres to benefit brown creeper, turkey, goshawk and black-backed woodpecker. The habitat objective would be accomplished using mechanical means and prescribed burning. Mechanical large tree enhancement treatments in Alternative 3 include POL thinning, pre-commercial thinning and understory removals. All these treatments would be implemented as described under Alternative 2 although the acreages differ. Acres of each treatment type are as follows: o POL thinning – 829 acres o Pre-commercial thinning – 98 acres o Understory removal - 39 acres o Prescribed burning would occur as a follow-up treatment on 228 acres, concurrent with and following completion of mechanical treatments. · Stand diversity enhancement on 2,482 acres to benefit mountain goat, elk, white-tailed deer, bighorn sheep, turkey, goshawk, ruffed grouse, and black-backed woodpecker. The habitat objective would be accomplished using mechanical means and prescribed burning. Mechanical treatments for the Stand diversity habitat objective include; group

18 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2

selection, individual tree selection, and variable density thinning and free selection treatments to 60 square feet of basal area per acre. All of these treatments require commercial and non-commercial entries. o Group Selection – 752 acres: treatment would be implemented as described in Alternative 2 with the exception that the residual density of areas thinned outside of the created openings would be 40, 50, 60 or 70 ft2/ac of basal area. o Individual Tree Selection – 143 acres - This treatment maintains and enhances existing stand diversity by reducing site density in every age class. This treatment provides irregularly spaced trees with a mixture of age classes and space between tree crowns. Residual trees may occur as individuals, clumps, or in small patches, depending upon the existing structure. Naturally existing clumps would be favored over individual trees. Basal area would vary from 10 to 100 ft2/ac with an overall average basal area of 50 ft2/ac. o Variable Density Thinning – 617 acres: This treatment would be implemented as described in Alternative 2. o Free Selection - 557 acres: This treatment would be implemented as described in Alternative 2. o Prescribed burning would occur as a follow-up treatment on 325 acres, concurrent with mechanical treatments and on 413 acres as a stand-alone treatment. Burning would follow completion of mechanical treatments. · Hardwood enhancement on 629 acres to benefit ruffed grouse, elk, white-tailed deer, and song sparrow. The habitat objective would be accomplished using mechanical means and prescribed burning. Mechanical treatments for the hardwood enhancement habitat objective include hardwood release and hardwood release with reserves o Hardwood release (508 acres) – this treatment would vary in design from Alternative 2 in that it would leave conifers ≥20” DBH within the 100 foot boundary surrounding treated hardwood sites. o Hardwood release with reserves- (95 acres): this treatment would remove all conifers 9- 19.9” DBH from within three designated hardwood stands; 030209- 86; 030210-8; 030210-18, retaining those ≥20”DBH and hinging those <9” DBH. o Prescribed burning is proposed mainly as a follow-up treatment (195 acres concurrent with mechanical treatments) in mechanically treated areas, but also as a stand-alone treatment (26 acres). Prescribed burning would occur after completion of the mechanical treatments. · Forage enhancement on 773 acres to benefit mountain goat, bighorn sheep, elk, white- tailed deer and turkey. The habitat objective would be accomplished using mechanical means and prescribed burning. Mechanical forage enhancement treatments include the clearcut and group retention treatments. Both of these treatments would be implemented as described in Alternative 2 with the exception of acres of clearcut. o Clearcut – 150 acres: o Group Retention – 211 acres: o Prescribed burning is proposed both as a stand-alone treatment (412 acres) and as a follow-up treatment (293 acres concurrent with mechanical treatments) in mechanically treated areas.

19 Chapter 2 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

· Shrub enhancement - 52 acres to benefit elk, white-tailed deer, turkey and song sparrow. This is the same as proposed in Alternative 2. The habitat objective would be accomplished using mechanical means and prescribed burning. · Meadow enhancement on 297 acres to benefit elk, white-tailed deer, turkey and bluebird. The habitat objective would be accomplished using mechanical means and prescribed burning. Mechanical treatments for the meadow enhancement habitat objective include pine encroachment and pine encroachment with reserves o Pine encroachment (132 acres) – this treatment would vary in design from Alternative 2 in that it would leave conifers ≥20” DBH within the 100 foot boundary surrounding treated meadow sites. o Pine encroachment with Reserves- (139 acres): this treatment would remove all conifers 9-19.9” DBH from within selected meadow sites, (061703-2, 4, 70, 74; and 093003-5, 8, 59, 60, 61) retaining those ≥20”DBH. o Prescribed burning for the meadow enhancement objective would be implemented as described in Alternative 2. · Late succession enhancement on 375 acres to benefit brown creeper, goshawk, turkey and black-backed woodpecker. The habitat objective would be accomplished using mechanical means only. Mechanical late succession enhancement treatment includes free selection to 80 ft2/acre of basal area only. o Free selection – 375 acres: treatment would be implemented as described in Alternative 2. · Spruce enhancement on 78 acres to benefit brown creeper and golden-crowned kinglet. This is the same as proposed in Alternative 2. The habitat objective would be accomplished using mechanical means only.

Prescribed burning within the Black Elk Wilderness proposed under Alternative 3 would occur during the same timeframes specified for other prescribed burning in the project area, August 1 through May 1. Additional design criteria relative to timing of prescribed burning would also apply (see Appendix B). Natural features such as rock walls, water features or openings and existing disturbed areas, such as trails would be utilized as control lines where available. Control lines would be created in the Wilderness where these natural barriers or existing trails are not available.

It is anticipated that it would take approximately 10 years to fully implement the proposed prescribed burning within and outside of the Wilderness. Each burn unit would have a single entry during this time. Therefore, an average of 750 acres would be burned each year, including both within and outside of the Wilderness. The size of burn units implemented at any single point in time would depend upon ground conditions and objectives to be met. It is estimated that individual burn units within the Wilderness would vary in size from 50 to several hundred acres.

The prescribed burning method to be used outside of the Wilderness would be the same as described under Alternative 2. Within the Wilderness, possible burning methods include manual application and aerial application of fire. In aerial applications, fire is applied from the air with the use of a helicopter. This method is generally used where access is limited and where ground conditions include dense vegetation and/or downfall. These conditions combined create concerns for firefighter safety.

20 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2

The proposed burning would occur on National Forest lands only. No burning would occur within permitted summer home group lots. Where burning occurs adjacent to private property, including permitted summer homes, structure protection engines and/or hand crews would be stationed where needed to protect property. Adjacent landowners, or their agents, would be notified in advance when prescribed burning is proposed adjacent to non-National Forest Lands.

As stated in Alternative 2, the potential exists for cooperative burning agreements. Implementation of the proposed burning along the Wilderness boundary would be greatly facilitated by use of cooperative burning because the legal boundary, where adjacent to other ownerships, does not following natural features or existing breaks. All burning, including that proposed within the BEW, would comply with the most current established direction for implementation of management ignited fire, such as outlined in the Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning and Implementation Procedures Guide (USDA Forest Service et. al. 2008).

According to the Black Hills Fire Management Plan, motorized and mechanical equipment can be used within Wilderness (with Forest Supervisor approval) during an emergency fire situation when an escapable urgency exists including helicopters, airtankers, chainsaws, portable pumps, and/or light vehicles such as Type 7 Engines, pick-ups, and carryalls. The use of mechanical equipment including chainsaws, ATV’s and helicopter support would be requested as part of the prescribed fire contingency plan. The contingency plan is the determination of initial actions and additional resources needed if the prescribed fire is not meeting, exceeds, or threatens to exceed the original prescribed fire plan elements. The Regional Forester is responsible for approving Wilderness prescribed fire plans in Region 2.

During past suppression efforts some of the above equipment has been used within the Wilderness. Since the Wilderness was established in 1980, two fires have surpassed the suppression objective set, Lost Cabin (23ac.) and Elk Horn (41ac.). For the Lost Cabin Fire in 2002, chainsaws, ATV’s and helicopter air support was used. For the Elk Horn Fire in 2003, chainsaws and helicopter air support was used. Landing of the helicopter within Wilderness boundaries was also permitted. Additional equipment has been used to keep the other 33 fires within the Black Elk Wilderness under the suppression objective including, fixed wing retardant delivery, helicopter bucket work, and chainsaws.

See table 5 for a listing of habitat enhancement treatment acres by alternative. Map 13 in Appendix A displays proposed mechanical treatments. Areas proposed for prescribed burning are displayed on Map 16 in Appendix A. Proposed treatments are listed by site in Appendix D.

To access the treatment areas about 12.1 miles of year round and seasonally closed National Forest System roads and 22 miles of unauthorized road beds would be temporarily re-opened. Approximately 1.5 miles of new temporary roads would be constructed. None of these roads would be opened to the public during habitat enhancement activities. All of these roads would be closed once the habitat improvements are completed. No roads would be re-opened or created inside the Black Elk Wilderness. No changes in travel management or public access within Norbeck Wildlife Preserve are planned with this decision.

Alternative 3 would produce approximately 38,000 hundred cubic feet (CCF) of sawlog volume and approximately 10,500 CCF of Products Other than Logs (POL) as a byproduct of the mechanical habitat improvement treatments.

21 Chapter 2 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

In areas where slash has been identified for lop and scatter, such as private lands, non forest lands and arterial and collector roads, fuel breaks would be developed using methods such as whole tree yarding, and mechanical pile and burn to reduce the risk from wildfire .

Design Criteria – Alternative 3 The following are design criteria specific to Alternative 3. Additional design criteria that apply to all alternatives are located in Appendix B of this EIS.

§ The season of operations for mechanical treatment3 (including log hauling) would be limited to August 1 through February 28. The season of operations for prescribed burning4 would be limited to August 1 through May 1. Within the BEW, some additional timing restrictions apply-refer to the Heritage section of Appendix B-Design Criteria. § Remove all conifers less than 20 inches DBH within 100 feet around meadows and hardwood stands in all treated stands to retard conifer regeneration and to expand meadows and hardwood stands. Conifer trees greater than or equal to 20 inches DBH would be retained to provide habitat for focus species which utilize that size tree. (Guideline 2107) § Remove all conifers less than 20 inches DBH within hardwood inclusions and within 30 feet from the perimeter of hardwood inclusions in all treated stands to retard conifer regeneration and to expand hardwoods (i.e. retain all conifers greater than or equal to 20 inches DBH within hardwood inclusions, and within 30 feet of the perimeter of hardwood inclusions). Hardwood inclusions are defined as a group with at least 10 stems, 5 feet tall and at a minimum, occur within a 20-foot diameter area. (Guideline 2107) § Protect all improvements within Wilderness during prescribed burning. § Activity fuels would be lopped and scattered, where possible, with the following exceptions: sites where prescribed burning is proposed, sites adjacent to arterial or collector roads or trails, and sites adjacent to summer home groups or developed recreation sites. The following are sites proposed for mechanical treatment where whole tree yarding is the preferred slash treatment. (Guideline 2307)

Table 3. Sites proposed for mechanical treatment where whole tree yarding is preferred in Alternative 3

Alternative 3 Location Sites 030209 5, 16, 18, 27, 34, 38, 59, 73, 76-84 030210 1-3, 7, 10, 12, 16, 21, 24, 45-47, 60 030302 6, 45 061701 8, 10, 15-18, 21, 25, 28, 30, 35 061703 1, 12, 30, 33, 34, 36 061704 1, 6, 11, 19 093003 48

3 Guideline 5.4A-3205 was modified for this project in an effort to reduce the contract length for mechanical treatments, provide opportunity for springtime burning and still meet the habitat requirements of game animals and birds. The wildlife biologists from both agencies agree this is an appropriate modification to reduce the overall project length of mechanical and prescribed burning activity in the area. Also, there is minimal winter wildlife use and the area is not critical winter range.) 4 burning timeframe is the same for all alternatives

22 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2

§ Do not treat slopes greater than or equal to 40 percent in the following sites: 03209-7 and 061701-31.

Forest Plan Amendment – Alternative 3 Alternative 3 would require a project specific Forest Plan Amendment of Standard 4104. The Standard reads as follows:

Standard 4104: Visual effects of prescribed fire will comply with the approved scenic integrity objective of the area.

The proposed prescribed burning within the Black Elk Wilderness as designed in Alternative 3, would not likely comply with the scenic integrity objective of Very High and therefore would violate this standard. A scenic integrity level of Very High is one that generally provides for ecological change only. Prescribe burning would occur on 5,291 acres and would likely kill any green trees which remain following the MPB outbreak.

The effects to scenery are described in detail in Chapter 3.

Alternative 4 This alternative was developed to respond to significant issues #1-Effects on Wilderness Values; #2- Effects on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat; #3-Effects on Large trees; #4- Effects of Mountain Pine Beetles on Wildlife Habitat; and #5-Potential for Escaped Fire to Occur. About 5,190 acres of mechanical treatments and 7,502 acres of prescribed burning, including up to 5,291 acres of burning within the Black Elk Wilderness, are proposed. Approximately 1,282 acres of the proposed burning would occur on sites proposed for mechanical treatments outside of Black Elk Wilderness. See Map 11 in Appendix A for a display of habitat objectives for Alternative 4.

Significant Issue # 1 is addressed in Alternative 4 in a similar manner as described in Alternative 3; however, Alternative 4 includes design criteria that would further reduce potential adverse effects to Wilderness values and character. The design criteria involve modification of the potential burn area based on conditions at the time of implementation. Areas of residual live trees would be avoided as described below in the section Design Criteria – Alternative 4.

Significant issue #2 is addressed in Alternative 4 by having habitat enhancement treatments center more on creating within stand diversity than forage. Hardwood enhancement and meadow enhancement treatments are increased to the same amount as in Alternative 3. In addition, some areas deferred in the proposed action are included for forage or stand diversity habitat enhancement treatment in this alternative. Prescribed burning to maintain previously created openings for mountain goats is also included in Alternative 4.

Significant issue #3 is addressed in Alternative 4 in a similar manner as described in Alternative 3. Acres of treatments for large tree enhancement exceed those in Alternative 2, but are less than in Alternative 3. Design criteria to retain conifers at least 20 inches DBH within and around the perimeter of hardwood and meadow sites and hardwood inclusions is part of this alternative as well.

An insect outbreak is occurring within the Black Elk Wilderness that has the potential to result in severe impacts to wildlife habitat, particularly dense stands and large trees. It is recognized that changes in habitat brought about by mountain pine beetles is providing habitat for some focus

23 Chapter 2 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

species such as black-backed woodpecker. However, extensive conifer mortality is occurring and is expected to continue for several years (based on projections provided by the project Entomologist (Allen 2008, 2009) that would severely limit habitat for other focus species such as brown creeper, turkey and goshawk. Mountain pine beetle caused mortality is expected to continue within and outside of Wilderness.

To address Issue #4, the interdisciplinary team considered where there may be opportunity to adjust proposed treatments to alter the impact of mountain pine beetle caused mortality on wildlife habitat, while meeting the purpose and need for action. All mechanical treatments would occur outside of Wilderness because commercial timber harvest is not consistent with Wilderness management.

Habitat enhancement treatments were altered within some stands to further reduce stand density and susceptibility to mountain pine beetles while still meeting the stated habitat objective. Acres of forage enhancement treatments were reduced because the insect outbreak is expected to increase areas that provide forage. Additional habitat enhancement treatments are proposed for stand diversity objectives. Proposed treatments of group selection for stand diversity objectives were modified to individual tree selection due to current MPB impacts that are already occurring in those stands. Design criteria specific to this alternative were also modified to allow for timely treatments to occur, for assessment of prescribed burning needs at the time of implementation, and to reduce activity created fuels by favoring whole tree yarding (see below).

Significant Issue #5 was addressed by including prescribed burning in the Black Elk Wilderness (as in Alternative 3), with some design change to reduce impacts to Wilderness values and character. The prescribed burning as designed is consistent with Policy Direction at FSM 2324.22 (6). The management ignited fire would reduce the risks and consequences of fire escaping from the Wilderness to identified values at risk outside of Wilderness. Up to 5,291 acres of prescribed burning within the Black Elk Wilderness is included with this alternative.

Design criteria that utilize whole tree harvesting as a preferred method in sites that do not have low organic matter, would reduce accumulations of activity fuels on those sites.

In summary, habitat enhancement treatments in Alternative 4 would occur on a total of 6,119 acres. Shrub enhancement (52 acres) and spruce enhancement (78 acres) are the same as proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3. Hardwood enhancement and meadow enhancement treatments are the same as proposed in Alternative 3. Other habitat enhancement treatments in this alternative vary in scope or design from those in the proposed action. Specifically, habitat objectives proposed in Alternative 4 include:

· Large tree enhancement on 901 acres to benefit brown creeper, turkey, goshawk and black-backed woodpecker. This habitat objective would be accomplished using mechanical means and prescribed burning in the same manner as described in Alternative 3, with the exception that 65 fewer acres of large tree enhancement would occur. POL thinning would occur on 764 acres, which is 65 acres less than in Alternative 3. · Stand Diversity enhancement on 3,127 acres to benefit mountain goat, elk, white- tailed deer, bighorn sheep, turkey, goshawk, ruffed grouse, and black-backed woodpecker; the habitat objective would be accomplished using mechanical means and prescribed burning. Mechanical treatments for the stand diversity habitat objective include; group selection, individual tree selection, variable density thinning, free

24 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2

selection and free selection with POL thinning treatments. All of these treatments require commercial and non-commercial entries. o Group Selection – 752 acres: treatment would be on the same acres as in Alternative 3. The treatment would be implemented as described in Alternative 2 with the exception that the residual density of areas thinned outside of the created openings would not exceed 50 ft2/ac of basal area. o Individual Tree Selection – 191 acres - This treatment would be implemented as described in Alternative 3, but would occur on 48 acres more than in Alternative 3. o Variable Density Thinning – 990 acres: This treatment would occur on 373 acres more than in Alternative 3 and 551 acres more than in Alternative 2. This treatment would be implemented as described in Alternative 2, with the exceptions that the overall resulting basal area would not exceed 50 ft2/ac. o Free Selection - 781 acres: This treatment would be implemented as described in Alternative 2. o Prescribed burning would occur as a follow-up treatment on 519 acres, concurrent with mechanical treatments and on 413 acres as a stand-alone treatment. Burning would follow completion of mechanical treatments. · Hardwood enhancement on 629 acres to benefit ruffed grouse, elk, white-tailed deer, and song sparrow. This is the same as proposed in Alternative 3. The habitat objective would be accomplished using mechanical means and prescribed burning. · Forage enhancement on 534 acres to benefit mountain goat, bighorn sheep, elk, white- tailed deer and turkey. This habitat objective would be accomplished using mechanical means and prescribed burning. Mechanical forage enhancement treatments include the clearcut and group retention treatments. Both of these treatments would be implemented as described in Alternative 2 with the exception that clearcuts would range in size from 0.2-10 acres. Total acres of each treatment in this alternative are shown below: o Clearcut – 79 acres: o Group Retention – 43 acres: o Prescribed burning is proposed both as a stand-alone treatment (412 acres) and as a follow-up treatment (99 acres concurrent with mechanical treatments) in mechanically treated areas. · Shrub enhancement on 52 acres to benefit elk, white-tailed deer, turkey and song sparrow. This objective would be achieved as described in Alternative 2. The habitat objective would be accomplished using mechanical means and prescribed burning. · Meadow enhancement on 297 acres to benefit elk, white-tailed deer, turkey and bluebird. This objective would be achieved as described in Alternative 3. The habitat objective would be accomplished using mechanical means and prescribed burning. · Late succession enhancement on 501 acres to benefit brown creeper, goshawk, turkey and black-backed woodpecker. The habitat objective would be accomplished using mechanical means only. Mechanical late succession enhancement treatments include free selection to 80 square feet of basal area per acre, and POL thinning for late succession. Both of these treatments would be implemented as described in Alternative 2, however the acres differ: o Free selection – 201 acres: o POL thinning for late succession – 300 acres:

25 Chapter 2 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

· Spruce enhancement on 78 acres to benefit brown creeper and golden-crowned kinglet. This is the same as proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3. This habitat objective would be accomplished using mechanical means only.

Alternative 4 proposes prescribed burning within and outside of the Wilderness. Prescribed burning outside of the Wilderness would be implemented as described under Alternative 2. The prescribed burning within the Wilderness would be implemented as described under Alternative 3.

See Table 5 for a listing of habitat enhancement treatment acres by alternative. Map 14 in Appendix A displays the proposed mechanical treatments. Areas proposed for prescribed burning are displayed on Map 17 in Appendix A. Proposed treatments are listed by site in Appendix D.

To access the treatment areas about 13.1 miles of year round or seasonally closed National Forest System roads and 22 miles of unauthorized road beds would be temporarily re-opened. Approximately 1.5 miles of new temporary roads would be constructed. None of these roads would be opened to the public during habitat enhancement activities. All of these roads would be closed once the habitat improvements are completed. No roads would be re-opened or created inside the Black Elk Wilderness. No changes in travel management or public access within Norbeck Wildlife Preserve are proposed.

Alternative 4 would produce approximately 40,500 hundred cubic feet (ccf) of sawlog volume and approximately 10,500 ccf of Products Other than Logs (POL) as a byproduct of the mechanical habitat improvement treatments.

In areas where slash has been identified for lop and scatter, such as private lands, non forest lands and arterial and collector roads, fuel breaks would be developed using methods such as whole tree yarding, and mechanical pile and burn to reduce the risk from wildfire.

Design Criteria – Alternative 4 The following are design criteria specific to Alternative 4. Additional design criteria that apply to all alternatives are located in Appendix B of this EIS.

§ The season of operations for mechanical treatment (including log hauling) would be limited to August 1 through February 28 with the exception of stands within locations 061703 and 0617045. The season of operations for stands within these locations would be year- round for 1 year only. Prescribed burning operations would be limited to August 1 through May 1. Within the BEW, some additional timing restrictions apply-refer to the Heritage section of Appendix B-Design Criteria. § Hauling on the Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway would be allowed year –round for 1 year to haul logs removed within locations 061703 and 061704 only6. § Remove all conifers less than 20 inches DBH within 100 feet around meadows and hardwood stands in all treated stands to retard conifer regeneration and to expand meadows

5 Guideline 5.4A-3205 was modified in this project for Alternative 4 in an effort to allow for removal of mountain pine beetle infested trees prior to beetle emergence, and still meet the habitat requirements of game animals and birds. 6 Guideline 4.2B-9102 was modified in this project for Alternative 4 in an effort to allow for removal of mountain pine beetle infested trees prior to beetle emergence.

26 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2

and hardwood stands. Conifer trees greater than or equal to 20 inches DBH would be retained to provide habitat for focus species which utilize that size tree. (Guideline 2107) § Remove all conifers less than 20 inches DBH within hardwood inclusions and within 30 feet from the perimeter of hardwood inclusions in all treated stands to retard conifer regeneration and to expand hardwoods (i.e. retain all conifers greater than or equal to 20 inches DBH within hardwood inclusions, and within 30 feet of the perimeter of hardwood inclusions). Hardwood inclusions are defined as a group with at least 10 stems, 5 feet tall and at a minimum, occur within a 20-foot diameter area. (Guideline 2107) § Activity fuels would be whole tree yarded where possible, with the exception of those sites listed in Appendix B as low organic matter soils. It is expected that trees killed by mountain pine beetle would fall and provide more than adequate down woody material to meet Guideline 2307. § Trees within specified treatment units which are infested with mountain pine beetles, at the time of treatment, should be removed.

In the portion of Norbeck within the Black Elk Wilderness: § Burn units where at least 30 percent of the unit contains live seedlings/saplings and poles at a density of greater than or equal to150 trees per acre, would be deferred from burning. § Retain surviving live conifers in structural stage 4A, 4B, 4C or 5. Inclusions of live conifers with a structural stage of 4A, 4B, 4C or 5 that are at least one-acre in size and occur within burn units would have an acceptable mortality level of 10 percent7. (Guideline 4108) § Burn units in the Wilderness containing a high percentage of live mature trees would be deferred from burning. § Site-specific habitat conditions and wildlife habitat needs would be considered when deciding if prescribed burning is appropriate at that time within the portion of Norbeck outside of the Black Elk Wilderness. Site-specific fuels conditions and fuel treatments in place adjacent to the Black Elk Wilderness would be considered when deciding if the planned prescribed burning is appropriate at that time within the Black Elk Wilderness. § Protect all improvements within Wilderness during prescribed burning.

Based on these design criteria, this alternative would meet Forest Plan Standard 4104: Visual effects of prescribed fire will comply with the approved scenic integrity objective of the area. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and to briefly discuss reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in response to the Proposed Action provided suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. Some of these alternatives may have been outside the scope of the project, duplicative of the alternatives considered in detail, or determined to be components that would cause unnecessary environmental harm. Therefore, the following alternatives were considered, but dismissed from detailed consideration for reasons summarized below:

7 It is predicted that large-scale mortality of mature conifers would occur as a result of the existing mountain pine beetle outbreak in Wilderness. The extent of mature conifers that would survive the outbreak is estimated; therefore, the exact amount or spatial arrangement is unknown.

27 Chapter 2 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Ø The original Proposed Action will not be analyzed in detail because after further review, prescribed burning within Wilderness, as originally designed in the proposed action, would have undesirable impacts to Wilderness values and character. In addition, some planned treatments in goshawk nest areas (180 acres) would not have maintained adequate canopy cover to meet Forest Plan standards. Ø An alternative that does not harvest or thin any stands of SS 4C or 4B. – This alternative would not meet the Purpose and Need for action in this project to improve habitat for game animals and birds. These two structural stages dominate the project area. By not treating any of these stands, the project would not meet the habitat objectives for forage enhancement, hardwood enhancement, spruce enhancement, large tree enhancement or stand diversity. Alternative 1, No Action, would forego all vegetation treatments in the project area. Ø An alternative that addresses fragmentation concerns on the BHNF – Fragmentation relevance and effects vary by species and their respective habitat needs and mobility. Large tracts of unlogged, mature forest may represent less fragmented conditions for some species, while representing less diversity for others. Abundance and distribution of habitat is discussed for individual wildlife species for which fragmentation is a concern in Phase II FEIS Chapter 3, Section 3-3. Also refer to the 1997 FEIS for the Revised Forest Plan, pgs. III-247 through 275, for a discussion and evaluation of fragmentation. Ø An alternative that creates a no-treatment buffer around snags that may be safety hazards – Leaving forested buffers around snags that are safety hazards would preclude treatment for habitat objectives in many areas and would not achieve the purpose and need for the project. No cutting of snags is proposed in any alternative; however, snags may be removed if they are safety hazards. Ø An alternative that does not harvest any trees greater than 10 inches DBH to ensure adequate large trees are available for snag creation and species that use large diameter trees – This proposed alternative would not meet the purpose and need for action to improve habitat for game animals and birds. The proposed diameter limits would not allow the habitat objectives of forage enhancement, hardwood enhancement, large tree enhancement, shrub enhancement, meadow enhancement, spruce enhancement, or stand diversity, to be achieved. Ø An alternative that designates all 4C stands as MA 3.7 – Designation of MA 3.7 is a Forest planning process and is outside the scope of this analysis. Ø An alternative that proposes business as usual vegetation treatment methods to illustrate the contrast between conventional silvicultural options and the proposed alternatives – Although P.L. 107-206 allows the Forest Service to use the full spectrum of management tools in Norbeck, the 10th Circuit Court clearly directed the Forest to manage Norbeck to benefit wildlife per the Norbeck Organic Act. This project does include conventional silvicultural treatments, as well as some less commonly used silvicultural treatments. How a business as usual alternative would be applied is unclear, the purpose and need identifies improving wildlife habitat for game animals and birds, consistent with the Norbeck Organic Act. Ø An alternative that would prohibit hunting – This project considers vegetation treatments for habitat improvement and protection; thus, an alternative that prohibits hunting is outside the scope of the project. Ø An alternative that would ban livestock grazing –The Norbeck Wildlife Project includes portions of the North Custer and Palmer Gulch grazing allotments and the entire

28 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2

Spokane grazing allotment. The Spokane allotment has been designated as unsuitable for livestock grazing (Forest Plan Standard 5.4A-2504). This allotment has not had authorized livestock grazing since 1991. The North Custer allotment recently had construction improvements that limit cattle access to the portion of the allotment that is within the Norbeck Wildlife Project boundary. Therefore, livestock use is currently authorized on a small portion of the analysis area (a portion of the Palmer Gulch allotment). This project considers vegetation treatments for habitat improvement consistent with the Norbeck Organic Act. Changes to livestock grazing are outside the scope of the project. Ø An alternative that would ban motorized recreation – This project considers vegetation treatments for habitat improvement consistent with the Norbeck Organic Act. The Black Elk Wilderness portion of the project area does not allow motorized recreation access. The Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan has designated Management Areas 4.2B and 5.4A as allowing only on-road motorized recreation access. Banning all motorized recreation is outside the scope of this project. Ø An alternative that would manage Norbeck to restrict human access – This project considers vegetation treatments for habitat improvement consistent with the Norbeck Organic Act. The Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan has designated motorized and non-motorized access allowed within the management areas. The purpose and need does not warrant further restricting human access to the Norbeck project area. Ø An alternative that would add portions of Norbeck to the Black Elk Wilderness – This alternative is outside the scope of the project and would not meet the stated Purpose and Need for action to enhance habitat for focus species. Ø An alternative that includes treating stands on the west side of the Palmer Gulch Road, adjacent to the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve – This project area includes only those lands within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. Therefore, an alternative to treat stands north of the Palmer Gulch road is outside the scope of this project Ø An alternative that treats all structural stage 4B, 4C and 5 stands that border the Black Elk Wilderness, and structural stage 4B stands near Keystone to help address fire hazard in the WUI – reducing fire hazard in the WUI is not part of the purpose and need for action in this project. The habitat objectives were developed to improve habitat for game animals and birds, consistent with the Norbeck Organic Act. Stands with structural stage 4B, 4C and 5 are important for game animal and bird habitat. Therefore, an alternative that treats all 4B, 4C and 5 sites was not considered in detail. Ø An alternative that did not use FSR 351 as a loop road for log hauling because of possible damage to the road and the potential for removal of adjacent large trees – The IDT reviewed this road on October 9, 2008, and agreed to use FSR 351 as a loop road due to the severe approaches and excessive adverse haul on the south highway access. The IDT reviewed the entire course of the road and determined that the road is usable for hauling logs with only minor modifications. Design criteria are included in all alternatives that retain all pine greater than 16 inches DBH within 100 feet of FSR 351 to address visual concerns. Monitoring A Monitoring Plan for this project has been developed and is located in Appendix C of this EIS.

29 Chapter 2 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Comparison of Alternatives This section provides tabular summaries of the habitat objectives by alternative to be achieved by mechanical and prescribed burning methods (Tables 4 and 5); types of treatment proposed for each habitat objective (Table 6); acres of mechanical and prescribed burning treatments by alternative (Table 7), the effects of alternatives on the Significant Issues identified for this project (Table 8), Existing (2009) and Projected Pine Structural Stages for All Alternatives at Year 2020; for Areas inside and outside of the Black Elk Wilderness (Table 9), and Expected Timber Volumes by Alternative (Table 10). For a visual depiction of Habitat Objectives by Alternative, refer to Maps 9-11 in Appendix A. Mechanical treatments and prescribed burning activities by Alternative are displayed in Maps 12-17 in Appendix A.

Table 4. Acres of habitat objectives proposed for achievement through mechanical (Mech) and prescribed burning (Rx burn) treatments by alternative

Alternative 2 – Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Proposed Action Habitat Objectives Acres Acres Acres

Rx Rx Rx Mech Mech Mech Burn* Burn* Burn* Forage Enhancement 421 695 361 705 122 511 Late Succession Enhancement 830 0 375 0 501 0 Hardwood Enhancement 596 223 603 221 603 221 Large Tree Enhancement 836 38 966 228 901 228 Meadow Enhancement 198 276 219 267 219 267 Shrub Enhancement 52 52 52 52 52 52 Spruce Enhancement 78 0 78 0 78 0 Stand Diversity 1924 874 2069 738 2714 932 Total Acres 4,935 2,158* 4,723 2,211* 5,190 2,211* * Note: Some of the proposed prescribed burning acres are concurrent with mechanical treatments and would occur after those mechanical treatments are complete. Refer to table 5, below for a display of burning acres which are concurrent or separate from mechanical treatments. Note: Prescribed burning within the Black Elk Wilderness does not contribute to Habitat Objectives.

Table 5. Acres of habitat objectives achieved with prescribed burning concurrent or separate from mechanical treatments A-Total B-Concurrent C-Separate Habitat Objectives

Proposed for Achievement through Alternative 2 – Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Prescribed Burning Proposed Action Acres Acres Acres A B C A B C A B C Forage Enhancement 695 357 338 705 293 412 511 99 412 Late Succession Enhancement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hardwood Enhancement 223 199 24 221 195 26 221 195 26 Large Tree Enhancement 38 38 0 228 228 0 228 228 0 Meadow Enhancement 276 198 78 267 189 78 267 189 78 Shrub Enhancement 52 52 0 52 52 0 52 52 0

30 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2

A-Total B-Concurrent C-Separate Habitat Objectives

Proposed for Achievement through Alternative 2 – Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Prescribed Burning Proposed Action Acres Acres Acres A B C A B C A B C Spruce Enhancement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stand Diversity 874 248 626 738 325 413 932 519 413 Total 2,158 1,092 1,066 2,211 1,282 929 2,211 1,282 929

Table 6. Types of treatments proposed for each habitat objective

Habitat Objective Treatments Proposed to Meet Habitat Objectives Forage Enhancement Clearcut, Group Retention, Prescribed Burning Late Succession Enhancement Free Selection, POL Thinning Hardwood Enhancement Hardwood Release, Prescribed Burning Precommercial Thin, POL Thin, Preparation Cut, Large Tree Enhancement Understory Removal , Prescribed Burning Pine Encroachment Removal, Meadow Enhancement Prescribed Burning Pine encroachment from shrub sites, Shrub Enhancement Prescribed Burning Spruce Enhancement Spruce Release Group Selection, Individual Tree Selection, Free Selection, Stand Diversity Variable Density Thin, Prescribed Burning (Note: Mechanical treatments are discussed under the specific Alternative section of this Chapter and in Appendix D).

Table 7. Acres of Mechanical and Prescribed Burning Treatments by Alternative

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Mechanical Treatment* Codes Acres Acres Acres Clearcut CC 210 150 79 Commercial Thin 50% of Pine/POL CT50% 54 54 54 Group Retention GR20 211 211 43 Group Selection and Thin 40 BA GST40/POL 580 378 378 with POL Group Selection and Thin 50 BA GST50/POL 116 231 374 with POL Group Selection and Thin 60 BA GST60/POL 175 120 0 with POL Group Selection and Thin 70 BA GST70/POL 0 23 0 with POL Individual Tree Selection ITS 0 143 191 Free Selection 60 BA FS 614 557 557 Free Selection 60 BA with POL FS60/POL 0 0 224 Free Selection 80 BA with POL FS80/POL 425 375 201

31 Chapter 2 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Mechanical Treatment* Codes Acres Acres Acres Hardwood Release HR 596 508 508 Hardwood Release with Reserves HRwR 0 95 95 Pine Encroachment PE, SE 250 132 132 Pine Encroachment with Reserves PEwR 0 139 139 Precommercial Thin PCT 356 98 98 POL Thin POL 316 829 764 POL Thin for Late Succession POL-LS 405 0 300 Preparation Cut with POL PC/POL 154 0 0 Spruce Release SR 24 24 24 Understory Removal UR 10 39 39 Variable Density Thin 30 BA with VD30/POL 24 3 3 POL Variable Density Thin 40 BA with VD40/POL 387 380 753 POL Variable Density Thin 50 BA with VD50/POL 0 0 234 POL Variable Density Thin 60 BA with VD60/POL 28 234 0 POL Total Mechanical Treatments 4935 4723 5190

Prescribed Burning Outside of Wilderness 2158 2211 2211 Inside of Wilderness 0 5291 5291 *see Alternative discussions in this Chapter and Appendix D for Definitions of Mechanical Treatments Refer to Maps 9-through 17 in Appendix A

32 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2

Table 8. Effects to Significant Issues by Alternative

Alternative 1 1. Effects on Wilderness Values Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 No Action Acres of Rx Burning Within Wilderness 0 0 5,291 acres Up to 5,291 acres Short-term, Indirect Direct and Indirect effects Direct and Indirect effects to Impacts to Wilderness Values and No Impact Effects to Wilderness to Wilderness Values Wilderness Values and Character Values and Character and Character. Character. Existing 2. Effects on Wildlife and Alternative 1 Condition Alternative 2* Alternative 3* Alternative 4* Wildlife Habitat No Action* (2009)

Acres and Percent of

Habitat Cover Type Meadow/Grass 356 / 1% 356 / 1% 395 / 2% 395 / 2% 395 / 2% Quaking Aspen 443 / 2% 1,273 / 5% 1,387 / 5% 1,454 / 5% 1,396 / 5% Ponderosa Pine 25,254 / 95% 23,981 / 90% 23,701 / 89% 23,634 / 88% 23,692 / 89% White Spruce 251 / <1% 537 / 2% 542 / 2% 542 / 2% 542 / 2% Bur Oak 158 / <1% 315 / 1% 429 / 2% 429 / 2% 429 / 2% Shrub 44/ <1% 44 / <1% 52 / <1% 52 / <1% 52 / <1% Non-Vegetated 221 / <1 % 221 / <1% 221 / <1% 221 / <1% 221 / <1% (water and rock) Acres of Pine Structural Stages(see definitions of structural stages following this table)* SS1 706 1,876 2,135 6,148 1,355 SS2 2,062 13,287 11,823 8,444 11,648 SS3A 699 739 755 754 754 SS3B 525 97 97 97 97 SS3C 701 114 114 114 114 SS4A 6,036 7,803 8,777 8,077 9,724 SS4B 8,053 65 0 0 0 SS4C 5,289 0 0 0 0 SS5 1,183 0 0 0 0 25,254 23,981 23,701 23,634 23,692

33 Chapter 2 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 1 Effects to Focus Species** Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 No Action Benefit to Mountain Improved benefit to Greatest benefit to Moderate benefit to goat. Mountain goats, over Alt Mountain goats. Mountain goats between Mountain Goat 1. Alts 2 and 3.

No direct effects No direct effects. No direct effects. No direct effects. Benefit to bighorn Improved benefit to Greatest benefit to Moderate benefit to bighorn sheep. bighorn sheep, over Alt bighorn sheep. sheep between Alts 2 and Bighorn Sheep 1. 3.

No direct effects No direct effects. No direct effects. No direct effects. Substantial gain in Similar gain in forage forage with a similar and similar loss of loss of thermal cover. thermal cover as alt 1. Rocky Mountain Elk Same as Alt 2. Same as Alt 2.

No direct effects. No direct effects. Substantial gain in Similar gain in forage forage with a similar and similar loss of loss of thermal cover. thermal cover as alt 1. White-tailed Deer Same as Alt 2. Same as Alt 2.

No direct effects. No direct effects. Substantial gain in Substantial gain in summer habitat with a summer habitat with a similar loss in winter similar loss in winter habitat. habitat. Merriam’s Turkey Retention of little Short-term loss of Same as Alt 2. Same as Alt 2. nesting habitat. preferred nesting habitat.

No direct effects. Possible direct effects Short term increase in Greater increase in habitat. habitat over alt 1. Mountain Bluebird Same as Alt 2 Same as Alt 2 No direct effects. Possible direct effects.

34 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2

Substantial loss of Slightly less loss of preferred habitat. preferred habitat than in alt 1. Increase d preferred Golden-crowned kinglet cover type for future Increase d preferred Same as Alt 2 Same as Alt 2 habitat. cover type for future habitat. No direct effects. Possible direct effects. Complete loss of Complete loss of Complete loss of Complete loss of preferred preferred habitat. preferred habitat. preferred habitat. habitat.

Least retention of Greater retention of Slightly more retention of Greatest retention of Brown Creeper mature stands for future mature stands for future mature stands for future mature stands for future habitat. habitat than Alt 3. habitat than Alt 1. habitat.

Possible direct effects. No direct effects. Possible direct effects. Possible direct effects. Benefit to ruffed grouse Increased benefit to Greatest benefit to ruffed Increased benefit to ruffed habitat. ruffed grouse habitat grouse habitat. grouse habitat over alt 1. Ruffed Grouse over alt 1. Possible direct effects. Possible direct effects. No direct effects. Possible direct effects. Benefit to song sparrow Increased benefit to Greatest benefit to song Increased benefit to song habitat. song sparrow habitat sparrow habitat. sparrow habitat over alt 1. Song Sparrow over alt 1. Possible direct effects. No direct effects. Possible direct effects. Possible direct effects. Complete loss of Complete loss of Complete loss of nesting Complete loss of nesting nesting habitat. nesting habitat. habitat. habitat.

Least retention of Greater retention of Slightly more retention of Greatest retention of Northern Goshawk mature stands for future mature stands for future mature stands for future mature stands for future nesting habitat. nesting habitat than Alt nesting habitat than Alt 1. nesting habitat. 3. No direct effects. Possible direct effects. Possible direct effects. Possible direct effects.

35 Chapter 2 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Greatest Short term Short term benefit and Greater Short term Least Short term benefit benefit and long term loss of habitat benefit than Alts 2 and 4 and long term loss of Long term loss of and long term loss of habitat Black-backed Woodpecker habitat. habitat Possible direct effects. No direct effects. Possible direct effects. Possible direct effects. Alternative 1 3. Effects on Large trees Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 No Action Acres of pine sites in a mature condition and likely to survive the mountain pine 7,868 8,777 8,077 9,724 beetle outbreak Acres of large tree retention within N/A 0 234 234 meadow and hardwood cover types. 4. Mountain Pine Beetle Effects on Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Wildlife Habitat No Action Acres of pine treated to a Low and 0 2,871 3,034 3,473 Moderate insect Risk Alternative 1 5. Potential for Escaped Fire to Occur Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 No Action Acres of Prescribed Burning 0 2,158 acres 7,502 acres Up to 7,502 acres Reduction of fire hazard Reduction of fire hazard Reduction of fire hazard Reduction in Fire Hazard Rating rating on between 7,401- No Reduction rating on 6,000 acres rating on 10,943 acres 11,410 acres Reduced risk to identified Reduction in Risk to values-at-risk from Reduced risk to Greatly reduced risk to values more than fire escaping from the Wilderness No Reduction identified values identified values Alternative 2, but less than Alternative 3 *These structural stages are projected to year 2020 and denote impacts from both the MPB and proposed management activities. ** Impacts to Focus species are shown as direct effects to species as well as the effects to habitats that these species utilize. The effects of mountain pine beetle caused mortality to habitat conditions are included in these stated impacts. Refer to Chapter 3 for more information.

36 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2

Structural Stage (SS) Definitions (USDA, Forest Service 2005):

SS1 (Grass/Forb): This stage is dominated by grasses and forbs lasting until tree seedlings become established.

SS2 (Shrub/Seedling): This stage consists of shrubs and seedlings. This stage remains until seedlings reach 1 inch diameter at breast height (DBH).

SS3 (Sapling/Pole): This stage contains trees with stems one to nine inches DBH.

SS3A Sapling/Pole stage with less than 40% canopy cover SS3B Sapling/Pole stage with 40-70% canopy cover SS3C Sapling/Pole stage greater than 70% canopy cover SS4 (Mature): This stage contains trees which are at least 9” DBH.

SS4A Mature stage with less than 40% canopy cover SS4B Mature stage with 40-70% canopy cover SS4C Mature stage greater than 70% canopy cover SS5 (Late Succession): This stage is characterized by very large trees (16+ inches DBH). Trees are at least 160 years in age. Late succession ponderosa pine may occur in dense stands but may also grow in the open or in “park-like” stands.

Table 9. Existing (2009) and Projected Pine Structural Stages for All Alternatives at Year 2020; for Areas within and outside of the Black Elk Wilderness

Inside Black Elk Wilderness / Outside Black Elk Wilderness Pine Existing Structura Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Condition l Stage Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres (2009) 1 193 / 513 193 / 1683 193 / 1942 4460 / 1688 193 / 1162 2 1794 / 268 8449 / 4838 8449 / 3374 5348 / 3096 8449 / 3199 3A 329 / 370 310 / 429 310 / 445 310 / 444 310 / 444 3B 231 / 294 0 / 97 0 / 97 0 / 97 0 / 97 3C 382 / 319 0 / 114 0 / 114 0 / 114 0 / 114 4A 3083 / 2953 3376 / 4427 3376 / 5401 2156 / 5921 3376 / 6348 4B 2916 / 5137 0 / 65 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 4C 3830 / 1459 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 5 398 / 785 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Totals 13156 / 12098 12328 / 11653 12328 / 11373 12274 / 11360 12328 / 11364

Table 10. Expected Timber Volumes by Alternative

Sawlog Volume in hundred Product Other than Logs (POL) Alternatives cubic feet (CCF) Volume in CCF Alternative 1 0 0 Alternative 2 42, 500 10,000 Alternative 3 38,000 10,500 Alternative 4 40,500 10,500

37

38 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Introduction This section summarizes the physical, biological, social and economic environments of the affected project area and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of the alternatives. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives presented in table 8 in chapter 2. For the purposes of this analysis and under federal regulations, “impacts” and “effects” are assumed to have the same meaning and are interchangeable.

The information presented here is based on analysis prepared by resource specialists from the interdisciplinary team. These reports are included in the project file, which is located on the Black Hills National Forest, Hell Canyon Ranger District, 330 Mount Rushmore Road, Custer, South Dakota. All resource specialists used the best available science in completing their analysis, in accordance with FSM 1920.

Chapter 3 of the Forest Plan FEIS and the Phase II FEIS discuss the short and long term effects, irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources, and adverse environmental effects associated with implementing management practices in the Black Hills National Forest. This EIS incorporates by reference Chapter 3 of the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA Forest Service 1996a, 2005c), the Phase II Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005), the Phase II Amendment ROD (USDA Forest Service 2005a) and the Phase II Amendment Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation (BABE) (USDA Forest Service 2005d) to avoid repetition and to allow this description to focus on the site-specific effects that would result from implementation of the proposed action and alternatives. Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions According the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations, “cumulative impact” is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such actions (40 CFR 1508.7). Cumulative effects are those effects from other actions that overlap in time and space with the proposed action. In determining cumulative effects, the effects of the past, present and future actions shown in Appendix F were considered in addition to the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action or alternatives, as appropriate for each resource.

For the Norbeck Wildlife Project, the list of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities considered in the cumulative effects analysis is available in Appendix F. Each specialist considered these activities and uses if they are expected to affect resource conditions in the project area. There are also about 2,195 acres of private lands within the project area boundary. Most of these private lands are used for residential purposes or for recreational development. Other adjacent lands include Custer State Park, the City of Keystone, and Mount Rushmore National Monument. Activities on private lands were considered in the cumulative effects analysis.

Federal regulations regarding Forest Service NEPA procedures found at 36 CFR 220.4(f) discuss how cumulative effects analysis shall consider past actions:

39 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

“Cumulative effects analysis shall be carried out in accordance with 40 CFR 1508.7 and in accordance with ‘‘The Council on Environmental Quality Guidance Memorandum on Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis’’ dated June 24, 2005. The analysis of cumulative effects begins with consideration of the direct and indirect effects on the environment that are expected or likely to result from the alternative proposals for agency action. Agencies then look for present effects of past actions that are, in the judgment of the agency, relevant and useful because they have a significant cause-and-effect relationship with the direct and indirect effects of the proposal for agency action and its alternatives. CEQ regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all past actions to determine the present effects of past actions. Once the agency has identified those present effects of past actions that warrant consideration, the agency assesses the extent that the effects of the proposal for agency action or its alternatives would add to, modify, or mitigate those effects. The final analysis documents an agency assessment of the cumulative effects of the actions considered (including past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions) on the affected environment. With respect to past actions, during the scoping process and subsequent preparation of the analysis, the agency must determine what information regarding past actions is useful and relevant to the required analysis of cumulative effects. Cataloging past actions and specific information about the direct and indirect effects of their design and implementation could in some contexts be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the proposal. The CEQ regulations, however, do not require agencies to catalogue or exhaustively list and analyze all individual past actions. Simply because information about past actions may be available or obtained with reasonable effort does not mean that it is relevant and necessary to inform decisionmaking.” The project area boundary was used to address cumulative impacts, unless otherwise noted in the resource discussions. Rationale for cumulative effects boundaries is noted in the cumulative effects discussions by resource. Cumulative effects may also be addressed as an integral part of the existing condition. If this approach was used, it is stated in the specific resource section. Wildlife Habitat

Existing Conditions

Cover Types and Structural Diversity The Norbeck Wildlife Preserve provides habitat for a variety of wildlife species, including focus species, sensitive species (SS), management indicator species (MIS), and species of local concern (SOLC). The majority (95%) of the project area has a ponderosa pine cover type, but other cover types occur as well. Specifically those cover types include, meadow/grass, hardwoods, white spruce, shrubs, and non-vegetated areas which include large granite rock outcrops and lakes. Riparian vegetation areas also occur, but as inclusions within other cover types. Each of these cover types and structures provide habitat for a wide array of species. Table 11 displays the acreages of each cover type which currently exist in the project area.

40 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Table 11. Cover Types of National Forest System Land in the Norbeck Project Area (26,727 acres)

Existing Condition - Cover Type Acres/Percentage Meadow/Grass 356 / 1% Ponderosa Pine 25,254 / 95% Quaking Aspen 443 / 2% White Spruce 251 / <1% Bur Oak 158 / <1% Shrub 44/ <1% Non-Vegetated (water and rock) 221 / <1 %

Meadows Meadow habitat is utilized by the following focus species; Rocky Mountain elk, white-tailed deer, Merriam’s turkey and Mountain bluebird. The project area contains 356 acres typed as meadow/grass. This is only 1 percent of the project area. With fire suppression and the lack of active management, ponderosa pine is encroaching on these meadows.

Hardwoods

Quaking Aspen and Paper Birch Hardwood species provide habitat for these focus species; Rocky Mountain elk, white-tailed deer, ruffed grouse and song sparrow. The focus species represent habitat needs for a wide range of game animals and birds. The project area currently contains 443 acres typed as aspen and no sites typed as paper birch, although paper birch occurs as inclusions within pine dominated stands. Aspen sites comprise only two percent of the project area. In addition to designated aspen sites, aspen also occurs as inclusions with many ponderosa pine sites within the project area. Due to fire suppression and a lack of active management, ponderosa pine has encroached on most of these aspen and birch inclusions. The more shade tolerant ponderosa pine and white spruce out- compete quaking aspen and paper birch for water and light, leading to the decline of quaking aspen and paper birch across the project area (Sheppard and Battaglia 2002). Additionally, the lack of periodic disturbance due to fire suppression has allowed aspen stands to age and become decadent, decreasing their resistance to insects and diseases (Parrish et al. 1996). These factors have led to the decline of quaking aspen and paper birch across the project area. The existing structural stages of designated aspen stands in the project area are displayed in table 12.

Table 12. Existing Aspen Structural Stages within the Norbeck Project Area

Structural Stage Quaking Aspen SS1 0 SS2 68 SS3A 146 SS3B 10 SS3C 0 SS4A 153 SS4B 17 SS4C 43 SS5 6 Total 443

41 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Bur Oak Bur Oak provides habitat for the same focus species as noted under aspen and paper birch. The project area contains approximately 158 acres typed as bur oak. Bur oak is primarily found on the eastern side of the project area in and near the Galena Fire of 1988. Bur oak is regenerating quite well in the Galena Fire area, despite being heavily browsed. Bur oak is also found near riparian areas and in scattered upland clumps in the management area. There is old, large- diameter bur oak in the project area. Fire suppression is allowing ponderosa pine to encroach on bur oak areas. Bur oak is relatively intolerant of shade, allowing ponderosa pine to out-compete oak for light (Shepperd and Battaglia 2002).

Ponderosa Pine Ponderosa pine habitat is utilized by all of the focus species, however golden-crowned kinglet uses mainly spruce, although the various structural stages provide for various habitat needs. The Norbeck Wildlife Project, project area is dominated by mature, dense ponderosa pine. Currently, 25,254 acres (95%), of the project area is classified in the ponderosa pine cover type. Approximately 53 percent of pine stands are in structural stages 4B and 4C and approximately five percent is in structural stage 5. Existing structural stage (SS) distribution for ponderosa pine on National Forest lands in the project area is shown in table 13. Structural stages are defined as follows:

§ SS 1: Grasses and forbs § SS 2: Seedlings and saplings § SS 3A: Young forest, trees less than 9 inches DBH, crown cover less than 40 percent § SS 3B: Young forest, trees less than 9 inches DBH, crown cover 40 to 70 percent § SS 3C: Young forest, trees less than 9 inches DBH, crown cover greater than 70 percent § SS 4A: Mature forest, trees at least 9 inches DBH, crown cover less than 40 percent § SS 4B: Mature forest, trees at least 9 inches DBH, crown cover 40 to 70 percent § SS 4C: Mature forest, trees at least 9 inches DBH, crown cover greater than 70 percent § SS 5: Late-succession forest

Table 13. Existing Pine Structural Stages within the Norbeck Project Area

Structural Stage Ponderosa Pine SS1 706 SS2 2,062 SS3A 699 SS3B 525 SS3C 701 SS4A 6,036 SS4B 8,053 SS4C 5,289 SS5 1,183 Total 25,254

The large amount of dense, mature ponderosa pine and the lack of structural diversity are contributing to the current outbreak of mountain pine beetle-induced mortality in the project area. Notable mortality exists in the Harney Peak area of the Black Elk Wilderness (Allen 2008).

42 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

The infestation has been expanding over the years out of the Wilderness and into Palmer Gulch and Sunday Gulch. Small scale openings caused by mountain pine beetle mortality can benefit wildlife by increasing the structural diversity in an area. However, contiguous densely-stocked, mature ponderosa pine provides the ideal conditions for large scale mountain pine mortality that could create large, contiguous areas of structural stages 1 and 2.

Another exception to the mature, dense ponderosa pine in the project area is the Galena burn. The Galena Fire occurred in 1988 and burned approximately 300 acres in the southeastern portion of the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. The area affected by the Galena Fire contained the majority of structural stages 1 and 2 in the project area prior to the mountain pine beetle infestation.

White Spruce White spruce provides habitat for the following focus species; golden-crowned kinglet and brown creeper. The focus species represent habitat needs for a range of game animals and birds. There are 251 acres (12 sites) typed as white spruce in the project area. This is less than one percent of the project area. White spruce is usually found on sheltered north or east-facing slopes and in sheltered bottom lands in the project area. White spruce is very shade tolerant, and it grows slower than ponderosa pine (Shepperd and Battaglia 2002). There are some small groups and individual white spruce scattered within pine sites. Pine is encroaching upon some of these white spruce stands. The current forest conditions caused by fire suppression have favored white spruce. White spruce is very shade tolerant, allowing it to become established under a dense ponderosa pine overstory. The existing structural stages of designated white spruce stands in the project area are displayed in table 14.

Table 14. Existing White Spruce Structural Stages within the Norbeck Project Area

Structural Stage White Spruce SS1 0 SS2 0 SS3A 0 SS3B 0 SS3C 0 SS4A 202 SS4B 9 SS4C 0 SS5 40 Total 251

Shrubs Shrubs provide habitat for the following focus species; Rocky Mountain elk, white-tailed deer, Merriam’s turkey and song sparrow. There are approximately 44 acres of designated shrub sites (snowberry) within the project area. Snowberry (Symphoricarpos spp.) and other shrub species are present in the understory of pine sites and include the following species: currents (Ribes spp.), common juniper (Juniperus communis), kinnikinnik (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi), Oregon grape (Berberis repens), chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), rose (Rosa spp.), serviceberry (Amelanchier spp.), raspberry (Rubus strigosus), and ironwood (Ostrya virginiana). Fire suppression has allowed ponderosa pine to encroach upon these sites. Additionally, shrubs exist in the understory of forested areas throughout the project area. Understory plant production and

43 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

diversity are both reduced as pine canopy increases (Parrish et al. 1996). The current dense ponderosa pine overstory found throughout the project area is inhibiting shrub production and diversity (Shepperd and Battaglia 2002).

Nonvegetated – Rock and Water Features Mountain goats and bighorn sheep are focus species associated with rock outcrops. Approximately 221 acres (<1%) of the project area has a non-vegetation cover type. More than half of this occurs within the Wilderness as large rock outcrops. While rocky areas are available in other portions of the Forest, the sheer size and extent of granite rock formations within the project area is unique. There are also lakes and rock outcrops outside of the Wilderness portion of the project area. These features contribute to the available wildlife habitat within the project area. No change to this cover types would occur as a result of any alternative.

Other Habitat Components Certain cover types and structural stages of conifer stands provide for specific habitat needs such as forage or thermal cover. These components are discussed below. In addition to cover types and their available structural stages, other specific habitat components are important to a variety of wildlife species, including focus species. Large trees are an important habitat component to 4 of the focus species. Snags provide habitat for 3 of the focus species and riparian areas are a habitat component for 2 of the focus species. These specific features of habitat are utilized by other wildlife species, as well as those particular focus species mentioned.

Large Trees Large trees provide habitat for the following focus species; Merriam’s turkey, brown creeper, Northern goshawk and black-backed woodpecker. The focus species represent habitat needs for a range of game animals and birds. The project area is currently dominated by conifer stands in a mature condition. Approximately 19,589 acres (73% of the project area; 77% of conifer stands) in the project area are mature conifer stands. Large trees are available within these stands. In addition, large yellowbark pine trees are found throughout all cover types in the project areas. The extent and density of large yellowbark pine trees in the Norbeck project area is somewhat unique in the Black Hills. These large trees provide important wildlife habitat, as well as other values such as visual diversity.

Snags and Down Woody Material Snags are utilized by the following focus species; bluebirds, goshawks, brown creepers and black-backed woodpeckers. The focus species represent habitat needs for a range of game animals and birds. Current snag density within the project area exceeds the average snag density noted in Forestwide Objective 211 (3 hard snags per acre). A mountain pine beetle infestation that has been occurring has created large swaths of snag habitat, mainly in the Black Elk Wilderness, but also outside of the Wilderness, especially in the western portion of the project area. In addition to the overall increase in snag numbers, a substantial number of large diameter trees (i.e., >14 inches DBH) have been killed by the mountain pine beetle and provide large diameter snag habitat.

The entire Project Area is off-limits to firewood cutting, except under special permit that may be issued. Motorized access is limited within the project area and there should be little if any threat from cutting standing dead trees for fuelwood because of the access issues and relatively remote location of area. There is currently ample down woody material from storm damage and beetle- killed trees that have fallen to meet forestwide objective 212.

44 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Riparian Vegetation Riparian areas are located along perennial streams, and are utilized by all the focus species, particularly; song sparrow and golden-crowned kinglet. The focus species represent habitat needs for a wide range of game animals and birds. There are approximately 64 miles of perennial streams within the project area. Riparian vegetation in the project area consists mainly of white spruce, but also includes willows (Salix spp.), water birch (Betula occidentalis), red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea) and beaked hazel (Corylus cornuta). Ponderosa pine has encroached into riparian corridors and is outcompeting riparian vegetation.

Thermal Cover and Forage Thermal cover is defined in the Forest Plan as cover used by animals to ameliorate the effects of weather. Optimal thermal cover is conifer stands, 30-60 acres in size, at least 40 feet tall with a 70% canopy closure. Structural stages 3C, 4C and 5 would best meet this definition, where they occur in stands at least 30 acres in size. All 3C, 4C and 5 conifer stands provide thermal cover, regardless of the site acres. Currently, 27 percent (7,213 acres) of the planning area provides thermal cover, with 21 percent, (5,575 acres) providing optimal thermal cover. The Black Elk Wilderness contains approximately 34 percent (4,610 acres) in thermal cover. The Norbeck Wildlife Preserve management area (5.4A) contains 20 percent (2,346 acres) in thermal cover with 14 percent (1,618 acres) in optimal thermal cover, as defined. Thermal cover can also be provided by hardwoods in the summer and shrubs for smaller mammals.

The recent Needles and Grizzly projects have provided increased forage in the project area. Both of these projects included patch clearcut treatments to provide forage. In the Needles project 10 percent (369 acres) of the project area was managed in 1-10 acre openings. The Grizzly project was managed for three percent (134 acres) of the project area in openings 1-10 acres. The rest of the Management Area contains few openings 1-10 acres in size providing forage. Additionally, the majority of these older openings are experiencing pine encroachment and succeeding into structural stages 2 and 3.

Late Succession Late succession, or structural stage 5, is defined in the Forest Plan as follows: “ This structural stage is characterized by very large trees (16+ inches DBH). Trees are at least 160 years in age; ponderosa pines that reach this age are commonly referred to as “yellow barks.” Late succession ponderosa pine may occur in dense stands but may also grow in the open or in ‘park-like’ stands (Mehl 1992).” Focus species which utilize late succession as a portion of their preferred habitat include; Merriam’s turkey, brown creeper, Northern goshawk and black-backed woodpecker. These focus species represent an array of species which utilize late succession habitat.

Currently, there is approximately 1,183 acres of late successional habitat within the project area as a whole. Approximately 1/3 of this habitat is within the Black Elk Wilderness and the remainder is outside of the Wilderness. Forest Plan objective 5.4A-203 calls for 20-25 percent of conifer stands within management area 5.4A to be in a late succession condition. Currently, there is 818 acres, or 8%, of late succession in this management area. While there are additional stands in the management area which meet the age criteria for late succession, these stands do not meet the very large tree size requirement.

Fire suppression has contributed to the existing condition by allowing for development of dense tree stands. The dense stands do not develop into late succession without some kind of disturbance to allow for individual tree diameter growth. Active management can be designed to

45 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

maintain large-tree vigor and promote future large-tree recruitment. Additionally, treatments can move these areas out of stem exclusion and begin understory reinitiating of shrubs.

Conifer Successional Stages Pine and spruce stands within the project area provide a variety of conifer successional stages, including forage, young and mature, and natural succession (late succession). Table 15defines which habitat structural stages provide the specific conifer successional stages described above. Table16 displays existing acres, percentage and objective percent for each of the 3 Conifer Successional Stages in management area 5.4A. These acres include both pine and spruce.

Table 15. Region 2 Structural Stages and Corresponding Conifer Successional Stage

Conifer Successional Stage Region 2 Structural Stage Forage 1, 2, 3A, 4A Young and Mature 3B, 3C, 4B, 4C Natural Succession 5

Table 16. Acres and Percentage of Conifer Successional Stages in Management Area 5.4A

Current Conifer Stages in Management Area 5.4A Stage Acres Current Percent Objective Percent Forage 3,881 36 15 to 20 Young and Mature 6,017 56 25 to 50 Natural Succession 818 8 20 to 25

The percent of the management area in the Forage Stage and the Young and Mature Stage currently exceeds objective 5.4A-203 (table 16). The percent within the Natural Succession Stage is below the objective. The amount of area in the Provide Forage Stage increased in the last five years due to mountain pine beetle-caused mortality in Palmer Gulch. The recent Needles and Grizzly projects also contribute to the large amount of the Provide Forage Stage in the management area. Finally, the Galena Fire area adds to the Provide Forage Stage. These areas are currently concentrated, and not well distributed across the management area.

Environmental Consequences The analysis of impacts to wildlife habitats by alternative, include the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of proposed activities, in conjunction with the expected impacts of the existing mountain pine beetle outbreak. A large mountain pine beetle infestation currently occupies the western third of the Black Elk Wilderness within the project area. This infestation is expanding west into the Palmer Gulch area and east across the Wilderness. The mountain pine beetle outbreak and the impact it may have on wildlife habitats is one of the significant issues identified for this project.

It is estimated that the entire project area would be affected by the mountain pine beetle by the year 2013 (Allen 2009). The following analysis compares the four alternatives at year 2020, when all management activities are projected to be completed, and the mountain pine beetle outbreak is expected to have run its course.

Substantial changes are expected to occur as a result of mountain pine beetle caused mortality in the project area. Estimates of MPB impacts to habitat cover types and structural stages are based

46 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 on professional, local knowledge of the existing conditions and previous MPB outbreaks in the Black Hills. The assumptions used to project these changes are in Appendix J.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects Under this alternative, no new vegetation management activities would occur in the project area. However, the project area would still experience change through other processes. The current mountain pine beetle outbreak is causing major changes on this landscape. This alternative displays those changes to cover types and structural diversity expected to occur as a result of MPB caused mortality at year 2020. No active management would occur and therefore, no effects from active management activities are included in the direct and indirect effects displays for Alternative 1.

Cover Types and Structural Diversity The No Action alternative is projected to result in substantial changes to acres of cover types and structural stage diversity of ponderosa pine. The projected mountain pine beetle caused pine mortality across the project area would result in an increase of other cover types, such as aspen, spruce and bur oak. In addition, it would release riparian vegetation and greatly increase available snag habitat. Other habitat components such as large trees and dense pine stands would be greatly reduced on the landscape. All predicted changes in cover types would occur outside of the Black Elk Wilderness. No change would occur to the rock and water cover types. Table 17 displays the existing and projected cover types in the project area, for Alternative 1. Changes in structural stage for ponderosa pine are discussed below, under ponderosa pine. A set of assumptions was developed to predict these changes in cover types and structural stages, based on existing vegetation conditions, knowledge of mountain pine beetle populations and dynamics, as well as professional opinion. These assumptions are located in Appendix J.

Table 17. Comparison of Cover Types for Existing Condition and Alternative 1at Year 2020

Existing Condition Alt 1 -No Action Cover Type Acres/Percentage Acres/Percentage Meadow 356 / 1% 356 / 1% Quaking Aspen 443 / 2% 1,273 / 5% Ponderosa Pine 25,254 / 95% 23,981 / 90% White Spruce 251 / <1% 537 / 2% Bur Oak 158 / <1% 315 / 1% Shrub 44/ <1% 44 / <1% Non-Vegetated (water and rock) 221 / <1 % 221 / <1%

Meadows Meadow sites in the project area continue to experience encroachment from ponderosa pine. The ponderosa pine encroaching on meadow sites is not expected to experience heavy mortality from mountain pine beetles. These pine trees are generally too small in diameter or not dense enough to be susceptible to mountain pine beetles. Meadows are therefore, not expected to increase under the No Action alternative.

47 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Hardwoods Quaking Aspen Quaking aspen would benefit from the mountain pine beetle-caused mortality of overstory ponderosa pine and the reduced competition for sunlight and nutrients. It is projected that acres of quaking aspen would nearly triple, from 443 to 1,273 acres. However, ponderosa pine smaller than 3” DBH would likely escape beetle-caused mortality, continue to grow, and compete with quaking aspen. These small pine trees would continue to grow within and compete with aspen stands. Barring a disturbance, the pine would eventually shade out the aspen and result in a cover type change.

Increased sunlight warming the ground would immediately stimulate aspen regeneration through root suckering, expanding existing clones outward a distance up to 1 to 1.5 tree heights (Shepperd and Battaglia 2002). The flush of new aspen suckers would experience and immediate increase in browsing damage. However, the large amount of ponderosa pine snags projected to fall down would mitigate the browsing pressure by physically blocking deer, elk and livestock from the suckers.

The expected structural stages of aspen stands in year 2020, in the project area, are displayed in table 18.

Table 18. Alternative 1 Aspen Structural Stages in Year 2020 Structural Stage Existing Acres Alt 1 Acres SS1 0 0 SS2 68 778 SS3A 146 224 SS3B 10 10 SS3C 0 0 SS4A 153 203 SS4B 17 8 SS4C 43 44 SS5 6 6 Total 443 1,273

Paper Birch Paper birch would benefit from the mountain pine beetle-caused mortality of overstory ponderosa pine and the reduced competition for sunlight and nutrients. Paper birch requires a disturbance which exposes bare mineral soil to regenerate. Therefore, regeneration and expansion of paper birch is expected to be minimal in this alternative, without a disturbance exposing bare mineral soil.

Bur Oak Bur oak would also benefit from the mountain pine beetle-caused mortality of overstory ponderosa pine, and is predicted to double in acreage as a result. However, ponderosa pine smaller than 3” DBH that escape mortality will eventually compete with bur oak, as described above under aspen. The lack of ground disturbance exposing bare mineral soil would limit bur oak regeneration and expansion (Shepperd and Battaglia 2002).

48 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Ponderosa Pine The number of ponderosa pine acres would decrease under this alternative. Ponderosa pine mortality caused by mountain pine beetle would convert approximately 1,273 acres of ponderosa pine to white spruce, quaking aspen and bur oak. In addition, the distribution of ponderosa pine structural stages would experience great change due to the current mountain pine beetle infestation (see table 19). This table displays projections to year 2020 to be consistent with the other alternatives, although the mountain pine beetle caused mortality is expected to have mostly run its course by 2013.

Table 19. Comparison of Ponderosa Pine Structural Stages for the Existing Condition and Alternative 1projected to year 2020

Structural Stage Existing Condition Acres Alternative 1 Acres 1 706 1,876 2 2,062 13,287 3A 699 739 3B 525 97 3C 701 114 4A 6,036 7,803 4B 8,053 65 4C 5,289 0 5 1,183 0 TOTAL 25,254 23,981

The 4B and 4C sites experiencing mountain pine beetle-caused mortality and changing to structural stages 1 and 2 would take approximately 100-150 years to develop back into structural stages 4B and 4C. Sites currently in structural stage 4A would develop into structural stage 4B or 4C in approximately 20-30 years.

Structural stages 4B, 4C and 5 would be converted to other structural stages, except for one, 65 acre site, with a 4B structural stage. This alternative retains 65 acres of 4B because this specific site is located in the detached Stockade portion of the project area. Active management has occurred on lands surrounding this site, reducing the susceptibility to MPB. Therefore, the potential for extensive MPB caused mortality in this site is greatly reduced and it is projected to remain in a 4B condition in this alternative.

While stands of 4B, 4C and 5 would no longer occur, with the exception noted above, pockets of these structures are expected to survive the MPB outbreak. These pockets would occur as inclusions within stands and are expected to be up to 5 acres in size. The full extent and location of such remaining pockets of 4B, 4C and 5 are unknown.

The expected changes to pine structural stages due to mountain pine beetle caused mortality are quite substantial. While these projections are based on local conditions and professional judgment, it is recognized that the ultimate result of the No Action alternative could differ. The existing condition, dominated by mature, dense stands, is highly susceptible to mountain pine beetle and changes are currently underway.

The Black Elk Wilderness portion of the project area is projected to experience massive change as mature pine stands are converted to early successional stands. Currently 77% of the pine in

49 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

the Wilderness is in a mature condition and 27% is expected to remain in a mature structural stage by year 2020 (see Table 20).

The area outside of the Wilderness currently is also predicted to experience significant change, however a larger percentage of mature pine stands are expected to remain on lands outside of the Wilderness. Approximately 39% of pine stands in the non-Wilderness portion of the project area are expected to remain in a mature size class by year 2020 (see Table 20).

Table 20. Existing and Projected Pine Structural Stages for Alternative 1 at Year 2020; for Areas within and outside of the Black Elk Wilderness

Within Black Elk Wilderness Outside of Black Elk Wilderness Pine Existing Existing Structural Alternative 1 Alternative 1 Condition Condition Stage Acres Acres Acres Acres 1 193 193 513 1,683 2 1,794 8,449 268 4,838 3A 329 310 370 429 3B 231 0 294 97 3C 382 0 319 114 4A 3,083 3,376 2,953 4,427 4B 2,916 0 5,137 65 4C 3,830 0 1,459 0 5 398 0 785 0 Total 13,156 12,328 12,098 11,653

White Spruce The minor component of white spruce in the project area is expected to more than double in extent, from 251 to 537 acres. This projected increase in acreage is due to mortality of overstory ponderosa pine in mixed-species sites, and would occur mainly within the Black Elk Wilderness. This expansion is mainly limited to moist, stream bottoms. However, the large mountain pine beetle population is expected to also cause mortality of mature spruce in dense stands (Allen 2009). As a result, the majority of white spruce is projected to be in structural stage 2, by year 2020 (see Table 21). With no active management, this alternative moves the project area away from Forest Objectives 239 and 5.4A-206.

Table21. Alternative 1 Projected White Spruce Structural Stages within the Norbeck Project Area in year 2020

Structural Stage Existing Acres Alt 1 Acres SS1 0 56 SS2 0 464 SS3A 0 0 SS3B 0 0 SS3C 0 0 SS4A 202 1 SS4B 9 0 SS4C 0 0 SS5 40 0 Total 251 537

50 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Shrubs Shrubs occur in the understory of timbered sites and as pure shrub sites. Understory production of grasses, forbs and shrubs would increase in this alternative due to mountain pine beetle- caused mortality of overstory ponderosa pine. Sunlight would reach the forest floor in sites without a dense ponderosa pine understory, benefitting understory shrubs.

Shrub sites in the project area continue to experience encroachment from ponderosa pine, moving the project area away from Objective 5.4A-204. The ponderosa pine encroaching on shrub sites is either not large enough or dense enough to experience heavy mountain pine beetle- caused mortality. Shrub sites are not expected to increase as their extent is limited by soil characteristics.

Other Habitat Components

Large Trees Alternative 1, No Action, is expected to result in a widespread decrease of large trees across the project area, due to the impacts of mountain pine beetle caused mortality. Large trees which survive the beetle outbreak would likely occur scattered across the landscape. Mature pine sites in a structural stage 4A condition would be most likely to survive the beetle outbreak and would be expected to contain the majority of residual large trees. Other structural stages could also contain large trees, but to a lesser degree. Table 19 displays expected pine structural stages.

Snags and Down Woody Material It is predicted that this alternative would result in the highest number of snags and down woody material, distributed across the landscape, of any alternative. In addition, it is expected that large snags would be increased the most of any alternative, due to natural and mountain pine beetle caused mortality. These new snags would be well distributed across the project area. However, snags created by mountain pine beetle are not expected to remain intact longer than five years following death (Schmid et al. 2009). Therefore, snags levels and down woody material levels are expected to exceed those in forestwide objectives 211 and 212, respectively.

Species that utilize snags and down woody material would benefit the most under Alternative 1.

Riparian Vegetation Riparian vegetation would benefit from the MPB-caused mortality of overstory ponderosa pine and white spruce, which would decrease competition for sunlight and nutrients. However, ponderosa pine smaller than 3” DBH is expected to escape mountain pine beetle caused mortality and would remain to eventually compete with riparian vegetation. Riparian sites are not expected to increase in size as their extent is limited by soil characteristics.

Thermal Cover and Forage Only 114 acres of pine sites are expected to meet the definition of thermal cover in the year 2020, due to mountain pine beetle impacts. These are SS 3C sites. All SS 4C and 5 sites are expected to be heavily impacted by MPB caused mortality and converted to younger and less dense SS. There would be small pockets of dense, mature habitat remaining, but the location and extent of this habitat is speculative. The expected mountain pine beetle-caused mortality would move the project area away from Objective 5.4A-210 (a).

51 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

The decrease in thermal cover equates to a corresponding increase in forage in this alternative. It is predicted that the majority of the ponderosa pine stand in the project area, approximately 99%, would provide forage by year 2020. Forage includes structural stages 1, 2, 3A and 4A in ponderosa pine.

Late Succession Late succession stands are highly susceptible to mountain pine beetle and are expected to experience heavy conifer mortality as a result. It is predicted that no stands of late successional habitat would remain within the project area by year 2020, due to mountain pine beetle caused mortality. There is a potential for inclusions with a late succession condition, up to 5 acres in size, to occur on the landscape, the size or extent of which is unknown. For this analysis it is estimated that approximately 75% of current late succession stands would be converted to structural stages 1 or 2 and approximately 25% would retain a mature tree component and convert to structural stage 4A. These estimates are based on professional knowledge and local experience given the existing beetle populations and available habitat.

Conifer Successional Stages in Management Area 5.4A Effects to conifers from mountain pine beetle-caused mortality would be expected to move the conifer successional stages defined in Objective 5.4A-203 further away from the objective. The majority of conifer acres would be in the Provide Forage stage by 2020. Very few acres would be in the Young and Mature and the Natural Succession stages following the mountain pine beetle infestation. However, stands previously treated to 3A and 4A under the Needles and Grizzly projects can be expected to grow into the Young and Mature stage within 20 to 30 years.

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

Cover Types and Structural Diversity Alternative 2 is also projected to result in substantial changes to both acres of cover type, as well as, acres of structural stage diversity for ponderosa pine. The proposed activities would reduce the density of pine stands and target removal of encroaching pine from other cover types to achieve habitat objectives. The assumptions used to project changes in cover type and structural diversity are the same as discussed under Alternative 1. However, the management activities proposed under this alternative would have an impact on the expected habitat conditions at year 2020. Throughout this section, projected habitat conditions are compared to those expected under Alternative 1, no action.

This alternative, like Alternative 1, would result in an increase of aspen, spruce and bur oak, but to a larger extent. It would also, however, result in increases of other cover types including meadows, birch, and shrubs. Alternative 2 would also release riparian vegetation and greatly increase available snag habitat. Other habitat components such as large trees and dense pine stands would be greatly reduced on the landscape, but to a lesser degree than in Alternative 1. All changes in cover type would occur outside of the Black Elk Wilderness. No change would occur to the rock and water cover types. Table 22 displays the existing and projected cover types in the project area, for Alternatives 1 and 2. Changes in structural stages for ponderosa pine are discussed below, under ponderosa pine.

52 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Table 22. Comparison of Cover Types for Existing Condition, No Action and Alternative 2 at Year 2020

Existing Alt 1 -No Action Alternative 2 Cover Type Condition Acres/Percentage Acres/Percentage Acres/Percentage Meadow 356 / 1% 356 / 1% 395 / 2% Quaking Aspen 443 / 2% 1,273 / 5% 1,387* / 5% Ponderosa Pine 25,254 / 95% 23,981 / 90% 23,701 / 89% White Spruce 251 / <1% 537 / 2% 542 / 2% Bur Oak 158 / <1% 315 / 1% 429 / 2% Shrub 44/ <1% 44 / <1% 52 / <1% Non-Vegetated (water and rock) 221 / <1 % 221 / <1% 221 / <1% *this figure includes 4 acres of paper birch

Meadows This alternative would achieve the meadow enhancement habitat objective on a total of 276 acres (see Table 4 in chapter 2). Acres of meadow would increase by approximately 39 acres, or 11%. Mechanical treatments and prescribed burning would be utilized to remove encroaching ponderosa pine from existing meadows and from 39 acres of pine stands which had encroached into historic meadow sites. Prescribed burning would follow all mechanical treatments and would be utilized on 78 acres as a stand-alone treatment, to stimulate forage production. These treatments would create and prolong conditions favorable to producing forage for wildlife.

Untreated meadow sites in the project area would continue to experience encroachment from ponderosa pine. The ponderosa pine encroaching on meadow sites is either not large enough or dense enough to experience heavy mountain pine beetle-caused mortality.

Overall, meadow habitat is expected to increase by 39 acres over the existing condition and Alternative 1. This alternative would contribute toward achievement of Forest objective 205.

Hardwoods Alternative 2 would conduct hardwood enhancement activities on a total of 620 acres. Hardwood enhancement treatments include mechanical treatment to remove conifers greater than 9” DBH from the sites. Conifers less than 9” DBH would be hinged and left on site to protect hardwood regeneration from browsing. Hinging is an effective method to deter browsing in the Black Hills (Kota and Bartos 2005). Prescribed burning would follow mechanical treatments on 199 acres, primarily in bur oak sites, to kill small ponderosa pine (<1” DBH) in the understory and to create conditions conducive to bur oak regeneration. Burning is also proposed as a stand-alone treatment on 24 acres.

Additionally, all conifers greater than 9” DBH within 30’ of quaking aspen, birch and bur oak inclusions would be removed in treated ponderosa pine sites.

Untreated hardwood stands would benefit from the MPB-caused mortality of overstory ponderosa pine and result in reduced competition for sunlight and nutrients. However, ponderosa pine smaller than 3” DBH would likely escape beetle-caused mortality and barring a disturbance, remain to eventually compete with hardwoods. The pine would eventually shade out the hardwoods and result in a cover type change.

This alternative contributes toward Forest Plan Objectives 201, 204 and 5.4A-205, 5.4A-206.

53 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Quaking Aspen Alternative 2 would result in more of an increase in acres of aspen stands than in Alternative 1, due to proposed treatments. This alternative would mechanically treat approximately 351 acres to release quaking aspen from competing conifers and contribute to the hardwood enhancement habitat objective. Approximately 94 of these acres would change from a ponderosa pine cover type to a quaking aspen cover type following treatment.

All ponderosa pine would be removed within 100 feet of all hardwood enhancement treatments in quaking aspen to exclude the pine seed source from the areas adjacent to hardwood sites and prolong the onset of pine encroachment. All conifers less than 9 inches DBH in these areas would be hinged and left on site to protect aspen shoots from browsing.

The hardwood enhancement treatments allow quaking aspen sites to receive more light, moisture and nutrients; promoting root suckering and improving the vigor of these sites (Shepperd and Battaglia 2002).Increased sunlight warming the ground would immediately stimulate aspen regeneration through root suckering, expanding existing clones outward a distance up to 1 to 1.5 tree heights (Shepperd and Battaglia 2002). The flush of new aspen suckers would experience an immediate increase in browsing damage. However, the large amount of ponderosa pine snags projected to fall would mitigate the browsing pressure by physically blocking deer, elk and livestock from the suckers. The expected structural stages of aspen stands in Alternative 2, in the project area are displayed in Table 23.

Table 23. Alternative 2 Aspen Structural Stages in Year 2020

Structural Stage Existing Acres Alt 1 Acres Alt 2 Acres SS1 0 0 0 SS2 68 778 793 SS3A 146 224 239 SS3B 10 10 10 SS3C 0 0 0 SS4A 153 203 339 SS4B 17 8 0 SS4C 43 44 0 SS5 6 6 6 Total 443 1,273 1,387

Paper Birch This alternative would specifically treat approximately 4 acres in one site to release paper birch from competing conifers and meet the hardwood enhancement habitat objective. The site would be re-typed from ponderosa pine to paper birch.

The hardwood enhancement treatment allows the paper birch site to receive more light, moisture and nutrients; improving the vigor of the site. Ground disturbance from harvesting operations, along with increased sunlight should promote paper birch regeneration. Paper birch regeneration and expansion is expected to be minimal without a disturbance exposing bare mineral soil. Prescribed burning could benefit paper birch in the project area by exposing bare mineral soil.

Bur Oak This alternative would specifically treat 241 acres to release bur oak from competing conifers and meet the hardwood enhancement habitat objective. Approximately 108 of these acres would change from a ponderosa pine cover type to a bur oak cover type following treatment.

54 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

All ponderosa pine would be removed within 100 feet of most hardwood release treatments in bur oak to exclude the pine seed source from the areas adjacent to hardwood sites and prolong the onset of pine encroachment. The exception is bur oak sites adjacent to the Galena Fire area.

The hardwood enhancement treatments allow bur oak sites to receive more light, moisture and nutrients; improving the vigor of these sites.

The lack of ground disturbance exposing bare mineral soil would limit bur oak regeneration and expansion (Shepperd and Battaglia 2002). Prescribed burning could benefit bur oak in the project area by exposing bare mineral soil and stimulating stump sprouting.

Ponderosa Pine Acres of ponderosa pine would decrease 280 acres more under this alternative than Alternative 1 due to active management to remove encroaching pine from other cover types. Ponderosa pine mortality caused by mountain pine beetle would convert approximately 1,107 acres of ponderosa pine to white spruce, quaking aspen and bur oak. Approximately 446 acres of ponderosa pine would be re-typed to other cover types following treatment. The distribution of ponderosa pine structural stages would experience great change due to mountain pine beetle-caused mortality, mechanical treatments and prescribed burning. Mechanical treatments, combined with extensive mountain pine beetle mortality in the Black Elk Wilderness would likely move the project area towards Objective 5.4A-201 by creating and maintaining a variety of structural stages and cover types. Alternative 2 would retain more sites in a mature successional stage (4A) than Alternative 1. Table 24 provides a comparison of the existing pine structural stages, as well as those projected to result from Alternatives 1 and 2.

Table 24. Comparison of Ponderosa Pine Structural Stages for the Existing Condition, Alternative 1 – No Action, and Alternative 2, projected to year 2020.

Existing Condition Structural Stage Alternative 1 Acres Alternative 2 Acres Acres 1 706 1,876 2,135 2 2,062 13,287 11,823 3A 699 739 755 3B 525 97 97 3C 701 114 114 4A 6,036 7,803 8,777 4B 8,053 65 0 4C 5,289 0 0 5 1,183 0 0 Total 25,254 23,981 23,701

Approximately 25 percent of the deferred ponderosa pine acres currently in structural stages 4B, 4C and 5 would escape complete overstory mortality and change to structural stage 4A. Small pockets of the ponderosa pine acres not mechanically treated currently in structural stages 4B, 4C and 5 would escape overstory mortality and remain in structural stages 4B, 4C and 5 in groups less than five acres scattered across the project area (Allen 2009). The unpredictable nature of mountain pine beetle-caused mortality at a small scale prevents predicting the location of these remaining dense groups within the project area.

55 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Ponderosa pine sites currently in structural stages 3A and 4A; as well as sites mechanically treated and changed the structural staged 3A and 4A are expected to experience limited mortality, but retain their overall structure. Small diameter structural stage 3B and 3C sites outside of the Wilderness may escape extensive mortality and retain their structure (Allen 2009). Sites with existing or projected to be treated to a 4A structural stage are expected to develop into dense mature sites in a much quicker timeframe than sites reduced to a structural stage 1 or 2.

The untreated 4B and 4C sites would experience mountain pine beetle-caused mortality and change to structural stages 1 and 2. It is estimated that it would take approximately 100-150 years for structural stage 1 and 2 sites to develop back into dense, mature structural stages 4B and 4C. Sites currently in structural stage 4A and sites mechanically treated to structural stage 4A would develop into structural stage 4B or 4C in approximately 20-30 years. This alternative results in more structural stage 4A than Alternative 1.

Alternative 2 does not propose any treatment within the Black Elk Wilderness. The mountain pine beetle progression within the Wilderness is expected to be the same as displayed under no action. Therefore, acres of pine and pine structural stages within the Black Elk Wilderness are projected to be the same as those expected under Alternative 1, No Action. The area outside of the Wilderness is proposed for active management. There is expected to be a reduction in the total acres of pine as a result of these treatments. Changes in the pine structural stages would also occur due to both management actions, as well as mountain pine beetle caused mortality. Alternative 2 is expected to result in a larger percentage (47%) of mature pine stands remaining on lands outside of the Wilderness, than in Alternative 1 (39%). Table 25 displays expected pine structural stages within and outside of the Wilderness, in year 2020.

Table 25. Existing and Projected Pine Structural Stages for Alternative 2 at Year 2020; for Areas within and outside of the Black Elk Wilderness

Within Black Elk Wilderness Outside of Black Elk Wilderness Pine Structural Existing Existing Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 1 Alt 2 Stage Condition Condition Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres 1 193 193 193 513 1,683 1,942 2 1,794 8,449 8,449 268 4,838 3,374 3A 329 310 310 370 429 445 3B 231 0 0 294 97 97 3C 382 0 0 319 114 114 4A 3,083 3,376 3,376 2,953 4,427 5,401 4B 2,916 0 0 5,137 65 0 4C 3,830 0 0 1,459 0 0 5 398 0 0 785 0 0 Total 13,156 12,328 12,328 12,098 11,653 11,373

White Spruce Alternative 2 is projected to result in slightly more (5) acres of spruce than in Alternative 1. Overall, the minor component of white spruce in the project area increases in acreage due to mortality of overstory ponderosa pine in untreated mixed-species sites. This expansion is mainly limited to moist, stream bottoms. However, the large mountain pine beetle population would also kill mature spruce in dense stands, leaving the white spruce advance regeneration (Allen 2009). Most of the dense, untreated white spruce sites are expected to change to structural stage 2.

56 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

This alternative would treat approximately 78 acres of white spruce sites outside of the Wilderness for the spruce enhancement habitat objective. These treatments reduce the overstory density in white spruce sites by removing all of the competing ponderosa pine in the spruce release treatments and 50% of the ponderosa pine in site 0601703-3. This increases the amount of sunlight and nutrients available for tree growth. Removing the competing ponderosa pine would reduce the site density enough to create another age-class of shade tolerant white spruce. Treatment also reduces the susceptibility to mountain pine beetle-caused mortality. However, reducing the density in white spruce sites increases the chance of windthrow of this shallow- rooted species (Sheppard and Battaglia 2002). No white spruce would be cut in these treatments. These treatments in this alternative move the project area towards Objectives 5.4A-206 and 239- LVD better than Alternative 1.

Table 26. Alternative 2 Projected White Spruce Structural Stages, Project Area in year 2020 Structural Stage Existing Acres Alt 1 Acres Alt 2 Acres SS1 0 56 0 SS2 0 464 452 SS3A 0 0 0 SS3B 0 0 0 SS3C 0 0 0 SS4A 202 17 90 SS4B 9 0 0 SS4C 0 0 0 SS5 40 0 0 Total 251 537 542

Shrubs Alternative 2 would result in an 8 acre (nearly 20%) increase of shrub sites. Proposed treatments would release approximately 52 acres of shrub sites from competing ponderosa pine for the shrub enhancement habitat objective and moving the project area towards Objective 5.4A-204. Removing ponderosa pine from these sites would make more light, moisture and nutrients available to shrub species, improving production of browse and forage for wildlife. All 52 acres would receive prescribed burning following mechanical treatment to stimulate shrub and grass production.

This alternative would mechanically treat approximately 4,935 acres. These treatments would result in an increase in light, moisture and nutrients available for understory vegetation by reducing tree density. Sites treated to a lower density contain more understory browse and forage for wildlife than sites treated to a higher density (Shepperd and Battaglia 2002).

This alternative also proposes to prescribe burn 2,158 acres outside of the Wilderness. Prescribed burning can increase understory production and species richness in untreated and thinned sites (Wienk et al. 2004). However, areas of high mountain pine beetle-cause mortality could burn intense enough to destroy the understory seedbank and temporarily sterilize the soil, leading to reduced understory production.

Understory production is expected to increase in untreated areas due to mountain pine beetle- caused mortality of overstory ponderosa pine, which allows sunlight to reach the forest floor in sites without a dense ponderosa pine understory.

57 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Untreated shrub sites in the project area would continue to experience encroachment from ponderosa pine. The ponderosa pine encroaching on shrub sites is either not large enough or dense enough to experience heavy mountain pine beetle-caused mortality.

Other Habitat Components

Large Trees This alternative would preserve more large trees than Alternative 1 by changing the structural stage of approximately 2,078 acres from 4B and 4C (high risk of mountain pine beetle-caused mortality) to 4A (low risk of mountain pine beetle-caused mortality). Treatments on the majority of these acres would leave the largest trees. The developing mountain pine beetle infestation within the project area is expected to reduce the majority of large trees in untreated sites with structural stages 4B, 4C and 5; as well as treated sites retaining structural stages 4B, 4C and 5 (Allen 2009).

Trees 16” and greater in diameter would be retained along forest road 351, the same as in all action alternatives.

Snags and Down Woody Material The project area would continue to exceed the snag density in Forest Objective 211, and down woody material objective 212, due mainly to mountain pine beetle caused mortality. Mountain pine beetles are expected to create a large number of snags throughout the project area. Trees killed by mountain pine beetles generally fall after 5 years (Schmid et al. 2009). It is expected that somewhat fewer snags would be created in this alternative, than Alternative 1, because the proposed vegetation treatments would reduce conifer stand’s susceptibility to beetles. More green trees are expected to be retained on the landscape, and thus, fewer snags would be created than in the ‘no action’ alternative. The cutting of snags would be prohibited unless they are deemed a safety hazard. No standing dead fuelwood cutting areas are proposed within any alternative.

Proposed prescribed burning, outside of the Black Elk Wilderness, on approximately 2,158 acres has the potential to destroy snags (depending on timing of the burn), especially snags that have high fuel loadings surrounding them at the base. However, design criteria is included with all alternatives to protect snags during burning operations. Prescribed fire may also create snags by killing live trees. Snags created by fire may stand longer than those created by insect attacks. Saab et al. (2006) found little change in snag density in ponderosa pine following a prescribed burn. Burning would be expected to reduce the available downed woody material in the project area however, sufficient amounts would remain.

This alternative would meet or exceed Forest Plan Objectives 211 and 212. In addition, this alternative would also be consistent with Forest Plan standards 2301, 2304 and 2308. No snags would be cut unless they are deemed a safety hazard, cutting of snags for fuelwood, outside of designated fuelwood areas would not be allowed, and sufficient downed woody material would remain.

Riparian Vegetation This alternative would not mechanically treat riparian vegetation. Mechanical treatments adjacent to riparian areas would benefit riparian vegetation by removing ponderosa pine. Prescribed burning would have limited effects to riparian vegetation as it would occur when snow cover or ground moisture is sufficient to protect riparian areas from burning.

58 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Thermal Cover and Forage The predicted effects to thermal cover and Objective 5.4A-210 (a) are expected to be the same as in Alternative 1due to the effects from mountain pine beetle caused mortality and proposed management actions. Only 114 acres of thermal cover would remain as SS 3C. No 4C and 5 would remain.

Alternative 2 would utilize group selection treatments on 871 acres to create an uneven-aged structure across entire sites by creating even-aged groups of different ages within the treated site. Openings would be created within sites proposed for group selection and these openings would be up to 2 acres in size. The openings created by the group selection treatments in this alternative would move the project area towards Objective 5.4A-210 (b).

Late-Succession This alternative would implement treatments to reduce the potential for loss of these stands to wildfire and to encourage future development of late-succession characteristics. However, late- succession stands are highly susceptible to mountain pine beetle and are expected to experience heavy conifer mortality as a result. None of the proposed late-succession enhancement treatments would reduce their susceptibility to MPB. Treatments in surrounding stands could provide reduced potential for loss to MPB.

It is predicted that no stands of late-successional habitat would remain within the project area by year 2020, due to mountain pine beetle caused mortality. There is a potential for inclusions with a late succession condition, up to 5 acres in size, to occur on the landscape, the size or extent of which is unknown. For this analysis it is estimated that approximately 75% of current late succession stands would be converted to structural stages 1 or 2 and approximately 25% would retain a mature tree component and convert to structural stage 4A. These estimates are based on professional knowledge and local experience given the existing beetle populations and available habitat.

Conifer Successional Stages in Management Area 5.4A Effects to conifer successional stages from mountain pine beetle-caused mortality and vegetation treatments would be expected to move the conifer successional stages defined in Objective 5.4A- 203 further away from the objective, but not as much as in Alternative 1. The majority of conifer acres would be in the Provide Forage stage by 2020. Very few acres would be in the Young and Mature and the Natural Succession stages following treatment the mountain pine beetle infestation. However, conifer sites treated to a 3A and 4A structural stage or already in a 3A or 4A structural stage, can be expected to survive the mountain pine beetle infestation and grow into the Young and Mature stage within 20 to 30 years. This alternative would create more structural stage 3A and 4A than Alternative 1.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Cover Types and Structural Diversity Alternative 3 is also projected to result in substantial changes to both acres of cover type, as well as, acres of structural stage diversity for ponderosa pine. The proposed activities would reduce the density of pine stands and target removal of encroaching pine from other cover types to achieve habitat objectives. This alternative would result in approximately the same increase of acres in meadow, white spruce, bur oak and shrubs, as projected in Alternative 2. It would,

59 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

however, further increase acres of aspen, provide a different combination of structural stages of ponderosa pine and further protect large trees, as compared to Alternative 2. Alternative 3 would also release riparian vegetation and greatly increase available snag habitat. Other habitat components such as large trees and dense pine stands would be greatly reduced on the landscape, but to a lesser degree than in Alternative 2. This alternative is the only proposed alternative which would effect a change in acres of cover type within the Black Elk Wilderness. It is projected that 54 acres of ponderosa pine would convert to aspen as a result of the proposed prescribed burning in the Black Elk Wilderness. No change would occur to the rock and water cover types. Table 27 displays the existing and projected cover types in the project area, for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. Changes in structural stages for ponderosa pine are discussed below, under ponderosa pine.

Table 27. Comparison of Cover Types for Existing Condition, No Action and Alternative 2 and 3 at Year 2020

Existing Alt 1 -No Action Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Cover Type Condition Acres/Percentage Acres/Percentage Acres/Percentage Acres/Percentage Meadow 356 / 1% 356 / 1% 395 / 2% 395 / 2% Quaking Aspen 443 / 2% 1,273 / 5% 1,387* / 5% 1,454* / 5% Ponderosa Pine 25,254 / 95% 23,981 / 90% 23,701 / 89% 23,634 / 88% White Spruce 251 / <1% 537 / 2% 542 / 2% 542 / 2% Bur Oak 158 / <1% 315 / 1% 429 / 2% 429 / 2% Shrub 44/ <1% 44 / <1% 52 / <1% 52 / <1% Non-Vegetated (water and 221 / <1 % 221 / <1% 221 / <1% 221 / <1% rock) *this figure includes 4 acres of paper birch

Meadows/Grasslands A total of 297 acres of mechanical and prescribed burning treatments to meet the meadow enhancement objective would occur in Alternative 3, which is 21 acres more than in Alternative 2. Meadow habitat would increase by approximately 39 acres over existing conditions, same as in Alternative 2. All of the meadow enhancement increases would occur outside of the Black Elk Wilderness. Following treatment, acres of meadow in Alternative 3 would be the same as described in Alternative 2. However, large pine trees ≥20” DBH would remain in approximately 139 acres (35%) of meadow habitat to provide for wildlife species which utilize large trees. These large trees would provide a seed source and consequently contribute to future pine encroachment of these meadow sites, reducing the long term benefit. As a result, Alternative 3 would move the project area towards Objective 205, but to a lesser degree than Alternative 2.

Prescribed burning would follow all mechanical treatments to stimulate forage production, except on approximately 30 acres in Sunday Gulch. These treatments are expected to create and prolong conditions favorable to producing forage for wildlife.

Effects to untreated meadow sites in Alternative 3 would remain the same as described in Alternative 2.

Hardwoods Alternative 3 would conduct hardwood enhancement activities on approximately 629 acres, which is an increase of 9 acres over Alternative 2.

60 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

In addition to the increase in acres treated, Alternative 3 also differs from Alternative 2 in that it would retain conifers 20” DBH and greater, in selected areas, as described below. This may appear to be inconsistent with Standard 2205 which states that all conifers should be removed when treating mixed conifer/hardwood stands to meet Forestwide objective 201. However, in this project area, hardwood enhancement treatments are proposed to provide a particular wildlife habitat component. Large tree retention in these sites is important for 4 of the focus species. Ruffed grouse, brown creeper and black-backed woodpecker would use these large conifers for foraging habitat and the northern goshawk for perching. While some of these treated areas may contribute to Objective 201, not all treated hardwood sites are for this purpose. Therefore, the retention of conifers ≥20” DBH, as proposed, is consistent with Standard 2205.

Other features of the hardwood enhancement treatments would be the same as described in Alternative 2.

Effects to untreated hardwood sites would be the same as in Alternative 2.

Quaking Aspen This alternative is the only proposed alternative that would effect a change in acres of cover type within the Black Elk Wilderness. It is projected that 54 acres of ponderosa pine would convert to aspen as a result of the proposed prescribed burning. Alternative 3 would treat approximately 382 acres to release quaking aspen from competing conifer vegetation for the hardwood enhancement habitat objective, which is 7 acres more than in Alternative 2. Approximately 201 of these acres would change from a ponderosa pine cover type to a quaking aspen cover type following treatment. This alternative would increase acres of aspen by 177 and 67 acres over Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively. This alternative moves towards Objectives 5.4A-205 and 201.

Hardwood enhancement treatments in this alternative would differ from that proposed in Alternative 2 in that some treatments retain conifers, 20” DBH and greater. These conifers would not be removed in sites 030210-18 and 030209-86 (62 acres); within 100 feet of aspen sites treated for the hardwood enhancement objective; or within and 30 feet from the perimeter of aspen inclusions within treated pine sites. Leaving conifers ≥20” DBH would provide for specific wildlife habitat features within these stands. These large trees also provide a seed source which would allow for a new cohort of ponderosa pine to establish itself and compete with the aspen.

The expected structural stages of aspen stands in the project area are displayed in table 28.

Table 28. Alternative 3 Aspen Structural Stages in Year 2020

Structural Stage Existing Acres Alt 1 Acres Alt 2 Acres Alt 3 Acres SS1 0 0 0 0 SS2 68 778 793 846 SS3A 146 224 239 248 SS3B 10 10 10 10 SS3C 0 0 0 0 SS4A 153 203 339 344 SS4B 17 8 0 0 SS4C 43 44 0 0 SS5 6 6 6 6 TOTAL 443 1,273 1,387 1,454

61 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Paper Birch This alternative would treat the same acres, in the same manner for paper birch, as described in Alternative 2, resulting in the same increase of 4 acres of birch sites. This alternative contributes towards Objectives 5.4A-205 and 204.

What differs in Alternative 3 is that within paper birch inclusions of treated ponderosa pine sites, conifers >, 20” DBH would be retained. These large trees contribute an important feature of wildlife habitat.

Bur Oak This alternative would treat approximately 217 acres to release bur oak from competing conifer vegetation for the hardwood enhancement habitat objective, which is the same as Alternative 2. Approximately 108 of these acres would change from a ponderosa pine cover type to a bur oak cover type following treatment, which is the same as Alternative 2.

Hardwood enhancement treatments in this alternative would differ from that proposed in Alternative 2 in that conifers >, 20” DBH would not be removed in site 030209-08 (34 acres). All conifers would be removed or hinged in all other hardwood releases in bur oak. Conifers less than 9” DBH would be hinged and left on site to protect aspen suckers from browsing.

All conifers less than 20” DBH would be removed within 100 feet of most bur oak sites with hardwood release treatments, to exclude the pine seed source from the areas adjacent to hardwood sites and prolong the onset of pine encroachment. Conifers >, 20” DBH would also be retained within bur oak inclusions in treated pine sites. All ponderosa pine greater than 9” DBH within 30 feet of these inclusions would be removed. Conifers less than 9” DBH in these areas would be hinged and left on site.

This hardwood enhancement treatment would allow bur oak sites to receive more light, moisture and nutrients; improving the vigor of these sites. Leaving ponderosa pine >, 20” DBH would provide for specific wildlife habitat features within these stands. These large trees also provide a seed source which would allow for a new cohort of ponderosa pine to establish itself and compete with the bur oak.

Ponderosa Pine Alternative 3 would result in the largest decrease in acres of ponderosa pine, of any alternative, 1,620 acres. Approximately 277 acres of ponderosa pine would be re-typed to other cover types following mechanical treatment. An additional 230 acres of ponderosa pine would convert to other cover types following prescribed burning. Ponderosa pine mortality caused by mountain pine beetle would convert approximately 1,113 acres of ponderosa pine to white spruce, quaking aspen and bur oak. The distribution of ponderosa pine structural stages would likely experience great change due to mountain pine beetle-caused mortality, mechanical treatments and prescribed burning. Mechanical treatments, combined with extensive mountain pine beetle mortality in the Black Elk Wilderness would likely move the project area towards Objective 5.4A-201 better than Alternative 2 by treating more acres overall to create and maintain a variety of structural stages and cover types. Table 29 provides a comparison of the existing pine structural stages, as well as those projected to result from Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.

62 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Table 29. Comparison of Ponderosa Pine Structural Stages for the Existing Condition, Alternative 1 – No Action, and Alternatives 2 and 3, projected to year 2020.

Existing Structural Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Condition Stage Acres Acres Acres Acres 1 706 1,876 2,135 6,148 2 2,062 13,287 11,823 8,444 3A 699 739 755 754 3B 525 97 97 97 3C 701 114 114 114 4A 6,036 7,803 8,777 8,077 4B 8,053 65 0 0 4C 5,289 0 0 0 5 1,183 0 0 0 Total 25,254 23,981 23,701 23,634

Alternative 3 does propose treatment, prescribed burning, within the Black Elk Wilderness. As a result of the proposed burning, it is expected that the acres of pine within the Wilderness would be reduced by 54 acres, and would be converted to aspen. The burning is also expected to cause a substantial change in pine structural stages within the Wilderness, most notably an increase of structural stage 1. The area outside of the Wilderness is proposed for active management on less total acres than in Alternative 2. This alternative is expected to result in the fewest total acres of pine, in any alternative, as a result of these treatments. Alternative 3 is expected to result in a larger percentage (52%) of mature pine stands remaining on lands outside of the Wilderness, than in Alternatives 1 (39%) or 2 (47%). Table 30 displays expected acres of pine structural stages within and outside of the Wilderness, in year 2020.

Table 30. Existing and Projected Pine Structural Stages for Alternative 3 at Year 2020; for Areas within and outside of the Black Elk Wilderness

Outside of Black Elk Wilderness Within Black Elk Wilderness Pine Structural Existing Existing Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Stage Condition Condition Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres 1 193 193 193 4,460 513 1,683 1,942 1,688 2 1,794 8,449 8,449 5,348 268 4,838 3,374 3,096 3A 329 310 310 310 370 429 445 444 3B 231 0 0 0 294 97 97 97 3C 382 0 0 0 319 114 114 114 4A 3,083 3,376 3,376 2,156 2,953 4,427 5,401 5,921 4B 2,916 0 0 0 5,137 65 0 0 4C 3,830 0 0 0 1,459 0 0 0 5 398 0 0 0 785 0 0 0 Total 13,156 12,328 12,328 12,274 12,098 11,653 11,373 11,360

White Spruce The acres of white spruce are expected to be the same as in Alternative 2. Structural stages, however, differ due to expected changes caused by prescribed burning within the Wilderness (see Table 31).

63 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Effects to white spruce outside the Wilderness are expected to be the same as in Alternative 2. Within the Wilderness, prescribed burning is expected to move more (66 acres) of spruce to SS1 than Alternative 2. The proposed burning is expected to kill spruce advanced regeneration on these acres.

Table 31. Alternative 3 Projected White Spruce Structural Stages within the Norbeck Project Area at year 2020

Structural Stage Existing Acres Alt 1 Acres Alt 2 Acres Alt 3 Acres SS1 0 56 0 66 SS2 0 464 452 386 SS3A 0 0 0 0 SS3B 0 0 0 0 SS3C 0 0 0 0 SS4A 202 17 90 90 SS4B 9 0 0 0 SS4C 0 0 0 0 SS5 40 0 0 0 Total 251 537 542 542

Shrubs Alternative 3 would increase the acres of shrub sites in the same manner as described under Alternative 2. This alternative would mechanically treat 212 less acres than Alternative 2. These treatments result in an increase in light, moisture and nutrients available for understory vegetation by reducing tree density. Sites treated to a lower density contain more understory browse and forage for wildlife than sites treated to a higher density (Shepperd and Battaglia 2002).

This alternative differs from Alternative 2 in that it proposes to prescribe burn 5,291 acres within the Black Elk Wilderness and would increase burning outside of the Wilderness to 2,211 acres (53 acres more than Alternative 2). The increase in burning outside of the Wilderness is to burn previously created forage areas for mountain goat habitat. Prescribed burning can increase understory production and species richness in untreated and thinned sites (Wienk et al. 2004). However, areas of high mountain pine beetle-cause mortality could burn intense enough to destroy the understory seedbank and temporarily sterilize the soil, leading to reduced understory production.

Overall, this alternative would benefit shrubs and understory vegetation more than Alternatives 1 and 2 through the combination of mechanical treatments and prescribed burning. Effects to understory vegetation in untreated sites and effects to shrubs sites would be the same as described in Alternative 2.

Other Habitat Components

Large Trees Alternative 3 would retain more large trees than the no action alternative by changing the structural stage of approximately 2,046 acres from 4B and 4C (high risk of mountain pine beetle- caused mortality) to 4A (low risk of mountain pine beetle-caused mortality). This is slightly less (32 acres) than in Alternative 2. However, this alternative includes design criteria to retain large trees (20” DBH and greater) on approximately 234 acres treated for the meadow enhancement

64 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 and hardwood enhancement habitat objectives, as well as within treated hardwood inclusions found in ponderosa pine sites.

Trees 16” and greater in diameter would be retained along forest road 351, the same as in all action alternatives.

Treatments on the majority of these acres would leave the largest trees. The developing mountain pine beetle infestation within the project area is expected to reduce the majority of large trees in untreated sites with structural stages 4B, 4C and 5; as well as treated sites retaining structural stages 4B, 4C and 5 (Allen 2009).

Snags and Downed Woody Material The project area would continue to exceed the snag density in Forest Objective 211, and down woody material objective 212, due mainly to mountain pine beetle caused mortality. Mountain pine beetles are expected to create a large number of snags throughout the project area. Trees killed by mountain pine beetles generally fall after 5 years (Schmid et al. 2009). Fewer green trees are expected to be retained on the landscape than in Alternative 2, and thus, more snags could be created in this alternative. The cutting of snags would be prohibited unless they are deemed a safety hazard. No standing dead fuelwood cutting areas are proposed within any alternative.

Under Alternative 3, prescribed burning is proposed in the Black Elk Wilderness. No mechanical treatments would occur prior to burning. Because the mountain pine beetle is currently killing entire stands of trees in this area, snags and downed woody material levels would be high. Consequently, prescribed fire may consume a large portion of the snags and downed wood, especially snags that have high fuel loadings surrounding them at the base.

Proposed prescribed burning outside of the Black Elk Wilderness in Alternative 3 would occur on more acres (2,211 acres) than in Alternative 2 (2,158 acres). However, these additional acres would be to maintain existing openings and therefore, impacts to snags and downed woody material outside of the Wilderness would be the same as described in Alternative 2. Sufficient amounts of downed woody material and snags would remain.

This alternative would meet or exceed Forest Plan Objectives 211 and 212. In addition, this alternative would also be consistent with Forest Plan standards 2301, 2304 and 2308. No snags would be cut unless they are deemed a safety hazard, cutting of snags for fuelwood, outside of designated areas, would not be allowed, and sufficient downed woody material would remain.

Riparian Vegetation Effects to riparian vegetation are expected to be the same as in Alternative 2 with the exception that additional riparian areas, in the Black Elk Wilderness, would be prescribe burned. Prescribed burning could benefit riparian vegetation in the Wilderness by reducing overstory density and competition. Prescribed burning could also harm riparian vegetation by preparing proper conditions for noxious weed establishment.

Thermal Cover and Forage Effects to thermal cover and Objective 5.4A-210 (a) are expected to be the same as in Alternative 1 and 2. Only 114 acres of thermal cover would remain as SS 3C. No 4C and 5 would remain.

65 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Forage is expected to increase similar to Alternative 2. This alternative (3) treats 119 less acres with the group selection treatment than Alternative 2, and therefore, would not move toward Objective 5.4A-210 (b) as well as Alternative 2.

Late-Succession This alternative would implement fewer acres of treatments for late-succession enhancement as compared to Alternative 2. Therefore, a somewhat higher potential for loss of late succession to wildfire would result in this alternative. The acres of treatments to develop future late successional habitat is less than in Alternative 2. The impacts expected from MPB are the same as described in Alternative 2. In summary, this alternative is expected to have less benefit to late succession habitat than alternative 2.

Conifer Successional Stages in Management Area 5.4A The majority of conifer acres would be in the Forage stage by 2020. Very few acres would be in the Young and Mature and the Natural Succession stages following treatment the mountain pine beetle infestation. However, conifer sites treated to a 3A and 4A structural stage or already in a 3A or 4A structural stage can be expected to survive the mountain pine beetle infestation and grow into the Young and Mature stage within 20 to 30 years. This alternative would create more structural stage 3A and 4A than Alternatives 1 and 2. Therefore, Alternative 3 would provide more opportunity to move the project area toward the conifer successional stages as defined in Objective 5.4A-203, than Alternatives 1 and 2.

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Cover Types and Structural Diversity Alternative 4, like all the other alternatives, would result in substantial changes in acres of cover type and acres of structural stage diversity for ponderosa pine. The proposed activities would reduce the density of pine stands and target removal of encroaching pine from other cover types to achieve habitat objectives. This alternative would result in approximately the same increase of acres in meadow, white spruce, bur oak and shrubs, as projected in Alternatives 2 and 3. It would, however, result in a moderate level of increased aspen acres, between those projected in Alternatives 2 and 3, provide a different combination of structural stages of ponderosa pine and further protect large trees, as compared to Alternatives 2 and 3. Alternative 4 would also release riparian vegetation and greatly increase available snag habitat. All predicted changes in cover types would occur outside of the Black Elk Wilderness. No change would occur to the Rock and Water cover types. Table 32 displays the existing and projected cover types in the project area, for All Alternatives. Changes in structural stages for ponderosa pine are discussed below, under ponderosa pine.

66 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Table 32. Comparison of Cover Types for Existing Condition and All Alternatives at Year 2020

Existing Alt 1 -No Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Cover Type Condition Action Acres/Percent Acres/Percent Acres/Percent Acres/Percent Acres/Percent Meadow 356 / 1% 356 / 1% 395 / 2% 395 / 2% 395 / 2% Quaking 443 / 2% 1,273 / 5% 1,387* / 5% 1,454* / 5% 1,396* / 5% Aspen Ponderosa 25,254 / 95% 23,981 / 90% 23,701 / 89% 23,634 / 88% 23,692 / 89% Pine White Spruce 251 / <1% 537 / 2% 542 / 2% 542 / 2% 542 / 2% Bur Oak 158 / <1% 315 / 1% 429 / 2% 429 / 2% 429 / 2% Shrub 44/ <1% 44 / <1% 52 / <1% 52 / <1% 52 / <1% Non- Vegetated 221 / <1 % 221 / <1% 221 / <1% 221 / <1% 221 / <1% (water and rock) *this figure includes 4 acres of paper birch

Meadows/Grasslands Effects to meadows would be the same as described in Alternative 3.

Hardwoods Quaking Aspen Effects to quaking aspen outside of the Black Elk Wilderness are expected to be the same as described in Alternative 3. However, acres of aspen increased within the Black Elk Wilderness would be expected to be less than Alternative 3 due to the design criteria included to selectively burn where green trees remain following the mountain pine beetle outbreak. The expected structural stages of designated aspen stands in the project area are displayed in Table 33.

Table 33. Alternative 4 Aspen Structural Stages in Year 2020

Existing Structural Stage Alt 1 Acres Alt 2 Acres Alt 3 Acres Alt 4 Acres Acres SS1 0 0 0 0 0 SS2 68 778 793 846 792 SS3A 146 224 239 248 248 SS3B 10 10 10 10 10 SS3C 0 0 0 0 0 SS4A 153 203 339 344 340 SS4B 17 8 0 0 0 SS4C 43 44 0 0 0 SS5 6 6 6 6 6 Total 443 1,273 1,387 1,454 1,396

Paper Birch and Bur Oak Effects to paper birch and bur oak are expected to be the same as in Alternative 3.

Ponderosa Pine This alternative would reduce acres of pine by 1,562 acres over the existing condition. This is a moderate decrease in acres of ponderosa pine cover type, between Alternatives 2 and 3. Overall pine acres are expected to be slightly less than in Alternative 2 (8 acres) and more than Alternative 3 (58 acres) under this alternative. Approximately 280 acres of ponderosa pine would

67 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

be re-typed to other cover types following treatment. Prescribed burning would convert approximately 196 acres of ponderosa pine to other cover types. Ponderosa pine mortality caused by mountain pine beetle is expected to convert approximately 1,086 acres of ponderosa pine to white spruce, quaking aspen and bur oak.

The distribution of ponderosa pine structural stages is expected to experience great change due to mountain pine beetle-caused mortality, mechanical treatments and prescribed burning. Alternative 4 would be expected to retain the most acres of structural stage 4A at year 2020. These areas of 4A would be expected to develop into dense mature stands in a much more rapid timeframe (20-30- years) than those reduced to structural stage 1 or 2 (100-150 years). This alternative treats the most acres and best moves the project area towards Objective 5.4A-201. Table 34 provides a comparison of the existing pine structural stages, as well as those projected to result from All Alternatives.

Table 34. Comparison of Ponderosa Pine Structural Stages for the Existing Condition, and All Alternatives, projected to year 2020

Existing Structural Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Condition Stage Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres 1 706 1,876 2,135 6,148 1,355 2 2,062 13,287 11,823 8,444 11,648 3A 699 739 755 754 754 3B 525 97 97 97 97 3C 701 114 114 114 114 4A 6,036 7,803 8,777 8,077 9,724 4B 8,053 65 0 0 0 4C 5,289 0 0 0 0 5 1,183 0 0 0 0 Total 25,254 23,981 23,701 23,634 23,692

Alternative 4, like Alternative 3, proposes prescribed burning within the Black Elk Wilderness. However, this alternative includes design criteria which would prohibit burning within areas which are stocked or where mature trees survive the beetle outbreak. Therefore, no changes to acres of pine or pine structural stages within the Wilderness are expected as a result of this alternative. The area outside of the Wilderness is proposed for the most acres of active management of any alternative. As a result, more acres of mature pine are expected to remain on the landscape, outside the Wilderness, than the other alternatives. Alternative 4 is expected to result in the largest percentage (55%) of mature pine stands in year 2020, than all other alternatives. Table 35 displays expected acres of pine structural stages within and outside of the Wilderness, in year 2020.

68 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Table 35. Existing and Projected Pine Structural Stages for Alternative 4 at Year 2020; for Areas within and outside of the Black Elk Wilderness

Within Black Elk Wilderness Outside of Black Elk Wilderness Pine Existing Existing Structural Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Condition Condition Stage Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres 1 193 193 193 4,460 193 513 1,683 1,942 1,688 1,162 2 1,794 8,449 8,449 5,348 8,449 268 4,838 3,374 3,096 3,199 3A 329 310 310 310 310 370 429 445 444 444 3B 231 0 0 0 0 294 97 97 97 97 3C 382 0 0 0 0 319 114 114 114 114 4A 3,083 3,376 3,376 2,156 3,376 2,953 4,427 5,401 5,921 6,348 4B 2,916 0 0 0 0 5,137 65 0 0 0 4C 3,830 0 0 0 0 1,459 0 0 0 0 5 398 0 0 0 0 785 0 0 0 0 Total 13,156 12,328 12,328 12,274 12,328 12,098 11,653 11,373 11,360 11,364

White Spruce Effects to white spruce are expected to be the same as described in Alternative 2. The proposed burning within the Wilderness would avoid areas stocked with advanced regeneration and therefore, would not move spruce acres to structural stage 1, as shown in Alternative 3.

Table 36. Projected White Spruce Structural Stages for All Alternative within the Norbeck Project Area in year 2020:

Existing Structural Stage Alt 1 Acres Alt 2 Acres Alt 3 Acres Alt 4 Acres Acres SS1 0 56 0 66 0 SS2 0 464 452 386 452 SS3A 0 0 0 0 0 SS3B 0 0 0 0 0 SS3C 0 0 0 0 0 SS4A 202 17 90 90 90 SS4B 9 0 0 0 0 SS4C 0 0 0 0 0 SS5 40 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 251 537 542 542 542

Shrubs Alternative 4 would increase the acres of shrub sites in the same manner as described under Alternative 2. This alternative mechanically treats the most acres of all alternatives, approximately 5,190 acres. These treatments would result in an increase in light, moisture and nutrients available for understory vegetation by reducing tree density. Sites treated to a lower density contain more understory browse and forage for wildlife than sites treated to a higher density (Shepperd and Battaglia 2002).

This alternative also proposes to prescribe burn up to 5,291 acres within the Black Elk Wilderness and 2,211 acres outside of the Wilderness. The design criteria in this alternative for burning in the Black Elk Wilderness would result in more areas being deferred from burning and lesser overall production from understory vegetation within the Wilderness than Alternative 3. The effects to understory vegetation in burned areas outside of the Wilderness would be the same

69 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

as in Alternative 3. Effects to understory vegetation in untreated areas and shrub sites would be the same as in Alternatives 2 and 3.

Other Habitat Components

Large Trees This alternative would preserve more large trees than all other alternatives by changing the structural stage of approximately 2,566 acres from 4B and 4C (high risk of mountain pine beetle- caused mortality) to 4A (low risk of mountain pine beetle-caused mortality). Treatments on the majority of these acres would leave the largest trees. Structural stage 4A is more resilient to mountain pine beetle infestation because there is less stress to large trees due to the competition for light, nutrients and moisture than in structural stage 4B and 4C. The developing mountain pine beetle infestation within the project area is expected to kill the majority of large trees in untreated sites with structural stages 4B, 4C and 5; as well as and treated sites retaining structural stages 4B, 4C and 5.

Additionally, this alternative would preserve more large trees than Alternative 2 and the same amount as Alternative 3 on approximately 234 acres treated for the meadow enhancement and hardwood enhancement habitat objectives by leaving all ponderosa pine trees >, 20” DBH. This alternative also retains all ponderosa pine >, 20” DBH within treated hardwood inclusions found in ponderosa pine sites.

Overall, Alternative 4 is expected to preserve more large trees than any other alternative, due to a combination of design criteria for large tree retention, limits of prescribed burning mortality within the Wilderness and the most mechanical treatment acres to reduce density in mature pine stands of any other alternative.

Snags and Downed Woody Material As with all other alternatives, it is expected that in this alternative, the project area would continue to exceed the snag density in Forest Objective 211, and down woody material objective 212, due mainly to mountain pine beetle caused mortality. Alternative 4 is expected to retain the greatest amount of green trees of any alternative, and thus, fewer snags could be created in this alternative. Also, because the most acres, of any alternative, would be mechanically treated, there is the highest potential for snag loss as hazard trees. The effects of burning on snags and downed woody material outside of the Wilderness are expected to be the same as in Alternative 3. These impacts are expected to be minor and sufficient downed woody material and snags would remain on the landscape.

This alternative also proposes to prescribe burn, up to the same number of acres as Alternative 3, in the Black Elk Wilderness. However, the full extent of burning in the Wilderness would depend upon conditions of tree stands following the mountain pine beetle outbreak. Stands which remain stocked with green trees would not be burned (see Chapter 2 Alternative 4 design criteria). Therefore, it is expected that less acres of burning within the Wilderness would occur under this alternative and as a result, fewer snags and downed woody material would be consumed by fire.

The cutting of snags would be prohibited unless they are deemed a safety hazard. No standing dead fuelwood cutting areas are proposed within any alternative.

This alternative would meet or exceed Forest Plan Objectives 211 and 212. In addition, this alternative would also be consistent with Forest Plan standards 2301, 2304 and 2308. No snags

70 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 would be cut unless they are deemed a safety hazard, cutting of snags for fuelwood, outside of designated areas, would not be allowed, and sufficient downed woody material would remain.

Riparian Habitat Effects to riparian vegetation would be the same as in Alternative 3.

Thermal Cover and Forage This alternative treats the same amount of acres with group selection treatments as Alternative 3. The effects to forage and Objective 5.4A-210 are the same as Alternative 3.

Effects to thermal cover and Objective 5.4A-210 (a) are expected to be the same as in Alternative 1, 2 and 3. Only 114 acres of thermal cover would remain as SS 3C. No 4C and 5 would remain.

Late Succession As with the other alternatives, it is predicted that no late successional habitat would remain, as stands, within the project area by year 2020 due to mountain pine beetle caused mortality. There is a potential for inclusions with a late succession condition, up to 5 acres in size, to occur on the landscape, the size or extent of which is unknown.

This alternative would implement more acres of treatments for late succession enhancement than Alternative 3, but less than Alternative 2. The impacts expected from MPB are the same as in Alternatives 2 and 3. Therefore, this alternative would have a higher potential for loss of late succession to wildfire than Alternative 2, but less than Alternative 3. In summary, this alternative is expected to have less benefit to late succession habitat than Alternative 2, but more than Alternatives 1 and 4.

Conifer Successional Stages in Management Area 5.4A Effects to conifers from mountain pine beetle-caused mortality and vegetation treatments would be the same as described in Alternatives 2 and 3. However, this alternative would create the most structural stage 3A and 4A of any alternative, and provide the most acres for development into the Young and Mature stages within 20-30 years.

Cumulative Effects to Wildlife Habitat The cumulative effects analysis for wildlife habitat includes activities occurring from 1983 through 2020. Most vegetation management resulting in recent changes occurred since 1983. Changes to wildlife habitat resulting from the alternative proposed in this project, as well as the mountain pine beetle outbreak, are expected to be completed by 2020. A listing of activities considered for this analysis is available in Appendix F.

The Norbeck Wildlife Preserve, excluding section 2, is the boundary for this cumulative effects analysis for all wildlife habitat elements. This boundary includes other ownerships. Activities beyond this area have a diminished effect on wildlife habitat within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve.

Cover Types and Structural Diversity The Norbeck Wildlife Preserve has generally received less active vegetation management than the remainder of the Black Hills. Recorded management activities date back to the 1980’s (see Appendix F). The Graves Report mentions timber harvesting activity in what is now the project area during the late 1800’s and historic aerial photographs show that there was limited management throughout the twentieth century. Recent vegetation management in the project area

71 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

includes the Needles and Grizzly timber sales, as well as several small fuel reduction projects around summer home groups and along major roads.

Activities such as fire suppression, timber harvest and thinning, livestock grazing, noxious weed treatment, recreational activities and other management activities have and are expected to continue in the Norbeck Project area. These activities would likely occur on private lands as well. Fire suppression and the limited amount of active vegetation management in the project area have combined to create a condition of continuous dense, mature ponderosa pine. This condition is highly susceptible to mountain pine beetles and a large population of mountain pine beetles has developed within the project area. The mountain pine beetle population has caused major overstory mortality around Harney Peak and continues to expand within the project area.

Meadows/Grasslands Fire suppression and limited active management have resulted in pine encroachment into meadows. The action alternatives are expected to incrementally offset some of the effects of past fire suppression by reducing pine encroachment into meadows. Mechanical treatments would remove pine and prescribed burning would kill pine and improve forage in meadows. Pine encroachment treatments in the Needles and Grizzly projects, as well as recent fuel reduction projects; have expanded or enhanced meadows in the project area.

Mountain pine beetle is also expected to incrementally offset some of the above effects naturally by reducing mature pine around edges of meadows. Pine encroachment within meadows is not expected to be impacted by the mountain pine beetle because those mature trees are widely spaced and at low susceptibility to beetles.

Proposed activities have the potential to increase weeds in meadows. Grazing and other recreational activities such as hiking can also impact meadows by potentially introducing or spreading weeds. Design criteria to treat weed infestations and to avoid disturbance within meadows would lessen any weed infestation.

No adverse cumulative effects to meadows are expected with any alternative. The activities, along with past, present and future activities would expand or enhance meadows.

Hardwoods Fire suppression and limited active management have resulted in pine encroachment into hardwoods. The action alternatives are expected to incrementally offset some of the effects of past fire suppression by reducing pine encroachment in hardwoods. Mountain pine beetle is also expected to incrementally offset some of the above effects naturally by reducing pine encroachment into hardwoods, in all alternatives.

Hardwood release treatments and the reduction in ponderosa pine density in the Needles and Grizzly projects benefited hardwoods in the project area. Treatments reducing ponderosa pine density in Custer State Park are likely to benefit hardwoods as well. Additionally, mountain pine beetle-caused mortality of ponderosa pine in Custer State Park, Mt. Rushmore National Memorial and on private land should increase the amount of hardwoods on no-forest system lands.

No adverse cumulative effects to hardwoods are expected with any alternative. The activities, along with past, present and future activities would expand or enhance hardwoods.

72 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Ponderosa Pine Ponderosa pine in the project area is experiencing great change. The contiguous stands of dense, mature ponderosa pine occurring in the project area are highly susceptible to mountain pine beetles. As a result, vast changes are occurring to pine stands from mountain pine beetle-caused mortality. The beetle population is very high and is expected to continue within the project area until approximately 2013, based on observed spread rates and existing forest conditions.

Past and current management activities have impacted pine by reducing stand density and affecting type conversions from pine to meadow or hardwoods. The Needles and Grizzly projects reduced the density of ponderosa pine stands through thinning and shelterwood seed cut treatments. Patch clearcut treatments removed all pine from other acres. Fuels thinning projects along main roads and around summer home groups reduced the density of ponderosa pine by removing trees less than 9 inches DBH. The proposed activities would benefit pine stands by reducing susceptibility to mountain pine beetles and increase their potential to survive the current outbreak.

Custer State Park is combating the mountain pine beetle outbreak by mechanically removing infested ponderosa pine trees and reducing the density of pine around the Black Elk Wilderness. These treatments are expected to continue for at least the next five years. Additionally, Mt. Rushmore National Monument is proposing to thin trees within their boundary to reduce the effects of MPB.

Treatments on private land include some thinning of pine in scattered properties. The majority of treatments on private land are located near Lakota Lake, where a large housing development is being constructed. This area was thinned with forest cleared for houses and yards.

The current infestation of mountain pine beetle is expected to result in an overall reduction of acres of ponderosa pine due to overstory mortality, particularly in dense, mature stands. The stands treated to a structural stage 4A in the Needles and Grizzly projects are at a low susceptibility for beetles and are expected to retain their structure. Other vegetation treatments in Custer State Park to create structural stage 4A are expected to benefit ponderosa pine. Ponderosa pine on private lands and Mt. Rushmore National Memorial are expected to experience heavy overstory mortality as most of the ponderosa pine is in dense conditions very susceptible to mountain pine beetle infestation.

While the mountain pine beetle outbreak is adversely affecting pine stands in the project area, proposed treatments would benefit pine stands by lowering their susceptibility to beetles. Therefore, no adverse cumulative effects would occur to pine as a result of any alternative.

White Spruce Fire suppression and limited active management have resulted in pine encroachment into spruce sites. The action alternatives are expected to incrementally offset some of the effects of past fire suppression by reducing pine encroachment into spruce. Mountain pine beetle is also expected to incrementally offset some of the above effects naturally by reducing pine encroachment.

The fuel thinning projects, and the Needles and Grizzly projects did not specifically treat white spruce. However, Custer State Park thinned a white spruce site near Sylvan Lake two years ago, and mountain pine beetle is expected to kill mature white spruce on forest service lands, as well as in Custer State Park, Mt. Rushmore National Memorial and on private lands within the project

73 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

area. Acres of white spruce in structural stages 4B, 4C and 5 are expected to decrease and change to structural stages 4A and 2 either by treatments or mountain pine beetle-caused mortality.

Many of the spruce sites do not receive much impact from roads, recreation, or grazing. Past and on-going fire suppression activities have allowed spruce to increase, at the expense of other forest types (USDA Forest Service 2005). The trees may be weakened in the long run. The project activities in all action alternatives in spruce are not expected to further reduce acres of spruce, but MPB activity is expected to allow an increase in spruce acres within the project area.

The mountain pine beetle outbreak is expected to both benefit and adversely affect spruce stands in the project area. Beetle caused mortality of encroaching pine within and surrounding spruce sites would release these sites from competition. However, spruce mortality is also expected to occur from beetles, due to the very high population that exists. Proposed treatments would benefit spruce stands by releasing them from pine competition and lowering their susceptibility to beetles. Therefore, no adverse cumulative effects would occur to spruce as a result of any alternative.

Shrubs The proposed activities would benefit shrubs by releasing them from competing pine. Treatments reducing the ponderosa pine density in the Needles and Grizzly projects, as well as the fuels thinning projects, benefited shrubs and understory vegetation in the project area. Treatments reducing ponderosa pine density in Custer State Park are likely to benefit shrubs and understory vegetation. Additionally, mountain pine beetle-caused mortality of ponderosa pine in Custer State Park, Mt. Rushmore National Memorial and on private land should benefit understory vegetation.

There would be positive cumulative effects to shrub sites and understory vegetation in the project area under all alternatives.

Large Trees Past timber harvest has contributed to the loss of large mature trees in the project area. While these past management activities have directly impacted the density of large trees, they have also benefited the large tree component by reducing stand density which encourages individual tree growth and reduces both fire risk and mountain pine beetle susceptibility.

The Needles and Grizzly projects had a net benefit to large trees. Large trees were removed in hardwood sites and in creating structural stage 4A, however, the large trees in the structural stage 4A are expected to escape mortality from the mountain pine beetle. Treatments in Custer State Park and on treated private lands should also have a net benefit to large trees for the same reason. Large trees on untreated private land and Mt. Rushmore National Memorial are expected to experience a large decline from mountain pine beetle-caused mortality.

Fire suppression has benefited large trees by reducing their loss to wildfire. However, it also contributed to the current condition of high mountain pine beetle susceptibility. The current beetle infestation is the main threat to large trees within the project area. Potential for wildfire also exists and could impact large trees in the project area. However, when and where a wildfire might occur is speculative. Mountain pine beetle activity and fire suppression are expected to continue.

74 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Treatments are expected to incrementally offset the effects of fire suppression by releasing trees from competition. However, MPB activity is expected to adversely affect large trees. The action alternatives would mainly remove smaller trees, but large trees would also be removed in some treatments. Prescribed burning could result in a loss of large trees as well.

The mountain pine beetle outbreak is expected to cause vast mortality of large trees. The proposed activities would increase the potential for large tree retention by reducing beetle susceptibility and fire hazard. Therefore, no adverse cumulative effects are expected as a result of the action alternatives. Negative cumulative effects could occur in the No Action alternative as MPB impacts kill large trees and large trees are removed on non-Forest Service ownerships within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve.

Snags and Downed Woody Material Past firewood cutting, timber harvest, wildfires and fuels management activities have contributed to the loss of snag and downed wood habitat. However, wildfire, insects and other causes of tree mortality continue to create snag/downed wood habitat. The mountain pine beetle outbreak is creating large areas of snags throughout the western portion of the project area. It is expected that the outbreak would continue to advance through the project area by 2013, creating snag habitat and contributing to downed woody material. With the restriction on cutting standing dead for firewood, MPB activity, and wildfires, there would be an increase in snags, although MPB- killed trees may break or snap off within 5 years.

No adverse cumulative effects to snags or downed woody material are expected as a result of any alternative. Mountain pine beetle would add to snags and downed woody material levels in all alternatives.

Riparian Vegetation Ponderosa pine has encroached on riparian habitat within the project area. Past and proposed management activities benefit riparian habitat by releasing it from competing pine. Foreseeable future activities include trail enhancement along Iron Creek and improvements to the Willow Creek Horse Camp—both of which would reduce impacts to streams and riparian habitat.

Riparian habitat also occurs on private lands and other ownerships. Impact from grazing and recreation occur to riparian habitats. Beetle caused mortality on all land ownerships in the project area would be expected to benefit riparian areas by reducing pine, under all alternatives. Stream flows could increase and as a result riparian vegetation would be released.

Thermal Cover and Forage The combination of past treatments in the Needles and Grizzly projects, the treatments in Custer State Park and mountain pine beetle-caused mortality on non-Forest Service land contribute to an excess of the area in forage and a reduction in thermal cover.

Late-Succession Late-succession habitat is expected to be heavily impacted by the current MPB outbreak. None of the alternatives would result in a change to existing late-succession habitat. However, due to the MPB outbreak, it is expected that the only areas in late-succession habitat in year 2020 would be restricted to scattered pockets up to 5 acres in size that escape MPB caused overstory mortality (Allen 2009).

75 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Conifer Successional Stages in Management Area 5.4A The combination of past treatments in the Needles and Grizzly projects, the treatments in Custer State Park and mountain pine beetle-caused mortality on non-Forest Service land would contribute to an excess of area in the Forage stage at the expense of the Young and Mature, and the Natural Succession stages. It is expected that the only areas in either the Young and Mature or the Natural Succession stages on non-Forest Service lands would be restricted to scattered pockets up to 5 acres in untreated areas that escaped overstory mortality (Allen 2009).

While the beetle outbreak would move the area away from the percentages of conifers in the forage, young and mature, and late successional stages in Objective 5.4A-203. Reducing stand density, as in the action alternatives, would increase the potential to retain options for the future development of dense, mature conifer stands by reducing mountain pine beetle susceptibility and retaining mature conifer stands. Therefore, while MPB is moving the area away from Objective 5.4A-203 the action alternatives would not move the area further from the objective. Wildlife The Norbeck Wildlife Preserve was established by Congress in 1920 for the “protection of game animals and birds and to be recognized as a breeding place therefore.” The designation as a wildlife preserve is unique on the Black Hills National Forest and rare on the National Forest System as a whole. This accentuates the importance of and special quality this area possesses.

The following discussion displays the expected effects to identified Focus Species, Management indicator Species (MIS), Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species (TES) and Species of Local Concern (SOLC). The impacts to wildlife habitat were presented earlier in this Chapter. The wildlife habitat analysis is the basis for much of the alternative impacts to Wildlife in the following discussion. Summaries of alternative impacts to cover types and conifer successional stages are presented in Table 32: Comparison of Cover Types for Existing Condition and All Alternatives at Year 2020; Table 34: Comparison of Ponderosa Pine Structural Stages for the Existing Condition and All Alternatives projected to year 2020, and Table 36: Projected White Spruce Structural Stages for All Alternatives within the Norbeck Project Area.

The Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2006; Appendix L) lists 11 ‘Species for Analysis in Norbeck’ to be analyzed during project-level planning for the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. These species were originally identified in the final supplement to the Norbeck EIS (USDA Forest Service 1989) to be analyzed through HABCAP. The purpose was to measure the effects of forest management on non-game species not identified as an MIS or Special Emphasis Species. The more recent focus species list represents a more current effort by both the State of South Dakota and the Forest Service and will be used for effects analysis in this project. The analysis presented in this Environmental Impact Statement meets Forest Plan requirements.

Field surveys were conducted from January to October 2006 and again from June 2007 through summer of 2008, and summer of 2009. Wildlife specific survey activities consisted of identifying and recording bird species according to habitat, utilizing track-plate boxes for American marten (Martes americana) presence, and northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) broadcast acoustical surveys. Additionally, detailed searches for land snails, raptors and their nests, amphibians, and reptiles were conducted. The most recent fish surveys were conducted in August 2006 along portions of Iron Creek by the SDGFP. Vegetation cover type and structural stages were verified and changed if needed. Snag densities are high in some areas, especially in the northern and western parts of the Project Area where mountain pine beetles have been expanding quite

76 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 significantly over the last few years, and will continue to increase. Overall road densities are relatively low and screening cover is adequate.

The information presented here is based upon analysis prepared by the Wildlife Biologist in the Wildlife Specialist report and the Wildlife and Fish Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation. These reports are included in the project file, which is located on the Black Hills National Forest, Hell Canyon Ranger District, 330 Mount Rushmore Road, Custer, SD.

Focus Species The Norbeck establishment document of 1920 and subsequent legal documents did not define which specific species were to be protected within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. Because of the large number of game animal and bird species that occur in Norbeck, it is not possible to individually focus on all game animals and all birds, which are to guide management of this project area. Because every species has unique habitat needs, it would not be feasible to meet the needs of all wildlife with all management actions, including the ‘no action’. Therefore, a list of “focus species” was developed in cooperation with the South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks (SDGFP) to guide management activities in the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve in accordance with its original spirit and intent (Griebel et al. 2007). This document provides background information; criteria used for selection and rationale for selection of each focus species. The document also provides rationale of why other species were not selected as focus species. This list of focus species is subject to change as new scientific information becomes available and/or when environmental conditions, legal precedents, policy guidelines and social requirements change.

The Focus species are game animals and birds selected to guide management in the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. These focus species represent other species which utilize similar habitats, in a similar fashion as MIS species represent other species on the Black Hills as a whole. The twelve focus species for this project represent late successional and open ponderosa pine stands, large conifers, stand diversity, aspen and other hardwoods, spruce, meadows, riparian habitat and snags (Table 37). Some of these focus species are also on the R2 Sensitive Species list, are MIS, or SOLC species. In the discussion on the individual species, it is noted if the focus species occur on other lists.

Table 37. Focus species within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve (Griebel et al. 2007)

Species Habitat Description Game Animals Inhabits rugged terrain such as steep cliffs and rocky outcrops (Higgins et al. Mountain Goat 2000). Primary range consists of the rugged terrain around Harney Peak, (Oreamnos americanus) the Needles and Mount Rushmore (Richardson 1971). Inhabits semi-open terrain on steep cliffs and rocky slopes, usually in areas Bighorn Sheep with limited human contact. Generally avoids dense forest stands (Higgins et (Ovis canadensis) al. 2000). Found in a variety of habitats such as coniferous forests, meadows, and Rocky Mountain Elk forest edge (Higgins et al. 2000). Requires understory forage. Prefers limited (Cervus elaphus) human contact and avoids motorized areas. Very adaptable species that can live in almost any habitat including White-tailed Deer grasslands, wetlands and woodlands (Higgins et al. 2000). Requires rich (Odocoileus virginianus) understories of shrubs, forbs and grass for food, cover and fawn habitat. Uses a variety of habitats. Winter habitat consists primarily of ponderosa Merriam’s Turkey pine with greater basal area composed of mature trees. Open pine stands (Meleagris gallepavo and meadows with sufficient ground vegetation provide good summer merriami) habitat (Lehman 2005, Rumble and Anderson 1993). Primarily use large pine for roost trees.

77 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Species Habitat Description Birds Mountain Bluebird Open ponderosa pine forest intermixed with grasslands, shrubs, burned (Sialia currucoides) areas and snags that serve as nesting cavities (Wiggins 2006). Golden-crowned Kinglet Found almost exclusively in white spruce habitat but occasionally present in (Regulus satrapa) habitats with a spruce component (Panjabi 2003). Brown Creeper In the Black Hills, white spruce and late successional pine appears to be the (Certhia americana) most important habitat type for this species (Panjabi 2001, 2003). Variable aged aspen stands, other hardwoods and pine forests provide Ruffed Grouse habitat. Winter habitat is almost exclusively aspen (DeGraaf et al. 1991, (Bonasa umbellus) Tallman et al. 2002). Song Sparrow Streamside thickets, particularly shrubby willows, are required for habitat. (Melospiza melodia) Occasionally found in adjacent spruce habitat (Panjabi 2003). Forages in a variety of forested areas and small openings; nests primarily in Northern Goshawk dense mature conifer forests (Kennedy 2003). Prey species habitat includes (Accipiter gentilis) shrubs, dense understory, and diverse habitats. Occurs most frequently in recently burned habitat (Vierling 2005), in Black-backed Woodpecker mountain pine beetle infested pine stands (Bonnet et al. 2008), and at lower (Picoides arcticus) densities in other forest types including late-successional pine forest. Year- round resident.

Habitat Objectives for Focus Species To provide for focus species, the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve should contain a variety of habitats including open areas, shrubs, forested stands of different ages, densities and species, and there should be healthy streamside areas. In designing management activities to benefit focus species in the project area, habitat objectives were developed. The identified habitat objectives for the Norbeck Wildlife project include vegetation treatments to enhance forage, late succession, hardwoods, large trees, meadows, shrubs, white spruce, and stand diversity. These treatments are accomplished by mechanical means, prescribed burning or both. Refer to the Silviculture and Fire/Fuels sections for a further description of the vegetation treatments proposed. Each habitat objective provides habitat for at least 2 of the focus species. Table 38 displays the Habitat Objectives and Focus species that would benefit. Table 39 displays acres of Habitat Objective by Alternative.

Table 38. Habitat Objectives and Focus Species that would benefit

Habitat Objective Focus Species

Forage Enhancement Mountain goat, bighorn sheep, elk, white-tailed deer, turkey Late Succession Turkey, brown creeper, northern goshawk, black-backed Enhancement woodpecker Hardwood Enhancement Elk, white-tailed deer, ruffed grouse, and song sparrow Turkey, brown creeper, northern goshawk, and black-backed Large Tree Enhancement woodpecker Meadow Enhancement Elk, white-tailed deer, turkey, mountain bluebird Shrub Enhancement Elk, white-tailed deer, turkey, song sparrow Spruce Enhancement Brown creeper and golden-crowned kinglet Mountain goat, bighorn sheep, elk, white-tailed deer, turkey, Stand Diversity ruffed grouse, northern goshawk, black-backed woodpecker

78 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Table 39. Acres of Mechanical and Burning Treatments for Habitat Objectives by Alternative

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Habitat Mechanical Prescribed Mechanical Prescribed Mechanical Prescribed Objective Treatment Burning Treatment Burning Treatment Burning Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Forage 421 705 361 705 122 511 Enhancement Late Succession 830 0 375 0 501 0 Enhancement Hardwood 596 223 603 221 603 221 Enhancement Large Tree 836 38 966 228 901 228 Enhancement Meadow 198 276 219 267 219 267 Enhancement Shrub 52 52 52 52 52 52 Enhancement Spruce 78 0 78 0 78 0 Enhancement Stand Diversity 1,924 874 2,069 738 2,714 932 Total 4,935 2,158* 4,723 2,211* 5,190 2,211* * 1,092 acres in Alternative 2 and 1,282 acres in Alternatives 3 and 4 are on the same sites as mechanical treatments and would occur subsequent to mechanical treatments.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects for Focal Species This portion of the document discusses the effects of the four alternatives on each focus species. For each species, the existing condition is immediately followed by the anticipated direct and indirect effects of each alternative to allow for ease of comparison of the alternatives. The cumulative effects discussion is combined for all focus species and appears at the end of the focus species discussions.

Mountain Goat (Focus species, SOLC) The mountain goat was selected as a focus species to represent foraging and stand diversity habitat. Despite the non-native status of this species, it is a highly valued species by certain groups and, given the recognized historical management goals for Norbeck, it is well-suited for management focus.

Habitat This species inhabits rugged terrain including cliffs, rock faces, ledges, and talus slopes, typically above timberline. The mountain goat is found most abundantly on rock outcrops and high elevation meadows. Foraging habitat is alpine meadow, grassland, and montane shrubland (Benzon and Rice 1987). Recommendations for improving habitat for the species consist of thinning dense stands of ponderosa pine, maintaining meadows and placing clear-cuts next to or interspersed between granite outcroppings (Ted Benzon, Big Game Biologist, SDGFP, Division of Wildlife, personal communication).

Mountain goats feed throughout the morning, rest at midday, and resume feeding in the late afternoon, continuing into the evening. A wide range of forage is utilized including chokecherry, Russian buffaloberry, grasses and sedges, quaking aspen, serviceberry, wild rose, willow, and hazel (Richardson 1971). Usually the most available forage rather than the most palatable forage

79 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

is consumed (Richardson 1971). Hunting, winter starvation, accidental deaths from rockslides and predation are some causes of mortality (Higgins et al. 2000).

Distribution The range of the mountain goat extends from the northern United States Rocky Mountains to southeast Alaska (Clark and Stromberg 1987). Mountain goats are characteristically found in sub alpine and alpine tundra areas in the Northern Rockies and coastal mountain ranges of western North America (Higgins et al. 2000).

The Black Hills mountain goat population occurs largely within the Black Elk Wilderness (MA 1.1A) and somewhat in the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve (MA 5.4A). Current mountain goat populations are smaller and more fragmented than estimates in 1971 (Richardson 1971). Reasons for the decline are uncertain but could be related to changes in habitat that are coinciding with increased canopy cover and decreased forage associated with ponderosa pine succession. Other possibilities include depredation from an ever increasing mountain lion population and because the entire herd originated from six individuals and reproduction may finally be feeling the effects of genetic isolation. Despite the non-native status of this species, it is a highly valued species by certain groups and, given the recognized historical management goals for Norbeck, it is well- suited for management focus.

Six mountain goats were introduced into the Black Hills in 1924 from Alberta, Canada. Primary range and habitat of the mountain goat in the Black Hills covers about 2,000 acres and is centered around Harney Peak and the Needles (Richardson 1971). The Black Hills population, estimated in 1971 by Richardson, was approximately 300 to 400 animals. At that time, the population was considered static and occupying all suitable habitat in the Black Hills. Mountain goat populations appear to be trending downward from an estimated population of 168 animals in 2002 (USDA Forest Service 2004) to 90 animals in 2005 (Huxoll 2006). The cause of the mountain goat population decline is unknown. Possible causes include high predator (mountain lion) numbers, genetics (all descendants from a small number of goats in 1924), and/or loss of habitat. The Forest will continue to coordinate with the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks to determine if more specific habitat management actions are needed to conserve/enhance habitat for this species (USDA Forest Service 2008). However, 80 animals were estimated in 2008 (Huxoll 2009). There were two licenses issued in 2005 and two females were harvested for a success rate of 100 percent, but in 2007 and 2008, no licenses were issued.

Neither South Dakota Natural Heritage Program nor Natural Diversity Database track the mountain goat. In the Black Hills, limits to persistence include a small population size and limited availability of preferred habitat, recreation-activity disturbances, and loss of foraging habitat due to pine encroachment.

In early November 2006, the SDGFP released 14 mountain goats that were originally captured in Colorado (Figure 14). The goats were fitted with radio collars and will be part of an ongoing research project to determine reasons for the population decline as well as introduce some new genetics into the population.

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives: No direct effects to this species are expected to occur because of project activities. However, vegetation treatments may disturb individuals, but timing restrictions (See Appendix B) are expected to lessen some of the impacts, especially during kidding periods.

80 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Alternative 1 (No Action) Under this alternative no mechanical treatment or prescribed burning would occur. Trees may become denser in some areas. Pine may continue to encroach into meadows reducing quality habitat by reducing the amount of quality forage and by obstructing views to see predators. However, because of the MPB activity, it is predicted that large amounts of trees would be killed; especially large trees and those in the more dense structural stages. Structural stages 1 and 2 are expected to increase significantly (See Table 40). This would create openings that would eventually provide forage for this species. Openings that are created or stands that are naturally thinned by MPB would also create quality habitat because visibility increases in addition to the foraging pockets created.

Table 40. Conifer Structural Stages, in ponderosa pine, at year 2020 under Alternative 1 (‘No Action’)

Structural Stage Acres Percent Stage Provide Forage 1, 2, 3A, 4A 23,705 99 Young and Mature 3B, 3C, 4B, 4C 276 1 Natural Succession 5 0 0

Alternative 2 This alternative proposes mechanical treatments and prescribed burning outside of the Black Elk Wilderness (BEW), but no treatment within the Wilderness, which is this species’ primary habitat. Goats may occasionally use areas within MA 5.4A and 4.2B if adequate habitat is created.

Habitat objectives for this species include forage enhancement and stand diversity treatments. These treatments along with MPB activity are expected to create pockets of forage and cover outside the BEW. MPB activity is expected to create large openings within the Black Elk Wilderness that will eventually provide quality foraging habitat.

This alternative would increase the amount of forage and open pine stands available to mountain goats, which would be used for foraging, traveling corridors, and cover. Stand diversity treatments contribute to these habitat conditions. Because of MPB activity within the BEW, some of this would be near escape terrain. The increased forage and decrease in dense pine sites may improve habitat enough to provide the opportunity for a population increase.

Table 41. Conifer Structural Stages, in ponderosa pine, at year 2020 under Alternative 2

Structural Stage Acres Current Percent Stage Forage 1, 2, 3A, 4A 23,490 99 Young and Mature 3B, 3C, 4B, 4C 211 1 Natural Succession 5 0 0

Alternative 3 This alternative proposes mechanical treatments outside of the Black Elk Wilderness (BEW) and prescribed burning both outside of and within the Wilderness, this species’ primary habitat.

This alternative would result in the greatest benefit to mountain goats. While this alternative does not result in the most acres of foraging habitat, it would increase forage and open pine

81 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

stands within their primary habitat, the Black Elk Wilderness. Stand diversity treatments contribute to these habitat conditions. Because of MPB activity and prescribed burning within the BEW, some of this would be near escape terrain. This Alternative would also improve foraging habitat over Alternative 2 because of the proposed burning and maintenance of patch clearcuts designed for mountain goats in the Needles timber sale. The increased forage and decrease in dense pine sites may improve habitat enough to provide the opportunity for a population increase.

Table 42. Conifer Structural Stages, in ponderosa pine, at year 2020 under Alternative 3

Structural Stage Acres Current Percent Stage Forage 1, 2, 3A, 4A 23,423 99 Young and Mature 3B, 3C, 4B, 4C 211 1 Natural Succession 5 0 0

Alternative 4 This alternative proposes the most acres of mechanical treatments of any alternative. The same acres of prescribed burning would occur outside the Wilderness as proposed in Alternative 3, and up to the same amount of acres of burning inside the Black Elk Wilderness would occur. While the potential acreage of prescribed burning within the Black Elk Wilderness is the same as in Alternative 3, implementation of the burning would depend upon vegetation conditions at the time. Areas where advanced pine and hardwood regeneration or stocked mature stands remain would not be burned within the BEW.

This alternative would increase the amount of forage and open pine stands available to mountain goats, which would be used for foraging, traveling corridors, and cover. Stand diversity treatments contribute to these habitat conditions. Because of MPB activity within the BEW, some of this would be near escape terrain. The increased forage and decrease in dense pine sites may improve habitat enough to provide the opportunity for a population increase.

Table 43. Conifer Structural Stages in ponderosa pine at year 2020 under Alternative 4

Structural Stage Acres Current Percent Stage Forage 1, 2, 3A, 4A 23,481 99 Young and Mature 3B, 3C, 4B, 4C 211 1 Natural Succession 5 0 0

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects to Mountain Goat All alternatives increase foraging habitat naturally. However, the action alternatives also provide vegetation treatments to increase foraging habitat and pockets of cover next to open areas through forage enhancement and stand diversity treatments. Alternatives 3 and 4 include re- burning patch clearcuts previously created for mountain goats in the Needles timber sale and prescribed burning within the Black Elk Wilderness. Overall, Alternative 3 would provide the best habitat for mountain goats. Alternative 2 would have the least improvement in mountain goat habitat and Alternative 4 would provide a moderate level of improvement between Alternatives 2 and 3. All action alternatives would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines. The Environmental Impact Statement for the Phase II Amendment determined that this species is

82 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 likely to persist across the Planning Area if Forest Plan standards and guidelines are followed. Therefore, all alternatives would be consistent with Forest Plan objective 221 for mountain goat.

Bighorn Sheep (Focus, R2 Sensitive Species, SOLC) The bighorn sheep was selected as a focus species to represent foraging and stand diversity habitat.

Habitat Bighorns typically prefer open habitats such as open grasslands, talus slopes, and rock outcrops where forage plants (mostly grasses, forbs, and shrubs) are abundant. Foraging habitats provide the ability to see and escape predators and are usually within close proximity to escape cover (steep slopes). The Norbeck area likely provided some of the best bighorn sheep habitat, historically, on the Black Hills National Forest. Risk factors include disease (epizootics), inclement weather, inbreeding depression, poor maternal care, human disturbance, and predators. Limiting factors include competition for forage and space with livestock and other ungulates, habitat deterioration and loss, and fragmentation (Beecham et. al 2007).

Distribution Bighorn sheep are distributed throughout the mountainous regions of western North America. Their susceptibility to massive die-offs due to disease has placed this species on the R2 sensitive species list. Bighorn sheep were introduced to the Black Hills in 1924 and is classified as big game by the South Dakota, Game, Fish and Parks Department. Hunting permits however are limited. The species occurs in small areas of the Black Hills with six sub-herds, occupying portions of Custer State Park, Rapid and Spring Creek drainages between Canyon City and Rapid City. There are approximately 385 bighorn sheep in the Black Hills, with 35 of those occurring in the CSP population (Huxoll 2009).

Transmission of bacterial (Pasteurella and Mannheimia spp.) diseases to bighorn sheep from domestic sheep has been implicated for large bighorn die-offs. Mannheimia haemolytica has been proven to kill bighorn sheep and may be the most important pathogen responsible for bighorn sheep die-offs after contact with domestic sheep (Beecham et. al 2007). However, Pasteurella spp. is part of the normal bacterial flora of both domestic and wild sheep, and die- offs have occurred without interactions with domestic sheep (Beecham et al. 2007). There are domestic sheep that graze on private lands within miles of the project area, but encounters by bighorn sheep with domestics center more around seasonal and breeding associated movements (John Kanta, SD Game, Fish and Parks Big Game Manager, personal communication, October 1, 2009).

For the Custer State Park herd, there were historically a small number of rams and about a half- dozen ewes with lambs that moved from Custer State Park (North Fork of Bear Gulch) in mid- late June to the Mount Rushmore area. They typically moved along open, rocky areas through Woodpecker Ridge in the NWPA, north to Mount Rushmore and the rocky areas near the pigtail bridges along Iron Mountain Highway. They usually stayed there until around September when they returned to Custer State Park. After Custer State Park’s die-off of bighorns, it is unsure whether or not that migration is still taking place. The Galena Burn area in the Project Area is commonly used by rams and is just north of a lambing area (North Fork of Bear Gulch). The open, rocky habitat that developed as a result of the fire is desired by bighorns (Gary Brundige, Resource Program Manager, SDGFP, Division of Parks and Recreation, Custer State Park,

83 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

personal communication). There are important lambing areas inside of the BEW (T. Benzon, SDGFP, Big Game Biologist, personal communication).

Forest monitoring indicates that there has been an upward trend in sheep numbers since 2005. Based on these numbers, the Forest is conserving habitat for the bighorn sheep (USDA Forest Service 2008).

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) No direct effects would occur to this species. Habitat conditions for this species are expected to improve under this alternative. Openings resulting from MPB caused mortality would eventually provide forage for this species. These openings and stands naturally thinned by MPB would also improve habitat conditions for bighorn sheep because visibility would increase, which would provide more safety from predators. Interactions between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep/goats would still be a concern especially during breeding season when young rams are seeking a group of ewes to breed with, or when bighorns are moving to lambing grounds. However, because habitat is expected to become more suitable because of MPB activity, bighorn sheep may remain in the area longer because of better habitat conditions.

Refer to table 40 under the earlier mountain goat discussion for percentages of forage increases.

Common to All Action Alternatives Habitat objectives for this species include forage and stand diversity treatments. Forage enhancement and stand diversity treatments, along with mountain pine beetle activity, would create pockets of forage and cover outside the Black Elk Wilderness. The proposed treatments would improve habitat diversity near the Galena Burn area and Woodpecker Ridge. These areas would likely experience increased use by bighorn sheep once proposed treatment create more suitable habitat for this species.

MPB activity within the Black Elk Wilderness is expected to create large openings that would eventually (when downed woody material breaks down) provide quality foraging habitat.

Under all alternatives, no direct effects are expected for this species. Displacement may occur because of project activities but this would be a localized, short term impact and sheep are expected to return once the disturbance ends.

Interactions between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep/goats would still be a concern especially during breeding season when young rams are seeking a group of ewes to breed with, or when bighorns are moving to lambing grounds. However, because habitat is expected to become more suitable because of MPB activity, bighorn sheep may remain in the area longer because of better habitat conditions.

Alternative 2 This alternative proposes mechanical treatments and prescribed burning outside of the Wilderness. No treatment is proposed within the Black Elk Wilderness, which is this species’ primary habitat.

Alternative 2 would provide slightly less forage created than in Alternative 1. The treatments would also enhance travel corridors for bighorn sheep because of the removal of smaller diameter conifers. This would allow these species to more easily move through the forest to preferred habitat.

84 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Alternative 3 This alternative, like Alternative 2, proposes mechanical treatments and prescribed burning outside of the Wilderness. Alternative 3, however, also proposes to prescribe burn within the Black Elk Wilderness, which are important lambing grounds for bighorn sheep. However, prescribed burning would not occur during lambing season because of timing restrictions included in design criteria (see Appendix B).

Prescribed burning is proposed on 5,291 acres in the Wilderness. This burning, along with MPB activity, would create large openings that would provide quality foraging habitat. This alternative would increase the amount of forage and open pine stands available to bighorn sheep, which would be used for foraging, traveling corridors, and cover. This Alternative would provide more foraging habitat than Alternative 2 because of the re-burning of patch clearcuts previously designed for mountain goats in the Needles timber sale. Stand diversity treatments contribute to these habitat conditions. Because of MPB activity within the BEW, some of this would be near escape terrain. The increased forage and decrease in dense pine sites would improve habitat more than in Alternatives 1 and 2. These improvements may provide the opportunity for a population increase.

Alternative 4 This alternative, like Alternative 3 proposes mechanical treatments and prescribed burning outside of the Black Elk Wilderness and prescribed burning within the Wilderness. However, Wilderness burning proposed in Alternative 4 would be less than Alternative 3 because design criteria in Alternative 4 restrict burning of stocked live trees.

The potential for disturbance of bighorn sheep in the western portion of the project area, especially during lambing periods, outside of the Wilderness, would be higher than other alternatives for the initial year of implementation. Design criteria in Alternative 4 allow mechanical treatment activities to occur for a full year in locations 061703 and 061704, but prescribed burning would be limited to August 1 through May 1 as in the other action alternatives.

This alternative would increase the amount of forage and open pine stands available to bighorn sheep, which would be used for foraging, traveling corridors, and cover. Stand diversity treatments contribute to these habitat conditions. Because of MPB activity within the BEW, some of this would be near escape terrain. The increased forage and decrease in dense pine sites may improve habitat enough to provide the opportunity for a population increase.

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects to Bighorn Sheep Suitable habitat for this species (open grassland and access to escape terrain) would be enhanced by all alternatives either by openings created by MPB or vegetation treatments. Treatments that overlap with bighorn sheep use areas may indirectly cause short-term effects but would enhance this habitat long-term. Where lambing/winter areas are within treatment units within Norbeck project area, design criteria that prevents disturbance during critical periods would reduce inadvertent loss to sheep recruitment. All alternatives contribute to conservation of sheep habitat (Forest Plan Objective 221).

The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined this species is likely to persist on the Forest. The Forest is conserving habitat for the Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (USDA Forest Service 2005d). Therefore, this species is likely to persist on the Forest.

85 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Due to its status as a Region 2 sensitive species, the potential impacts to this species was reviewed in a Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation (BA/BE). All Federally listed Threatened and endangered species, and Regional sensitive species require a determination of whether an action may affect the species. The BA/BE completed for this project is summarized in Appendix G and made the following determination for this species:

All action alternatives may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.

Rocky Mountain Elk (Focus Species) and White-tailed Deer (Focus Species, MIS) White-tailed deer was selected as a Forest MIS to evaluate the effects of Forest Plan implementation and natural change on the ability of the Forest to support species that rely on a variety of forest conditions, including the presence of understory shrubs, to meet their needs (USDA Forest Service 2005). Refer also to the white-tailed deer discussion under MIS, which occurs later in this Chapter.

The white-tailed deer and elk were selected as Focus species to represent forage, shrubs, hardwoods, meadows and stand diversity habitat.

Effects to these species were analyzed together because their requirements are similar and because habitat objectives are the same for both.

Habitat Elk use a wide variety of vegetation types on the Forest but show a preference for forested riparian areas, forested stringers in meadows, and deciduous stands of birch or aspen (SAIC 2003). Elk find cover (thermal or hiding or both) on the Forest in the denser stands (3C, 4C and 5) of conifers (summer and winter) and hardwoods (summer only). For forage, however, they rely on more open stands, shrubland, meadows and prairies, all of which may provide an abundance of grasses, forbs, and/or shrubs (SAIC 2003).

Security, or hiding, cover is important during the fall hunting season (SAIC 2003). Security cover is defined by stand attributes including coniferous tree height ranging from 6.5 to 20 feet, greater than 370 trees/acre (greater than 4 inches DBH), and 70 percent understory greater than 10-feet tall. Roads negatively affect elk because roads degrade habitat and contribute to animal displacement and stress. It is important to locate dense stands far from roads. Some important management practices for elk include establishment of no more than 1 mile of road per square mile of area and promote or maintain dense coniferous stands more than 0.5 miles from open roads (SAIC 2003). Stubblefield et al. (2006) recommend maintaining landscapes >500 m from improved roads for elk centers of activity.

Depending on the type of road, amount of traffic and adjacent habitat, elk will normally maintain a distance of 0.25 to 1.8 miles away from the road (Lyon and Christensen 2002). Elk selected against grassland habitat and for dense (i.e., >70 percent canopy cover) conifer stands during the big game hunting season (i.e., 1 September to 30 November) in the Black Hills (Rumble et al. 2005). Additionally, Rumble et al. (2005) found that elk generally avoid areas within 1 km of primary and secondary roads during this time period. Open road density within the project area is .33mi/mi2. This estimate does not include unauthorized roads. However, if unauthorized roads are included in the estimate, there are 1.2-1.3 mi/mi2 (see Transportation section of this chapter). This is a relatively low open road density when compared to the rest of the Black Hills National Forest.

86 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

White-tailed deer in the Black Hills require a diversity of habitat types. Juxtaposition between cover and forage is crucial year-round. Hardwood stands, which provide abundant forage combined with screening cover, were best predictors of white-tailed deer diurnal, summer use (Stefanich 1995). Peak use of dense aspen habitats with dense, tall shrub cover indicated importance as fawning habitat in the northern and central Black Hills (DePerno et al. 2002). Summer nocturnal habitat use is significantly different with use of open habitat types of meadows, riparian areas, and/or open pine relative to proximity of dense cover (Stefanich 1995). Wet meadows, riparian areas, and open stands of ponderosa pine also provide quality forage.

In winter, white-tailed deer in the central Black Hills selected forested habitat with shrubs 1.5 to 4.7 times more frequently than shrub habitats occurred on the Forest (DePerno et al. 2002). Uresk and Severson (1998) found that open-canopy conditions are necessary to get understory shrubs. Closed-canopy stands with minimal understory vegetation represent cover habitat but provide little forage. Therefore, management actions that increase habitat and structural diversity across the Forest would better meet necessary forage and cover requirements for deer.

The primary limiting factor for white-tailed deer in the Black Hills may be a lack of desirable shrubs for food and cover (DePerno et al. 2002). Historically, a diversity of shrubs was available in hardwood stands. However, fire suppression has allowed the encroachment of pine and spruce into hardwood stands, resulting in a loss of understory shrubs (Parrish et al. 1996). A similar affect has occurred in riparian areas and wet meadows. Furthermore, pine stands have increased in density and canopy closure, which also results in decreased forage and cover in the understory (Stefanich 1995; Parrish et al. 1996). Another factor that can affect deer habitat is road construction and road density (SAIC 2003). In the 1990s up to 1,400 deer per year were killed in vehicle collisions in the Black Hills (Parrish et al. 1996).

Distribution The elk population of the Black Hills is difficult to estimate in part because of interstate movements of the species. However, recent estimates placed the population level at 3,600 elk in the South Dakota Black Hills proper, and approximately 800 and 400 in Wind Cave National Park and Custer State Park, respectively (Huxoll 2009). The Forest has committed (through Objective 217) to managing habitat for a total of 4,350 elk, which was the combined population objective established by the two state game agencies in 1996.

The Needles portion of the Project Area as well as that area south of the Playhouse Road is considered crucial annual range for elk. (Wyoming – South Dakota Black Hills Elk Range Map, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Black Hills Conservation Initiative). Crucial annual range is defined as: “any particular seasonal range or habitat component (often winter or summer range) but describes that component which has been documented as the determining factor in a population’s ability to maintain itself at a certain level (theoretically at wildlife agency’s population objective) over the long term” (M. Mueller, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, personal communication). Critical habitat as identified by the 1989 Norbeck EIS is also present. Critical habitat provides food, water and cover crucial to the survival and perpetuation of the species. Elk are seen more often in the BEW than the rest of the Norbeck project area, although habitat has been declining (T. Benzon, SDGFP, personal communication).

White-tailed deer occur throughout most of the United States and southern Canada and occupy a wide range of habitats. They are mostly migratory in the Black Hills, using lower elevations in winter (USDA Forest Service 1996, Appendix H). White-tailed deer move to low-elevation

87 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement winter range from October to January, the timing of which depends on snow and forage conditions (Stefanich 1995, Griffin et al. 1999).

Black Hills white-tailed deer populations have steadily increased in recent years from an estimated population of 28,000 in 1999 to 54,000 in 2006 (Huxoll 2008) but have decreased the past two years to 45,000 in 2008 (Huxoll 2009). Habitat trend at the Forest-level suggests that summer habitat trend is increasing, and winter habitat trend is stable to slightly decreasing (see Fiscal Year 2005 Monitoring report). The Black Hills white-tailed deer population is meeting the desired population objectives for South Dakota and Wyoming. The Forest is meeting Forest Plan Objective 238a, with regard to summer habitat, but the Forest may not be maintaining winter habitat, although the decline might not be significant (USDA Forest Service 2006b, 2007).

During field surveys, deer were occasionally observed throughout the project area. Habitat in the Project Area is of marginal quality and is decreasing from pine encroachment into meadow/grass sites, hardwoods and riparian areas. Additionally, the increased density of pine in forested sites (i.e. 3B, 3C, 4B, 4C and most of structural stage 5) has all but eliminated most of the understory vegetation that provides forage for the species. Thus, habitat conditions for white-tailed deer in the Norbeck Project area are less desirable than what can be found on the forest as a whole. In addition, there are 1.9 roads per square mile, with open road density at approximately 1.3 miles per square mile. This would not change because roads used during the project would be closed afterwards to meet Norbeck direction.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) Under this alternative no timber harvest or prescribed burning would occur. However, because of the MPB activity, it is predicted that forage would increase significantly over existing conditions and that thermal cover will remain on only 114 acres as 3C. All 4C and 5 stands, which also provide thermal cover, are projected to be heavily impacted by MPB and will be lost. Available cover and stand diversity would experience a similar decrease.

Hardwoods would increase, and this is expected to improve foraging habitat for deer year-round and for elk in the winter and summer for thermal cover. Cover along collector and arterial roads would remain the same because of topography or because the trees are smaller and not expected to be killed by MPB. No change to potential disturbance of elk or deer would occur. Road density would remain the same, and the project area would continue to restrict motorized travel.

Common to All Action Alternatives Habitat objectives for these species include; forage enhancement, hardwood enhancement, meadow enhancement, shrub enhancement and stand diversity.

The proposed management activities and MPB activity within the Norbeck project area, would result in a decrease in the amount of hiding and thermal cover from current conditions, but an increase in forage habitat, shrubs, hardwoods and meadows. Thermal cover is projected to remain on only 114 acres, as SS 3C which is the same as projected in Alternative 1 (see Table 9, Chapter 2). These changes in habitat may improve habitat enough that deer and elk populations may increase within the project area. However, deer and elk may move outside of the project area to seek denser pine stands for cover.

Alternative 2 Mountain pine beetle activity is expected to create pockets of forage throughout the Norbeck project area. In addition, vegetation treatments to enhance forage (grass/forb), hardwoods,

88 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 shrubs, and meadows, and stand diversity are expected to increase important habitats for these species outside of the BEW. Stand diversity treatments create cover and foraging pockets for elk and deer. In conjunction with mechanical treatments within hardwood and shrub sites, mountain pine beetle activity is expected to increase in existing pine stands, which is expected to benefit aspen by opening up hardwood stands and slowing down pine encroachment or by decreasing competition for sunlight and water.

Alternative 2 would result in slightly less forage acres than in Alternative 1, but more hiding and thermal cover. Thermal cover is projected to remain on 114 acres within the project area, as SS 3C (see Table 9, Chapter 2). Hardwoods and shrubs would increase slightly from Alternative 1.

To access treatment areas, 11.4 miles of closed system roads and 22 miles of unauthorized road beds would be temporarily reopened. About 1.7 miles of new temp roads would be created. However, these would not be open to the public, and the project area would continue to restrict motorized travel.

No direct effects to these species are expected to occur because of project activities. Vegetation treatments may disturb individuals, but timing restrictions would lessen the impacts, especially during fawning/calving periods. Deer and elk would be temporarily displaced during project activities. Disturbance of individuals would be short term and localized.

Alternative 3 Over the entire Norbeck project area, there would be a slight decrease from Alternative 2, and a larger decrease from Alternative 1, in structural stages that provide forage. Fewer acres of forage enhancement are proposed than Alternative 2; SS2 (usually important for hiding cover) would decrease most. Structural stage 4A increases from Alternative 1, but decreases from Alternative 2, and there is a complete loss of SS 4B, 4C, and 5, which are important for thermal (SS 4C and 5) and hiding cover, and which provide stand diversity. Thermal cover is projected to remain on only 114 acres within the project area, as SS 3C. The other pine structural stages are similar to Alternative 2. There are more acres of hardwoods than in Alternatives 1 and 2, but the same amount of shrub acres as Alternative 2. More hardwood, shrub, and meadow enhancement treatments are proposed for this alternative. Prescribed burning is proposed for the BEW. Fire, along with MPB activity, will create large openings that will eventually (when downed woody material breaks down or is burned) provide quality foraging habitat, along with cover pockets that do not succumb to the beetles.

Prescribed burning is proposed in the BEW. The burning is expected to improve foraging in the Wilderness more than in Alternative 2, which does not propose to use fire in the Wilderness. Fire, along with MPB activity, would create large openings that will provide quality foraging habitat in the Wilderness.

To access treatment areas, 12.1 miles of closed system roads and 22 miles of unauthorized road beds would be temporarily reopened. About 1.5 miles of new temp roads would be created. However, these would not be open to the public, and the project area would continue to restrict motorized travel.

No direct effects to these species are expected to occur because of project activities. Vegetation treatments may disturb individuals, but timing restrictions would lessen the impacts, especially during fawning/calving periods. Deer and elk would be temporarily displaced during project activities. Disturbance of individuals would be short term and localized.

89 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 4 Alternative 4 would allow for mechanical treatment activities to occur for 1 full year in the western portion of the project area. This may temporarily increase disturbance to individuals.

Due to the expected increases in forage from mountain pine beetle caused mortality, Alternative 4 decreases acres of forage enhancement treatments. Stand diversity treatments are increased over the other alternatives to provide areas of cover adjacent to forage. Structural stages that provide forage are approximately the same as the other action alternatives. Structural stage 1 acres are less than all alternatives; SS 2 is over 3,000 acres more than Alternative 3, but less than in Alternatives 1 and 2. This alternative provides the most acres of SS 4A, and as with the other action alternatives, there is a complete loss of SS 4B, 4C, and 5, which are important for thermal (4C and 5) and hiding cover, and which provide stand diversity. Thermal cover is projected to remain on 114 acres within the project area, as SS 3C (see Table 9, Chapter 2). This alternative would have slightly fewer acres of hardwoods than in Alternative 3 but is similar to Alternative 2. Alternative 4 proposes the same amount of hardwood, shrub, and meadow enhancement treatments as Alternative 3, but less than Alternative 2.

Within the Black Elk Wilderness, this alternative would retain more cover adjacent to forage than in Alternative 3, and improve forage more than in Alternative 2.

To access treatment areas, 13.1 miles of closed system roads and 22 miles of unauthorized road beds would be temporarily reopened. About 1.5 miles of new temp roads would be created.

Direct effects to these species are possible due to the potential for activities to occur for a full year in locations 061703 and 061704. Activities would overlap fawning/calving and direct effects to fawns/calves may occur as a result. Timing restrictions in the remainder of the project area would be the same as described in Alternatives 2 and 3. Deer and elk would be temporarily displaced during project activities.

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects to Elk and White-tailed Deer All alternatives increase foraging, hardwood and shrub habitat. The action alternatives also provide vegetation treatments to increase hardwoods, shrubs, and foraging habitat and to provide pockets of cover next to open areas.

All alternatives, including Alternative 1, provide the same percentage of foraging habitat (99% of the project area) within ponderosa pine stands, but differences are apparent in remaining structural stages. Thermal cover is expected to decrease significantly. All alternatives increase almost equally in acres of aspen and shrubs.

Merriam’s Wild Turkey (Focus Species) Merriam’s turkey was selected as a focus species to represent forage, late succession, large tree, meadow, shrub, and stand diversity habitat. Despite the non-native status of this species, it is a highly valued species by certain groups and, given the recognized historical management goals for Norbeck, it is well-suited for management focus.

Habitat Merriam’s turkeys use many of the vegetation types occurring on the Forest. Open areas (structural stages 1, 2, 3A, 4A) are important for foraging during the summer, though meadows are seldom selected for (Rumble and Anderson 1996). Dense mature ponderosa pine (structural stages 4C and 5) serves as winter cover and a source of mast (Rumble and Anderson 1996).

90 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Roost sites are typically on top of slopes or ridges in trees ³9” DBH with layered horizontal branches (Rumble 1992). Winter diets consist mainly of ponderosa pine seeds and summer diets are of grass seed and foliage (Rumble and Anderson 1996). In the southern Black Hills, successful nest sites were located in pine stands with 41-70 percent canopy cover on steep slopes, cliff faces and in areas with greater visual obstruction, vegetation height and shrub cover (Lehman 2005). Primary nest predators consist of coyotes (Canis latrans), ravens (Corvus corax), magpies (Pica pica), and American crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos) (Rumble et al. 2003).

Lehman (2005) found that females with poults preferred meadow habitat next to the forest edge and that dense pine >9” DBH and >70 percent canopy cover was generally avoided. As a management practice, Lehman (2005) suggests that habitat enhancement projects that reduce the amount of small diameter pine invading open meadows should be implemented.

Distribution The Merriam’s turkey is common and widespread on the Forest, with an estimated population of 35,000 birds in the South Dakota portion of the Black Hills (Huxoll 2009). The species occurs in a wide variety of vegetation types, including foothill and montane riparian associations, pine- juniper shrubland, mixed grass prairie, and ponderosa pine, white spruce, and aspen forest stands (Panjabi 2003). The wild turkey is a non-migratory species. There are six recognized subspecies of wild turkey and of these, the Merriam’s (wild) turkey is the race introduced in the Black Hills in the late 1940s and early 1950s (Flake et al. 2006). Despite the non-native status of this species, it is a highly valued species by certain groups and, given the recognized historical management goals for Norbeck, it is well-suited for management focus. Turkeys are common in and around the Project Area. In the Black Hills, turkeys use a variety of habitats.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) Foraging habitat for turkeys would increase significantly, resulting in a similar decrease in roosting habitat and escape cover. Conifer stands providing for stand diversity, large trees, and late successional habitat would be reduced. An abundance of open areas may lessen habitat quality because turkeys prefer edge habitat so they can escape from predators.

Common to All Action Alternatives Habitat objectives for Merriam’s turkey include; forage enhancement, late succession enhancement, large tree enhancement, meadow enhancement, shrub enhancement, and stand diversity. These treatments would enhance cover, roosting, nesting, and foraging habitat. Vegetation treatments, along with MPB activity, are expected to create pockets of forage outside the BEW, at the expense of large trees and late successional habitat. It is unknown how much quality roosting and cover would remain post beetle activity.

Direct effects to this species may occur during prescribed burning because nests may be destroyed, killing hens and chicks. In addition, vegetation treatments may disturb individuals, but timing restrictions (See Appendix B) are expected to lessen some of the disturbance impacts.

Alternative 2 This alternative proposes mechanical treatments and prescribed burning outside of the Wilderness only. Even though no activity is proposed for the BEW, MPB activity would create large openings that would eventually (when downed woody material breaks down) provide

91 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

quality foraging habitat, along with cover in pockets that do not succumb to the beetles. Downed wood materials within green stands are important for nesting and cover pockets.

Over the entire Norbeck project area, there would be less forage habitat and more cover and roosting habitat, than in Alternative 1. The majority of the affected structural stage acreage is an increase in SS 4A by approximately 974 acres, and a complete loss of SS 4B, 4C, and 5, which provide important thermal, hiding, and nesting habitat. The other pine structural stages are similar to Alternative 1. Meadow and shrub habitat increase from Alternative 1.

Mountain pine beetle caused mortality within the Norbeck project area would decrease the amount of roosting and escape cover. The increased foraging habitat may increase turkey numbers, but if roosting and escape pockets are not available; this most likely would decrease the number of turkeys that use the Project Area.

Alternative 3 Over the entire Norbeck project area, there would be a slight decrease from Alternative 2, and a larger decrease from Alternative 1, in structural stages that provide forage. Fewer acres of forage enhancement are proposed than in Alternative 2; SS2 would decrease most. Structural stage 4A slightly increases from Alternative 1, but decreases slightly from Alternative 2, and there is a complete loss of SS 4B, 4C, and 5, which provide important thermal, hiding, and nesting cover for turkeys, and which provide stand diversity. The other pine structural stages are similar to Alternative 2. There is the same amount of shrub and grassland acres as Alternative 2. More shrub and meadow enhancement treatments are proposed for this alternative. Prescribed burning is proposed for the BEW. Fire, along with MPB activity, would create large openings that would eventually (when downed woody material breaks down or is burned) provide quality foraging habitat, along with cover pockets that do not succumb to the beetles. Down woody material within green stands is important for nesting and cover pockets.

Ponderosa pine structural stages that provide forage for these species are expected to be similar to Alternative 2, however this is at the expense of structural stages that provide large trees, stand diversity, and late successional stands. The increased foraging habitat may increase turkey numbers, but if roosting and escape pockets are not available, turkeys using the project area may decrease and find areas outside the project area.

Alternative 4 Mechanical treatment operations in the first year, within locations 061703, and 061704 may directly kill nesting birds because activities may occur during nesting season. In addition, mechanical treatments may disturb individuals in those locations year-round, for the first year.

Structural stages that provide forage are approximately the same as the other action alternatives. Structural stage 1 acres are less than all alternatives; SS 2 is over 3,000 acres more than Alternative 3, but less than in Alternatives 1 and 2. This alternative provides the most acres of SS 4A, especially in MA 5.4A, and as with the other action alternatives, there is a complete loss of SS 4B, 4C, and 5, which provide important thermal, hiding, and nesting cover for turkeys, and which provide stand diversity. The other pine structural stages are similar to all other alternatives (see Tables 34 and 35). Shrub and grassland acres are the same for all action alternatives. Alternative 4 proposes the same amount of shrub and meadow enhancement treatments as Alternative 3, but less than Alternative 2. Prescribed burning is proposed for the BEW. Fire, along with MPB activity, create large openings that would eventually (when downed woody material breaks down or is burned) provide quality foraging habitat, along with cover pockets that do not succumb to the beetles. Also, design criteria designed for the burning within the BEW

92 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 in this alternative is expected to protect more green trees, creating more areas of cover and providing more large trees.

Ponderosa pine structural stages that provide forage for these species is expected to be similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, however this is at the expense of structural stages that provide large trees, stand diversity, and late successional stands. The increased foraging habitat may increase turkey numbers, but if roosting and escape pockets are not available, turkeys using the project area may decrease and find areas outside the project area.

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects to Merriam’s Turkey All alternatives increase foraging and shrub habitat and decrease roosting and cover. The action alternatives would increase shrubs and foraging habitat adjacent to cover and to retain more large trees than Alternative 1. Alternative 4 would be expected to retain the most large trees and mature conifer stands, followed by Alternatives 3, 2 and 1.

It is expected that stands of suitable roosting and cover habitat (SS4C and 5) would not remain within the project area under any alternative due to MPB mortality. Smaller areas of dense mature conifers would be expected to remain, however. It is unknown how trees would be distributed across the landscape after MPB mortality, but it is likely that cover and roosting habitat would remain in small pockets. Sixty-five acres of SS4B are estimated to remain with the ‘No Action’ alternative because of that stand’s location in the Stockade Lake area which is buffered from the current MPB outbreak.

The action alternatives are expected to retain more mature pine stands providing large trees for roosting and the potential for cover and nesting habitat, or the development of such habitat.

Mountain Bluebird (Focus Species) Mountain bluebird was selected as a focus species to represent meadow and snag habitat.

Habitat Mountain bluebird occurs locally throughout the Black Hills, occupying burned areas, grassland, shrubland, and other open areas. Mountain bluebird is a secondary cavity nester that requires open landscapes for hunting, thus it is not surprising that it has responded positively to the Jasper burn in the Black Hills. Monitoring in 2007 showed that highest densities (47.76 birds/ km2) occurred in burned habitat, and in 2008 highest densities occurred in mixed-grass prairies (36.7 birds/ km2), followed by pine-juniper shrubland (17.49 birds/ km2) (White and Giroir 2009). Within the Jasper Burn Area, densities have increased from 2.9 birds/km2 in 2001 to 23.9 birds/km2 in 2004 (Panjabi 2005). The large meadow near Lakota Lake and Galena Burn Area, along with MPB killed areas, provide desirable habitat for this species within the Project Area.

Distribution The mountain bluebird breeds from Alaska to southern California, Nevada, Arizona and southern New Mexico. It can be found as far east as northeastern North Dakota south to central Oklahoma (DeGraaf et al. 1991). The species prefers open areas in ponderosa pine forests (DeGraaf et al. 1991, Tallman et al. 2002). During the breeding season, mostly insects are consumed but also plant material. It is considered a common migrant and summer resident in the Black Hills (Tallman et al. 2002).

93 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) Snags and structural stages 1 and 2, which would provide more open habitat, would increase significantly under this alternative due to mountain pine beetle caused mortality. As a result Alternative 1 would benefit the mountain bluebird.

Common to All Action Alternatives The Habitat objective for the mountain bluebird is meadow enhancement. Treatments to meet this objective, along with MPB activity, are expected to create snags and open areas throughout the project area. Mountain pine beetle activity throughout the entire Norbeck project area is expected to kill significant amounts of large trees and dense pine stands, and open up stands to provide habitat.

Alternative 2 Meadow enhancement treatments would occur on 276 acres. MPB activity is expected to create snags, open pine habitat, and large openings within the Black Elk Wilderness. There would be a total of 395 acres of grassland habitat within the entire project area, approximately 40 acres more than Alternative 1. There is expected to be 974 acres more SS4A, an open habitat type, remaining than in Alternative 1. Snags are expected to increase.

This alternative is expected to increase the amount of meadow habitat and open pine stands, which include SS 1 and 2, through vegetation treatments, but also because of MPB activity within the Norbeck project area. The increased meadow and open habitat may increase mountain bluebird numbers.

Direct effects to this species could occur because of project activities, prescribed burning or equipment killing birds. However, vegetation treatments may disturb individuals in the fall, but timing restrictions are expected to lessen some of the impacts. Prescribed burning may result in a loss of nesting habitat in this alternative.

Alternatives 3 and 4 These alternatives would benefit the mountain bluebird by creating and maintaining open areas. In both alternatives, meadow enhancement treatments would occur on 297 acres, approximately 21 acres more than in Alternative 2. These treatments, along with MPB activity, are expected to create snags and open areas throughout the project area.

Alternative 4 would allow mechanical operations within locations, 061703, and 061704 to be year-round within the first year. Therefore, direct effects to this species may occur during mechanical operations in this area. Also, prescribed burning may result in a loss of nesting habitat and/or individuals in both alternatives. Vegetation treatments may also disturb individuals, but timing restrictions are expected to lessen some of the impacts, especially with Alternative 3.

These alternatives may increase the amount of meadow habitat and open pine stands through vegetation treatments and prescribed burning within the BEW, but also because of MPB activity within the entire Norbeck project area. Snags would increase naturally and potentially through prescribed fire. The increased meadow and open habitat may increase mountain bluebird numbers within the Norbeck project area.

94 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects Under all action alternatives, there could be direct effects to this species because of vegetation treatments and prescribed fire. Also, Alternative 4 increases that risk because of project activities occurring in the western portion for the first year of treatment.

All alternatives would improve habitat for mountain bluebird by increasing open habitats. However, it is unknown how trees would be distributed across the landscape after MPB mortality. The action alternatives also provide vegetation treatments to increase or maintain meadows. There would be an abundance of open habitat in all alternatives. The action alternatives retain a little more of SS 4A through mechanical treatment that and these stands could become denser in time and could provide future snags for this species.

Golden-crowned Kinglet (Focus Species and MIS) The golden-crowned kinglet was selected as a Forest MIS to evaluate the effects of Forest Plan implementation and natural change on the ability of the Forest to support species that rely on a variety of conditions in spruce habitat to meet their needs (USDA Forest Service 2005). Refer also to the golden-crowned kinglet discussion under MIS, which occurs later in this Chapter.

It was selected as a Focus species to represent spruce habitat.

Habitat The golden-crowned kinglet is closely tied to white spruce and that is where the highest densities of the species can be found. They have also been observed in other habitat types but generally where there is spruce present. Golden-crowned kinglets have been observed within the project area (Panjabi 2003).

In 2008, the spruce acreage was estimated at 25,724 acres on the Forest, which is 28% greater than Objective 239, which calls for 20,000 acres of spruce (USDA Forest Service 2009). Habitat for the golden-crowned kinglet has increased over the long-term and is exceeding the Forest- wide target of 20,000 acres (Objective 239) (USDA Forest Service 2009). . Some of this increase may be attributable to more accurate mapping techniques and recent inventories.

Distribution The golden-crowned kinglet breeds from Alaska to California, southern Utah, south-central New Mexico, Mexico, Guatemala and east of the Rockies to New York, eastern Tennessee, western North Carolina and southern Maine (DeGraaf et al. 1991). The species is considered an uncommon permanent resident in the higher elevations of the Black Hills (Tallman et al. 2002). Recent monitoring shows that it is most abundant in the northwestern Black Hills (Panjabi 2003).

Golden-crowned kinglets have been monitored on the Black Hills since 2001 in cooperation with the RMBO (Panjabi 2001, 2003; Beason et al. 2006, Giroir et al. 2007, White and Giroir 2009). It occurs in greatest abundance in white spruce forests in the Black Hills and monitoring results from 2007 (did not monitor white spruce sites in 2008) showed the species at a density of 5.4 birds/km2 in this type of habitat. Golden-crowned kinglets were also found in northern ponderosa pine, montane riparian and foothill riparian habitats; however, white spruce was present at some level with each one of these (Beason et al. 2006).

95 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) Under this alternative no spruce sites would receive any treatment. Trees may continue to mature and eventually become snags. Small openings may naturally occur in spruce sites allowing succession. However, MPB is expected to spread across the entire project area, killing ponderosa pine trees and mature spruce trees. Acres of spruce would more than double from 251 acres to 537 acres. However, it is predicted that the majority of mature spruce would be impacted by MPB. Approximately 17 acres of mature spruce stands are predicted to remain in year 2020. Mountain pine beetle activity could impact the golden-crowned kinglet by removing suitable habitat causing displacement of individuals to outside the Norbeck project area.

Common to All Action Alternatives Habitat objective for the golden-crowned kinglet is spruce enhancement. Each action alternative includes 78 acres of spruce enhancement, to be accomplished by mechanical means, only. Removal of pine within spruce stands would benefit this species.

No direct effects to this species are expected to occur because of project activities because no spruce habitat is going to be burned. However, vegetation treatments may disturb individuals, but timing restrictions are expected to lessen some of the impacts.

The action alternative would result in a slight increase in acres of spruce over the no action alternative. The impacts of MPB would be similar, however, and the majority of spruce would transition to a SS2. Approximately 90 acres of mature spruce stands would remain, which is very little preferred habitat. Smaller pockets of mature spruce would likely survive the mountain pine beetle mortality. These changes are expected to impact the golden-crowned kinglet by removing preferred habitat and causing displacement of individuals to more suitable habitat.

Brown Creeper (Focus Species and MIS) The brown creeper was selected as an MIS to evaluate the effects of Forest Plan implementation and natural change on the ability of the Forest to support species that rely on a variety of spruce, late-successional and dense mature pine conditions to meet their needs.

Brown creeper was selected as a focus species to represent late succession, large trees and spruce habitat.

Habitat The brown creeper is found most abundantly in mature, old growth coniferous and mixed- coniferous-deciduous forests. The preferred nesting habitat for this species is mature, old growth forest that is undisturbed and contains a closed canopy (Hejl et al. 2002, Wiggins 2005). This small forest bird occurs in low abundance throughout the Black Hills and is associated with mature and late succession forest conditions. Results from monitoring data identify white spruce and late successional pine as the most important habitat type for this species (Panjabi 2001, 2003, 2005). Other important habitat requirements are areas of large trees (i.e., >10” DBH), loose bark, areas infested with bark beetles and snags (DeGraaf et al. 1991, Wiggins 2005). Dead or decaying trees and snags provide substrate for nests and foraging. Nesting habitat generally contains trees that are >9” DBH (Hejl et al. 2002). Evidence also suggests that this species is sensitive to the effects of forest fragmentation (Wiggins 2005).

96 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Distribution The brown creeper is found from Alaska and southern Canada south to Central America (DeGraaf et al. 1991). In the western states, the brown creeper is considered a year-round resident, retreating to lower elevations during the coldest months of winter. It is considered an uncommon permanent resident of the Black Hills (Tallman et al. 2002), largely tied to late successional pine and white-spruce habitats (Panjabi 2003, 2005).

Brown creepers have been monitored on the Black Hills since 2001 in cooperation with the RMBO (Panjabi 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, Beason et al. 2006, Hutton et al. 2007, Giroir et al. 2007). Brown creepers are well distributed in low abundance throughout the Black Hills. Habitat specific density estimates were 16.9 birds/km2 for late-successional ponderosa pine forest (i.e., structural stage 4C and 5, Panjabi 2005) in 2004, 6.2 birds/km2 for northern Hills ponderosa pine forest in 2005 (Beason et al. 2006), and 8.1 birds/km2 in 2005 to 2.2 birds/km2 in 2007 for white spruce forest (Beason et al. 2006, Giroir et al. 2007). Late successional pine and white spruce forests were not monitored in 2008 (USDA Forest Service 2009). The MBBH program was designed to statistically detect population trends over a longer time period than the seven years that it has been implemented. A less rigorous analysis of the data reveals varying densities across the years, with no obvious upward or downward Forest-wide population trend (USDA Forest Service 2007). However, relative densities showed a significant drop in 2007 (Blakesley et al. 2008), but it is unclear if this is annual fluctuation or the beginning of a downward trend.

Habitat trend appears to be stable on the Black Hills. Acres of white spruce and ponderosa pine structural stages 4C and 5 are stable, acres of ponderosa with a tree size of very large are stable, and snag density is above the Forest Plan objective (USDA Forest Service 2007). In 2004, the RMBO reported that of the 44 brown creepers observed near a count station, 52 percent were in areas classified as structural stage 5, 16 percent were in 4C, 18 percent were in 4B and 14 percent were in 4A (Panjabi 2005).

The species was observed in low numbers but scattered throughout the Project Area in structural stage 4B, 4C and 5 ponderosa pine sites as well as mature spruce. Currently, there are a total of 14,525 acres of structural stage 4B, 4C and 5 ponderosa pine and 49 acres of white spruce in those same structural stages. There are pockets of MPB that have opened up some of these stands. The combination of large trees, snags and beetle infested areas has made some of the Norbeck Project area desirable habitat for the species.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) This alternative would result in a decrease of preferred habitat for this species. As a result, displacement of individuals outside of the Norbeck project area is possible.

Mountain pine beetle caused mortality is expected to eliminate late succession stands and vastly reduce availability of large trees. Acres of spruce would more than double from 251 acres to 537 acres. However, it is expected predicted that the majority of mature spruce would be impacted by mountain pine beetle. Approximately 17 acres of mature spruce stands are predicted to remain in year 2020.

It is predicted that there would be no SS 4C and 5 throughout the project area, and only 65 acres of SS4B would remain in MA 5.4A. It cannot be predicted how SS 4A ponderosa pine would be distributed across the project area. An increase in spruce stands is expected, yet it is predicted that 97% of the acres would transition to SS1 and 2. Only 17 acres (16 acres within MA5.4A) of

97 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

SS4A spruce would remain. Mountain pine beetle activity is expected to impact the brown creeper by changing habitat causing displacement of individuals to more suitable habitat, which may be outside of the project area. In addition, there is potential for stand-replacing wildfire to occur. Stand-replacing wildfire is a threat to habitat for this species because of the brown creepers association with late successional habitat. This alternative is expected to increase the risk of habitat fragmentation and loss from stand replacing fire for this species.

Common to All Action Alternatives Habitat objectives for the brown creeper include; late succession enhancement, large tree enhancement and spruce enhancement.

Each action alternative includes 78 acres of spruce enhancement, to be accomplished by mechanical means, only. Removal of pine within spruce stands would benefit this species. The action alternatives would result in a slight increase in total acres of spruce over the no action alternative.

As with the no action alternative, the majority of spruce would transition to a SS2 as a result of MPB activity. No proposed management actions would convert mature spruce stands to SS 1 or 2. The action alternatives would retain more (90 acres) acres of mature spruce habitat than the no action alternative (17 acres), which would benefit brown creeper. Smaller pockets of mature spruce would likely survive the mountain pine beetle mortality.

Mountain pine beetle activity is expected to impact the brown creeper by destroying habitat causing displacement of individuals to more suitable habitat, which may be outside of the project area.

These alternatives are expected to result in similar risk of habitat fragmentation for this species, compared to Alternative 1 due to the mountain pine beetle outbreak.

Alternative 2 Direct effects to this species may occur during prescribed burning because nests may be destroyed, killing hatchlings. Mechanical treatments may disturb individuals, but timing restrictions are expected to lessen some of the impacts.

Large tree, late succession, and spruce enhancement treatments proposed in Alternative 2 are expected to improve habitat for brown creeper. The current MPB activity is expected to cause a large scale reduction in habitat for brown creeper by killing large trees, both pine and spruce, and reducing acres of mature, dense stands on the landscape. Alternative 2 would result in more mature pine and spruce remaining in year 2020 than the no action alternative, due to mechanical treatments which reduce beetle risk.

Stand replacing wildfire is a threat to habitat for this species because of the brown creepers association with late successional habitat. Forest stand structures, including density, age classes and crown arrangements, are important in determining the potential for stand replacing fire. The action proposed in this alternative would alter stands structures and reduce the threat for stand replacing fire to occur in the project area. Wildfire threat is less in this alternative than the no action alternative.

Alternatives 3 and 4 Direct effects to this species may occur during prescribed burning because nests may be destroyed, killing hatchlings. In addition, vegetation treatments may disturb individuals, but timing restrictions are expected to lessen some of those impacts. Alternative 4 allows mechanical

98 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 operations within locations, 061703, and 061704 to be year-round within the first year, which would increase the potential for direct impacts.

Large tree, late succession, and spruce enhancement treatments in Alternatives 3 and 4 are expected to increase habitat for brown creeper. These alternatives would also benefit brown creeper by retaining large conifers within hardwood stands. These large trees would be utilized for foraging by the brown creeper. The current MPB activity is expected to cause a large scale reduction in habitat for brown creeper by killing large trees, both pine and spruce, and reducing acres of mature, dense stands on the landscape. Alternative 3 is expected to result in the least amount of mature pine, of the action alternatives and Alternative 4 is expected to result in the most acres of mature pine, and large trees on the landscape but these stands may not be dense enough to support brown creepers. Therefore, both alternatives would benefit brown creeper.

The potential for stand replacing wildfire is less in these alternatives than in the no action alternative and Alternative 2 because of project activities. In the long-term, ponderosa pine habitat is expected to become more dense sooner than with the no action alternative.

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects Under all alternatives, little preferred habitat (SS 4C and 5) is expected to remain because of MPB mortality. Structural stages 4C and 5 are predicted to only occur in pockets of less than 5 acres in size, no stands of SS 4C or 5 are expected to remain. Large trees would be available in SS4A pine and spruce stands. As a result of this decline in preferred habitat, brown creeper populations within the Project Area are expected to substantially decline in all alternatives. All of the action alternatives are designed to enhance spruce, large trees, and late successional habitat, and reduce loss to MPB mortality. The action alternatives are not expected to result in an increase of preferred habitat over existing conditions because of the beetle caused mortality. However, the action alternatives would maintain more preferred habitat than Alternative 1 (No Action) by reducing loss to MPB mortality, and maintaining large trees in SS 4A.

Ruffed Grouse (Focus Species and MIS) The ruffed grouse was selected as a focus species to represent species which utilize hardwoods, aspen, in pure and mixed hardwood/conifer stands.

Ruffed grouse was selected as an MIS for the Forest to address forest condition and habitat diversity, specifically aspen distribution and condition. Refer to the MIS section of the Chapter.

Habitat Ruffed grouse prefer young to medium aged aspen stands (Tallman et al. 2002) but have been observed in other habitat types in the Black Hills, including open pine forests (Panjabi 2001, 2003). Ruffed grouse can survive on a diverse diet in the spring, summer and fall (Bolen and Robinson 2003), which may explain the range of habitat types the species has been recorded-in from RMBO monitoring data (Panjabi 2001, 2003). However, ruffed grouse feed on tree buds in the winter and are almost completely dependent on aspen for food, shelter and escape cover. Aspen buds are rich in minerals, fats, carbohydrates and proteins that can sustain an animal through tough winter periods. Also, small (<1 ha) forest openings, wood edges, and other clearings provide diverse herbaceous and insect food (Rusch et al. 2000). The large numbers of aspen stems that grow after a fire or clearcut provide excellent cover from predators for young grouse. Ideal ruffed grouse habitat consists of plentiful aspens in all age-classes (i.e., sapling, pole-sized and mature; Bolen and Robinson 2003).

99 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Distribution Ruffed grouse are a resident species where found and range from central Alaska to northwestern California, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming and Montana. They extend east through Minnesota, Ohio and the Appalachian Mountains from Virginia to northeastern Georgia (DeGraaf et al. 1991). It is considered an uncommon permanent resident in the Black Hills (Tallman et al. 2002) with greatest abundance in the northern Hills (Panjabi 2003).

BBS data shows an average decline of 1.24 percent in the US for ruffed grouse between 1966 and 2007. There is no data for South Dakota or the Black Hills, but the central Rockies have also seen a decline of 2.56 percent for this same time period (Sauer and Hines 2008). This decline is probably linked to the decline in aspen seen throughout the intermountain west (Bartos 2000). Aspen has declined by about 20 percent over the last 30 years in the Black Hills, and when compared to historic conditions, that number could be in excess of 40 percent (Dale Bartos, US Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah, personal communication).

Although quantitative data are lacking, grouse appear to be less common in the Black Hills than they were historically (Wiggins 2006). The Forest is currently working with the SDGFP and the Rocky Mountain Research Station to develop a new monitoring protocol for ruffed grouse. Data was collected for the first time in 2007. The probability of detecting ruffed grouse in the Black Hills is influenced by wind speed and the date. Preliminary data from 2007 show a probability of occupancy of 0.133 (Hansen et al. 2008), which is a low estimate of presence. This data would serve as baseline data for future trend assessments.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) Changes to habitat resulting from this alternative are the result of expected mountain pine beetle cause mortality. This alternative would benefit ruffed grouse by increasing acres of aspen over the existing condition. Aspen would increase from the existing condition due to pine mortality and most of the increase would occur in the project area outside the BEW.

More openings would be created. Pockets of ponderosa pine would remain on the landscape, but it cannot be predicted how these would be distributed.

Common to All Action Alternatives Habitat objectives for the ruffed grouse include hardwood enhancement and stand diversity.

Direct effects to ruffed grouse include potential mortality from vegetation treatments, but it is expected that this species would leave the area before that occurs. Vegetation treatments may disturb individuals, but timing restrictions are expected to lessen some of the impacts and ruffed grouse are expected to return to the area.

Because of MPB activity, it is expected that hardwood stands and open areas would increase significantly throughout the project area, and this would benefit ruffed grouse. The dead trees that have fallen would provide cover for this species.

Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would benefit ruffed grouse by increasing preferred habitat. Acres of aspen would be slightly increased over Alternative 1. Stand diversity treatments would create foraging pockets adjacent to cover. Stand diversity treatments located adjacent to hardwood stands may provide the most benefit to this species. Proposed treatments would also result in more open, mature pine stands (SS4A) on the landscape than in alternative 1.

100 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Through mechanical treatments and MPB activity, this alternative would increase the amount of hardwoods, especially aspen which is this species main habitat, and open pine stands available to ruffed grouse throughout the project area. The increased aspen may improve habitat enough to provide the opportunity for a population increase.

Alternatives 3 and 4 Alternative 4 would increase the potential for direct effects to ruffed grouse over all other alternatives. Mechanical activities would occur during the first full year of implementation within locations, 061703, and 061704. These activities have the potential to impact this species by killing nesting birds.

Alternatives 3 and 4 benefit ruffed grouse by increasing acres of aspen over those predicted in Alternative 2. These alternatives also retain large conifers in some aspen stands. This would benefit ruffed grouse as these trees would be used for foraging within their preferred habitat. Alternative 4 proposes the most acres of stand diversity treatments. Alternative 3 proposes a moderate amount between Alternatives 2 and 4. Stand diversity treatments create cover and foraging pockets for ruffed grouse. Stand diversity treatments located adjacent to hardwood stands may provide the most benefit to this species.

Through mechanical treatments and MPB activity, these alternatives would increase the amount of hardwoods, especially aspen which is this species’ main habitat, and open pine stands available to ruffed grouse throughout the project area. The increased aspen may improve habitat enough to eventually provide the opportunity for a population increase.

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects All alternatives are expected to have beneficial impacts to ruffed grouse due to predicted increases in aspen habitat.

The action alternatives provide the most acres of aspen with Alternative 3 resulting in the most acres of aspen, followed by Alternatives 4, 2 and 1. Alternative 4 would provide the most acreage of stand diversity treatments, but these are expected to be more open pine stands, which would be less beneficial for this species. Therefore, this project is contributing to Objective 238a because all alternatives increase the amount of habitat available for ruffed grouse. This project is expected to contribute to reversing the downward Forest-wide habitat trend. Resulting habitat improvements may improve Forest-wide population trends in the long term, but ruffed grouse populations would take several years to respond as aspen and hardwood increases would occur slowly.

Song Sparrow (Focus and MIS) The song sparrow was selected as a Forest MIS to evaluate the effects of Forest Plan implementation and natural change on the ability of the forest to support characteristic riparian species that rely on a variety of riparian conditions to meet their needs.

The song sparrow was selected as a focus species to represent species which utilize hardwoods, shrubs and riparian areas.

Habitat The song sparrow can be found throughout the Black Hills but is primarily dependent on riparian habitat with streamside thickets and willows. Highest densities were recorded in montane riparian habitat and to a lesser extent foothill riparian and white spruce habitat types. The spruce

101 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

habitat the species was observed in usually occurred adjacent to riparian areas (Panjabi 2003). The latest estimate of riparian habitat on the Forest is about 64,000 acres. This includes riparian areas with an overstory of hardwoods or conifers. Of this acreage, about 12,000 acres have a shrub (willow) component. No Forest-wide data on riparian resource condition was collected in FY 2008 (USDA Forest Service 2009).

The Project Area consists of a number of riparian corridors with active, yearlong water flows. The biggest threat to the species is probably from pine encroachment, which can reduce the quantity and quality of riparian vegetation. Some of the best available habitat is along Iron Creek and Lafferty Gulch where nearly all small diameter (i.e., <9 inch DBH) ponderosa pine was removed during a fuels thinning project 3-4 years ago. This allowed grasses, forbs, shrubs and hardwoods to re-establish along these corridors. Near ground vegetation density as well as structure has increased, which benefits the song sparrow.

Distribution The song sparrow breeds from Alaska across Canada to Newfoundland and south across the northern part of the United States. It is considered common in the eastern United States and locally common in the West (DeGraaf et al. 1991). In South Dakota, it is considered an uncommon and local migrant in the western part of the state (Tallman et al. 2002). In 2003 and 2005, highest densities in the Black Hills were located in montane riparian habitat at 42.5 and 57.4 birds/km2 followed by foothill riparian habitat at 8.4 and 24.9 birds/km2 respectively (Panjabi 2003, Beason et al. 2006).

The Monitoring Birds of the Black Hills program (MBBH) was established in 2001. This program was designed to statistically detect population trends over a longer time period than it has been implemented. A less rigorous analysis of the existing MBBH data suggests a stable Forest-wide population trend for the song sparrow since 2003 (USDA Forest Service 2007).

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) Ponderosa pine may continue to become denser and encroach into hardwoods and shrubs, competing with them for resources. However, because of the predicted MPB effects to conifers, hardwoods and shrubs are expected to increase. Aspen would increase from the existing condition; most of the increase would occur in the project area outside the BEW. Mountain pine beetle activity is expected to benefit riparian habitat by killing encroaching pine.

Common to All Action Alternatives The proposed treatments would benefit the song sparrow by increasing the amount of hardwoods and shrubs in the project area and releasing existing hardwoods and shrubs from conifer competition. The action alternatives include hinging of trees within and around the perimeter of hardwood stands. This would discourage browsing and improve the potential for successful regeneration of aspen stands. The total acres of aspen vary by alternative, but the increase in acres may improve habitat enough to provide the opportunity for a population increase.

All action alternatives propose 52 acres of shrub enhancement treatments, to be accomplished with both mechanical and burning methods. Total acres of shrub habitat are increased to 52 acres. Shrubs, especially along riparian corridors, provide optimal habitat for this species.

Direct effects to song sparrow include potential mortality from vegetation treatments, but it is expected that this species would leave the area before that occurs. However, vegetation

102 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 treatments may disturb individuals, but timing restrictions are expected to lessen some of the impacts and song sparrows are expected to return to the area. All alternatives would benefit song sparrow by improving riparian habitat, which includes hardwoods and shrubs along riparian areas.

Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would benefit song sparrow by improving riparian habitat, which includes hardwoods and shrubs along riparian areas. Alternative 2 would result in slightly more acres of aspen than in Alternative 1.

Through mechanical treatments and MPB activity, this alternative would increase the amount of hardwoods and shrubs available to song sparrow throughout the project area. The increased aspen may improve habitat enough to provide the opportunity for a population increase.

Alternatives 3 and 4 Alternative 4 would increase the potential for direct effects to song sparrow over all other alternatives. Mechanical activities would occur during the first full year of implementation within locations, 061703, and 061704. These activities have the potential for disturbance or direct mortality from these operations.

Mechanical treatments to enhance hardwoods would be the same for both alternatives, and slightly more than Alternative 2. In conjunction with mechanical treatments within hardwood sites, mountain pine beetle activity would increase in existing pine stands, which would benefit aspen by opening up hardwood stands and slowing down pine encroachment or by decreasing competition for sunlight and water. Alternative 3 would result in the most acres of aspen of any alternative and Alternative 4 results in the second highest acreage of aspen, of any alternative. The majority of these changes occur outside the BEW.

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects All alternatives are expected to have beneficial impacts to song sparrows because of MPB activity increasing and/or releasing hardwood and shrub habitat.

In addition, the action alternatives provide vegetation treatment to enhance hardwoods and shrubs. Alternative 3 provides the most acres of hardwoods (1,454 acres) after treatments are completed. However, Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 are close with the acreage of hardwoods, 1,273 acres, 1,387 acres and 1,396 acres, respectively. The action alternatives increase acres of shrubs over the No Action alternative.

Northern Goshawk (Focus Species, R2 Sensitive Species) The northern goshawk was selected as a focus species to represent species which utilize late succession, large tree and stand diversity habitat.

Habitat This species is considered a forest generalist species and nests in most forest types throughout their geographic range. Forest stands containing nests are often small (approximately 30 to 280 acres in size) but are mostly closed canopy, late-successional forest in close proximity to small forest openings and water. Prey species vary based on region, season and availability. Main foods include small mammals, small to medium birds, reptiles and some insects. In the Black Hills, this species is usually found in ponderosa pine, especially in more closed canopy with multiple vegetation structure. Nest stands are typically mature, closed canopy (greater than 60%) ponderosa stands with high basal area. Goshawks typically nest in relatively dense (dependent on

103 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

forest type) forest areas and use a mosaic of structural stages for foraging within their home range (Kennedy 2003). Little is known about migration of this species (NatureServe 2009).

No single prey species is likely to be abundant enough to support goshawk populations; therefore, habitats for multiple species are necessary. Important habitat attributes include snags, downed logs, woody debris, large trees, openings, herbaceous and shrubby understories, and an intermixture of various forest vegetation structural stages (Reynolds et al. 1992). Reynolds et al. (1992) recommends 2 snags per acre (>18” DBH) and 3 large, downed logs per acre (>8 ft. long) in ponderosa pine habitats. Goshawks tend to select stands that have relatively large trees and relatively high canopy closure (Kennedy 2003).

There are 5 known historical or active goshawk territories (Palmer, Summit, Horsethief, Iron Mountain and Camp Remington) within the project area. There is potential over-wintering habitat in the Norbeck Project Area. Goshawk surveys were conducted June-July of 2006 through 2009 within the Norbeck Project Area. In 2009, only one goshawk territory was active; however, C. Knowles (Faunawest, 2008, personal communication) reported activity in the Horsethief territory in 2008. Also, other sightings of goshawks in the project area have been reported.

The Norbeck Project Area contains areas that currently provide suitable nesting habitat for goshawks. This species has a low reproductive rate and is vulnerable to predation, environmental extremes, habitat loss and disturbance. Through annual monitoring efforts goshawk territory occupancy has been found to fluctuate. Territory occupancy is what the Forest evaluates to demonstrate persistence of breeding goshawks on the Forest. In 2008, 32 goshawk territories were monitored by Forest biologists. Of these, 13 (41%) were active. This territory occupancy rate is consistent with data since 2000. The rate was not determined in 2004. Woodbridge and Hargis (2006) disclose territory occupancy rates between 39% and 100% in two Western study areas from 1992 to 1996. This may suggest that the recent rates on Black Hills NF may be relatively low. However, the frequency and intensity of monitoring in those studies were much higher than what is performed in the Black Hills, which would lead to higher (and more accurate) occupancy rates. Forest Service monitoring in the Black Hills is typified by only one or two visits to a subsample of nests each season, with each visit lasting less than one full person- day (USDA Forest Service 2009). Furthermore, goshawk territoriality and nest attempts show high annual variation, and may be closely tied to annual precipitation fluxes that affect prey abundance (Salafsky et al. 2005). Therefore, drought conditions over the past several years may also be affecting goshawks (USDA Forest Service 2009).However, the Forest Plan Phase II Amendment provides for additional standards to provide protection of this species habitat around existing nests. Prey species such as chipmunks and some birds would benefit by increasing grasses and forbs (cover and food source) or young-forest conditions, while other prey species like woodpeckers and squirrels that favor a mature over-story may decrease.

Distribution This species is an uncommon to rare resident in forests of Canada and northern and western United States (DeGraff et al. 1991). They are also found in Europe and Asia. In the Black Hills, this species is considered a rare permanent resident and has been found nesting in all the counties in the Black Hills (Tallman et al. 2002).

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) No direct effects would occur to northern goshawks as a result of the no action alternative.

104 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Ponderosa pine may continue to become denser with the lack of active management under this alternative, which would benefit northern goshawk. However, it is predicted that the MPB effects to dense, mature conifer stands would be substantial and would result in a vast decrease of nesting habitat for the northern goshawk and an increase in foraging habitat across the project area.

It is projected that no preferred nesting habitat, dense, mature and late successional conifer stands would remain by year 2020 due to MPB caused mortality. Small areas of dense, mature and late successional conifers may remain as scattered pockets across the landscape, but these are not expected to provide preferred nesting habitat due to their small size.

Alternative 1 would likely retain 65 acres of moderately dense, SS 4B, pine in the Stockade Lake portion, which is a disjunct parcel from the rest of Norbeck. Approximately 7,800 acres of open pine stands (4A) would remain on the landscape.

Mountain pine beetle caused mortality is projected to convert nearly all of the mature dense stands to forage habitat as SS1 and 2.

Common to All Action Alternatives Habitat objectives for the northern goshawk include late-succession and large tree enhancement and stand diversity treatments.

No direct effects would occur to northern goshawks as a result of the action alternatives. However, if a new nest is established or a previously undetected nest is found in a proposed harvest area or prescribed burn unit, there could be direct loss of an active nest stand during implementation. Forest Plan Standard 3115 provides adequate direction to protect these nest sites when found prior to harvest. All alternatives are consistent with Forest Plan goshawk standards. No overstory canopy trees are proposed for removal in goshawk nest areas, and 180 acres of suitable nesting habitat have been identified, so all alternatives are consistent with Standard 3108. All action alternatives would enhance the stand’s value for goshawk. All action alternatives would restrict activity near active nests (Standard 3111).

It is expected that quality nesting habitat would not remain within the project area due to mountain pine beetle caused mortality. Large trees would be vastly reduced. The effects from the mountain pine beetle outbreak is that there would be more goshawk foraging habitat than currently exists, but this is at the expense of large trees and late successional habitat, this species’ preferred nesting habitat. Vegetation treatments that have already occurred along the border of the project area, and treatments from the action alternatives that would occur around some of the preferred goshawk nesting habitat may protect those nesting areas from MPB activity by buffering some of this species preferred nesting habitat.

All action alternatives result in more mature pine stands (SS4A) remaining on the landscape than Alternative 1, no action. Project activities may enhance stands for nesting more quickly than the no action. In addition, the action alternatives would increase the potential for maintaining mature pine habitat for the long-term future by reducing MPB susceptibility and fire hazard. Forest Plan Objective 221 is therefore met for this species.

Alternative 2 Large tree, late succession and stand diversity treatments are intended to improve habitat for the goshawk, but because of MPB activity it is expected there will be no habitat available in SS 4B, 4C, or 5 throughout the entire project area.

105 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 2 proposes a thinning within designated goshawk nest stands. The purpose of this treatment would be to reduce the understory and create improved hunting conditions for the goshawk. This treatment would include no treatment buffers around the nest trees, would not remove any trees >6”DBH, and would retain pockets of dense regeneration for prey habitat.

Some prey species could be adversely affected as well by removing canopy, snags, down woody material and ground cover. Effects from the mountain pine beetle include a vast increase in snags and down woody material. Ground cover is also expected to increase.

Alternative 2 would retain more mature pine stands and large trees within the project area than alternative 1 by reducing stands susceptibility to mountain pine beetles.

Alternative 3 Alternative 3 defers all treatment within designated goshawk nest stands. These stands may continue to become denser, but because of the large trees and dense habitat, the nest stands are highly susceptible to mountain pine beetles and would likely be impacted. Vegetation treatments that have already occurred along the border of the project area, and other habitat objective treatments in this alternative would occur around some of the preferred goshawk nesting habitat. These treatments could protect nesting areas from MPB activity by buffering some of this species preferred nesting habitat. Retention of large conifers in hardwood stands would benefit the northern goshawk. These large trees would be used for perching by this species.

Alternative 3 would result in approximately 700 acres less mature pine stands (SS4A) than Alternative 2. Therefore, fewer large trees and options for developing future nesting habitat would be lessened over Alternative 2. It is expected that pockets of SS4A would remain on the landscape outside the BEW in Alternative 3 because of mechanical treatments. However, these may not be dense enough to accommodate goshawks. It cannot be predicted how trees would be distributed across the landscape in areas affected by MPB mortality, because of MPB activity no preferred habitat is expected to remain on the landscape.

Alternative 4 Alternative 4 proposes the same treatment within goshawk nest stands as Alternative 2 and would have the same intended effects in those stands.

Of the action alternatives, Alternative 4 proposes harvesting more suitable (SS 4B, 4C, and 5 pine) nesting habitat than the other two action alternatives. Any loss of potential cover habitat around active nests may increase susceptibility of goshawk young to predators. As a result, Alternative 4 is projected to retain the largest number of acres of mature pine (SS4A) on the landscape, of any alternative. Retention of large conifers in hardwood stands would benefit the northern goshawk. These large trees would be used for perching by this species.

Alternative 4 would have an increased potential for direct effects to goshawks over all other alternatives. Mechanical treatment operations would be allowed within locations, 061703, and 061704 for the first full year of implementation. These activities may directly kill nesting birds, in unknown nests, if nests are not detected before treatment occurs.

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects All of the alternatives would result in a vast reduction of suitable nesting habitat and large trees across the landscape. The action alternatives would also retain more large trees and mature pine stands on the landscape than the no action alternative, which would provide for future nesting habitat.

106 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Population viability for this species was evaluated during the Phase II Amendment to the 1997 Land and Resource Management Plan. The Phase II Black Hills BA/BE, Environmental Amendment determined that population viability across the Planning Area would be maintained for this species if Forest standards and guidelines are followed. The proposed action alternatives would meet these standards, guidelines, and objectives. Therefore, this species is likely to persist on the Forest. The goshawk-specific direction (Standard 3108 and 3111) for known nest areas would be followed for all alternatives. Regardless of which alternative is chosen, goshawk habitat is expected to be adversely impacted by MPB, and the risk to the goshawk population within the Norbeck project area is high.

The Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation completed for this project made the following determination for this species:

All action alternatives may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.

Black-backed Woodpecker (Focus, MIS, and R2 Sensitive Species) The black-backed woodpecker was selected as a Forest MIS to address Forest condition and habitat diversity, specifically the occurrence and distribution of mature and late-successional forest, burned forest, insects, and snags on the landscape.

The Black-backed woodpecker was selected as a focus species to represent species which utilize late succession, large tree, stand diversity habitats, snags and burned habitat.

Habitat In the Black Hills, black-backed woodpeckers are associated with ponderosa pine habitats that have high populations of their main prey: the larvae of wood-boring beetles, engraver beetles, and bark beetles (Anderson 2003). Recently burned pine forests and areas infested with mountain pine beetles are most preferred by black-backs. The species can also be found in forests that are relatively unaffected by beetles, but it is relatively rare in such places.

Unburned pine stands infested with MPB are also important to black-backed woodpeckers. Rumble (2002) found that the density of black-backed woodpeckers in the heavily infested Beaver Park area was approximately seven times greater than what Mohren (2002) found across all habitats in the Black Hills. The core of the infestation had densities that were 32 times higher than the Forest-wide average; this is the highest density recorded on the Forest although it occurred over a fairly small-localized area.

In unburned, uninfested pine habitat of the Black Hills, black-backs select mature or late- successional pine stands with high canopy cover, high tree densities, and high snag densities (Mohren 2002; Panjabi 2001; Panjabi 2003; and USDA Forest Service 2000). These conditions are found primarily in structural stages 4C and 5.

Black-backs also use sapling-pole stands with any amount of canopy cover (i.e., structural stages 3A, 3B, and 3C), but to a lesser degree than any of the other habitat structures mentioned thus far (Mohren 2002, USDA Forest Service 2000). Mohren (2002) reported that black-backed woodpeckers avoid mature pine stands that do not have high canopy cover (i.e., structural stages 4A and 4B).

Black-backed woodpeckers nest in hard snags or live trees with diameters of nine to 18 inches (Anderson 2003). Ponderosa pine appears to be the most important nest tree in the Black Hills,

107 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

as all recent studies report nests in only that species (Vierling 2005; Mohren 2002; Rumble 2002). The distribution, arrangement, and size of patches of snags needed is uncertain, but the literature suggests that snags should be clumped (Dixon and Saab 2000).

Mohren (2002) reported that the average snag density in unburned foraging habitat in the Black hills was 47 snags per acre. He found that black-backs selected for shorter snags (16.5 ft. average) than available and small diameter snags (7 inch average).

Burned habitat has declined as large fires that burned prior to 2002 have aged and become less valuable as Black-backed habitat. Still, because of other fires since 2002, there is a relatively high amount of potential habitat available on the Forest. Habitat provided from mountain pine beetle is abundant when compared to 10 years ago and appears to be increasing.

Forest-wide habitat conditions have been favorable for the black-backed woodpecker over the past few years due to numerous large fires and beetle outbreaks. Habitat is relatively abundant when compared to 10-25 years ago. In the past few years, the habitat trend appears to be stable as recently burned areas have declined (aged) and insect caused tree mortality continues to increase. The addition of recent wildfires and insect caused tree mortality results in above 3 snags per acre (Forest Plan Objective 211) well dispersed across the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2007a).

Distribution The main range of the black-backed woodpecker is in the northern Rocky Mountains and across Canada (Dixon and Saab 2000). In South Dakota, this woodpecker is known only in the Black Hills, where it is considered an uncommon yearlong resident (SDOU 1991). In Wyoming, the species occurs in the northeastern portion of the state as well as in the Black Hills and Bear Lodge Mountains.

In the Black Hills, black-backed woodpecker distribution and abundance is closely associated with recent stand replacing fires (Panjabi 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, Giroir et al. 2007) and insect out-breaks (Bonnot 2004, Rumble 2002). They also occur at much lower densities throughout the remainder of the Forest (Mohren 2002; Panjabi 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, Giroir et al. 2007).

In his baseline population study, Mohren (2002) estimated that approximately 1,200 backed woodpeckers occurred in the Black Hills during 2000, with an average Forest-wide density of one bird/883 acres (0.28 birds/km2). The estimate applied across all habitat types on the Forest, excluding large recent burns, which did not exist at the time. According to Mohren (2002), the Forest-wide density estimate was similar to what has been recorded in other unburned habitats across the species range. Since Mohren’s first estimate was derived, several large fires occurred in the Black Hills, which has undoubtedly increased the black-backed woodpecker population.

Potential suitable habitat is present in the project area. Late-succession stands containing large diameter dead trees (snags) created by natural events (wind, lightning), and areas of MPB activity are currently present within or adjacent to the Norbeck Project Area. Observations have occurred within the project area, especially within denser habitat (SS 4C and 5). In 2004, observations were made within the project area (Panjabi 2005).

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 – No Action An increase of preferred habitat for this species would occur under the no action alternative as a result of mountain pine beetle activity. The mountain pine beetle is expected to create more

108 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 black-backed woodpecker nesting and foraging habitat than currently exists in this habitat type, but at the expense of large trees and late successional habitat. No prescribed burning or mechanical treatment would occur in this alternative, so there would be no treatment-caused loss of snags. Habitat for this species would be plentiful across the project area.

Common to All Action Alternatives Habitat objectives for this species include late-succession, large tree enhancement and stand diversity treatments. These treatments are expected to enhance cover, nesting, and prey habitat.

An increase of preferred habitat for this species would occur under all action alternatives as a result of mountain pine beetle activity. The mountain pine beetle is expected to create more black-backed woodpecker nesting and foraging habitat than currently exists in this habitat type, but at the expense of large trees and late successional habitat. Habitat for this species would be plentiful across the project area.

Snags would not be removed unless deemed a safety hazard. There is the potential for accidental removal of cavities being used by woodpeckers in each of the action alternatives. The benefits of MPB activity creating large amount of snags and a large food source throughout the entire project area would outweigh the impacts of the significant decrease in mature, dense conifer stands.

Prescribed burning may destroy large snags, but may also create snags. Regardless of this impact, snags would be plentiful across the project area. No change to snag habitat is expected as a result of proposed prescribed burning.

Alternative 2 Due to the proposed treatments, more large trees, suitable for nesting would be retained than in the no action alternative, but because of MPB activity it is expected there would be no habitat available in SS 4B, 4C, or 5 throughout the entire project area. Late succession habitat would be enhanced by Alternative 2, however, mountain pine beetle effects would vastly reduce this habitat.

It is predicted that Alternative 2 would retain more mature pine stands (SS4A) than Alternative 1. It is expected that more pockets of SS4A would remain on the landscape outside the BEW than in Alternative 1, because of mechanical treatments. It cannot be predicted how trees would be distributed across the landscape in areas affected by MPB mortality.

Prescribed burning would occur outside of the Wilderness. No change to snag habitat is expected as a result of burning.

Alternative 3 Stands may continue to become denser, but because of the large trees and dense habitat, the nest stands are at risk from MPB attack. However, vegetation treatments that have already occurred along the border of the project area, and treatments from the action alternatives that would occur around some of the black-backs habitat may protect more habitat.

Due to the proposed treatments, more large trees, suitable for nesting would be retained than in the no action alternative, but fewer than in Alternative 2. Less acres of late succession habitat would be enhanced in this alternative, than in Alternative 2. Mountain pine beetle effects would vastly reduce this habitat.

109 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

It is predicted that Alternative 3 would retain less mature pine stands (SS4A) than Alternative 2. These stands could provide large trees and could develop into dense, mature stands. It is expected that more pockets of SS4A would remain on the landscape outside the BEW than in Alternative 1, because of mechanical treatments. It cannot be predicted how trees would be distributed across the landscape in areas affected by MPB mortality.

Prescribed burning would occur both inside and outside of the Wilderness. No net change to snag habitat is expected as a result of burning. Retention of large conifers within hardwood stands would benefit the black-backed woodpecker by providing for foraging.

Alternative 4 The potential for direct effects to this species are slightly increased under this alternative due to the allowance for mechanical treatment operations to occur within locations, 061703, and 061704 for the first full year. Unknown nest trees could be removed.

Habitat for this species would be decreased by the action alternatives in the treated areas. Removal of commercial wood would reduce future nesting habitat created by insects and disease in the proposed cutting areas. Alternative 4 would remove more mature trees than Alternatives 2 and 3; however, Alternative 4 would also maintain the most acres of mature pine habitat (SS 4A) of all the alternatives, which would provide for large trees and future habitat for this species. Retention of large conifers within hardwood stands would benefit the black-backed woodpecker by providing for foraging.

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects Removal of mature trees, and harvest related snag loss could negatively impact this species’ habitat in the treated areas. However, the increased MPB activity would increase habitat in the short-term. The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment requires snags to be retained if numbers in a project area are below those specified by Objective 211; however, the project area would exceed this objective. Overall, habitat for this species is being provided consistent with Objectives 221 and 238b. The “aging” of large burned areas into habitat less suitable for black-backed woodpeckers is likely being offset by the increasing acreage of insect-infested timber stands and the stable acreage of large diameter, older pines. The acres of recently burned habitat are declining as fires move beyond five years since burn date. The MPB is at outbreak levels across many areas on the forest, particularly the central Hills and in the Black Elk Wilderness. The overall condition on the Forest is still for a high beetle infestation. This translates into a short- term favorable habitat condition for the black-backed woodpecker (USDA Forest Service 2009). Forest standards, which are based on scientific literature, are expected to be adequate in providing at least minimum habitat needs for this species. In addition, recent large wildfires along with increased insect activity have increased suitable habitat across the Planning Area.

Population viability for this species was evaluated during the Phase II Amendment to the 1997 Land and Resource Management Plan. The Phase II Black Hills BA/BE, Environmental Amendment determined that population viability across the Planning Area would be maintained for this species if Forest standards and guidelines are followed. The proposed alternatives would meet these standards and guidelines. Therefore, this species is likely to persist on the Forest.

The Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation completed for this project made the following determination for this species:

All action alternatives may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.

110 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Cumulative Effects for All Alternatives and for All Focus Species Environmental conditions such as excessive heat, drought, wind, fire, or pine beetles can affect nestling and fledgling success for goshawks. These influences can have incremental effects when combined with the proposed vegetation treatments.

Under all action alternatives, there could be some incremental impacts from disturbance. Treatment activities are expected to temporarily produce disturbance impacts to these focus species in addition to those from other recreation and management activities. These impacts are expected to be short term and localized and would lessen once the project is complete.

All alternatives are expected to increase forage (grasses/forbs and browse) for these species, which may incrementally reduce conflicts and competition with grazing livestock. The action alternatives include vegetation treatments that would further enhance forage.

There could be short-term adverse direct and/or indirect effects to these species, especially for species nesting in the area during project activities, from the action alternatives; adverse cumulative effects are not expected.

There is limited cattle grazing in the Project Area so most streams are not impacted by large, domestic ungulates. However, some riparian areas and wet meadows are impacted. Horseback riding along designated trails does have an impact at site specific stream crossing in regards to riparian vegetation.

The action alternatives are expected to incrementally offset some of the effects of past fire suppression by reducing pine encroachment into spruce, meadows, shrublands and hardwoods; treating understory within late-succession stands and stands which enhance large trees, and creating open habitats – all of which provide habitat or foraging opportunities for these focus species. This would increase habitat for these species, especially when considering habitat maintained and/or provided by the recent Needles and Grizzly Timber Sales.

Roads can remove habitat, create barriers, or decrease habitat quality for some species. However, no new roads would be added and any road temporarily opened would be closed and seeded following use. Road use would temporarily produce disturbance effects to these focus species. It may even cause displacement, but some of these species would be expected to return to the project area.

Adverse cumulative effects to species which utilize dense, mature conifer stands, large trees, late succession, and stands with a diversity of cover and structures are expected as a result of the current mountain pine beetle outbreak. This is expected to adversely affect these species and cause displacement of those species that rely on these habitat types. However, the action alternatives would be expected to retain more mature pine in pockets on the landscape than no action. Treatments in areas surrounding the Norbeck project area, and Grizzly and Needles Timber sales have decreased the amount of thermal cover available to species that need it. However, in the long-term, those areas may provide thermal cover and dense stands of pine and large trees.

Past timber harvest on National forest and non-National Forest lands has contributed to the loss of large mature trees and blocks of mature dense forested stands have been reduced in size so that they are no longer considered large enough to meet the nesting requirements for the goshawk. Wildfires and pine beetles have also contributed to the loss of large mature pine trees in the area. All action alternatives would continue to remove suitable (potential) raptor nest trees,

111 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

but would provide protection around the existing nest territory. The possibility of future large- scale, high intensity wildfires does exist for this project area. Development and vegetation treatment of private lands is expected to continue. Any changes to this acreage are not expected to contribute to habitat loss. Incremental impacts from the action alternatives are expected to offset some of the potential effects of large wildfires and insect outbreaks that result from past, present and future fire suppression. However, because of MPB activity that is already occurring and expected to occur throughout the entire project area, large trees are expected to significantly decrease in all alternatives.

The increased MPB activity throughout the forest and project area continues to provide habitat for this species. Fuel (fire) management treatments would reduce habitat potential for this species.

Privately owned lands within and adjacent to the project area may also provide suitable habitat for the black-backed woodpecker. Fire-hazard reduction activities are likely to increase on some of these lands in effort to prevent loss of homes from wildfire. This could result in a loss of habitat, but the amount of area within these private lands is relatively small compared to what is on the forest (USDA Forest Service 2008). The indirect effects mention above would be an incremental impact additional to those on private lands.

In addition, if development occurs on private lands, this may cause fragmentation of habitat for some focus species, including sheep. The action alternatives may incrementally add disturbance impacts while the operation is active, but these additive impacts are expected to cease once the project is complete, but disturbance will continue from recreational activities. The action alternatives could incrementally lead to additional invasive weeds, but include control activities to mitigate these impacts.

Bighorn sheep, mountain goat and other focus species likely use habitat at Mount Rushmore National Memorial and Custer State Park. Activities on these lands would add to disturbance on focus species. Management activities on Custer State Park have contributed to a reduction of dense, mature habitat for focus species, but these actions may contribute to maintaining mature conifers and large trees on the landscape, over time. Mount Rushmore has completed management actions to reduce fire hazard on lands adjacent to the Black Elk Wilderness.

Summary of Effects to Focus Species The Norbeck Organic Act (NOA) of 1920, authorized establishment of the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve, “for the protection of game animals and birds and to be recognized as a breeding place therefore (sic).” As discussed previously, the twelve focus species represent other game animals and birds which utilize similar habitats within the Norbeck project area. All of the alternatives would meet the intent of the NOA by maintaining and improving habitats utilized by focus species.

Management Indicator Species (MIS) The Phase II Amendment to the 1997 Forest Plan-FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005) lists MIS to be considered during project-level planning. The MIS species which have habitat or populations present within the Norbeck Project Area are analyzed (see Table 44). Some MIS are also Focus species, including; white-tailed deer, golden-crowned kinglet, brown creeper, ruffed grouse, song sparrow and black-backed woodpecker. These species were discussed above in the Focus section and the effects to these dual designation species as MIS are summarized in this section. Other

112 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

MIS species have dual designations as also R2 sensitive species or Species of Local Concern. It is noted in the effects discussions if species have more than one designation.

Table 44. MIS list and rationale for inclusion in project-level analysis

Analyzed Species Rationale Habitat Description in Rep. Large rivers and lakes down to There are active streams, marshes and small lakes Beaver beaver colonies in Iron YES with seepage/weak flows adequate for (Castor canadensis) Creek and Spokane damming and suitable woody Creek vegetation (Higgins et al. 2000). Very adaptable species that can live in Species was observed White-tailed deer almost any habitat. In South Dakota, YES throughout the Project (Odocoileus virginianus) this includes grasslands, wetlands and Area. woodlands (Higgins et al. 2000). Species was observed Found almost exclusively in white Golden-crowned kinglet throughout the Project spruce habitat but occasionally YES (Regulus satrapa) Area in spruce present in habitats with a spruce dominated vegetation. component (Panjabi 2003). Large meadow near Grasshopper sparrow Lakota Lake and Found almost exclusively in native (Ammodramus YES Galena Burn Area may mixed-grass prairies (Panjabi 2003). savannarum) provide desirable habitat. Burned areas with a high density of Species was observed pre-burn snags; mountain pine beetle Black-backed three times in dense, infested areas; dense and/or mature woodpecker YES mature ponderosa pine forests with a high snag density (Picoides arcticus) sites (i.e., 4C). (Anderson 2003, Panjabi 2003, Bonnot et al. 2008). Species was observed or heard on a number In the Black Hills, white spruce and Brown creeper of occasions late successional pine appears to be YES (Certhia americana) throughout the Project the most important habitat type for this Area in 4B and 4C pine species (Panjabi 2001, 2003). sites. Variable aged aspen stands, other Areas of aspen hardwoods and pine forests provide Ruffed grouse throughout the Project YES habitat. Winter habitat is almost (Bonasa umbellus) area, but especially in exclusively aspen (DeGraaf et al. the Palmer area. 1991, Tallman et al. 2002). Streamside thickets, particularly Riparian corridors shrubby willows, are required for Song sparrow provide desirable YES habitat. Occasionally found in (Melospiza melodia) habitat throughout the adjacent spruce habitat (Panjabi Project Area. 2003). Large rivers, lakes, reservoirs, prairie Mountain sucker Iron Creek provides streams but most often in cool, clear, (Catostomus YES potential habitat for this moderately swift mountain streams platyrhynchus) species. with mud, cobble, or boulder substrate (Isaak et al. 2003).

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects for Management Indicator Species This portion of the document discusses the effects of the four alternatives on each MIS species. For each species, the existing condition is immediately followed by the anticipated direct,

113 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

indirect and cumulative effects of each alternative to allow for ease of comparison of the alternatives.

Beaver (MIS) The beaver was selected as a Forest MIS to evaluate the effects of Forest Plan implementation and natural change on the ability of the Forest to support species that rely on a variety or riparian and hardwood forest conditions to meet their needs (USDA Forest Service 2005).

Habitat and Distribution Beavers are found in suitable habitat throughout much of North America and are widely distributed in South Dakota (Higgins et al. 2000). Their populations were significantly reduced by the 1880s from extensive trapping (Parrish et al. 1996). However, numbers have increased since then and although they can still be legally harvested, active management and regulations have moderated the effect of trapping on populations. Beavers can be found in large rivers, lakes, streams, marshes and just about anywhere there is at least a weak flow of water and material for damming. The species is vegetarian and forages on leaves, twigs and the inner bark of woody plants. Its preferred diet consists of aspen, willows, cottonwoods and alders (Higgins et al. 2000). Likely limits to persistence include degradation and/or loss of riparian shrubs and forests due to historical management activities, as well as the loss of hardwood components on adjacent uplands.

Baseline beaver surveys were conducted on the Forest in the fall of 2004. The species was most commonly found in the Bearlodge Mountains and central Black Hills. A total of 74 active and 5 inactive beaver colonies were identified. Assuming an average of 3.5 to 5.3 beaver per colony (Payne 1981), the current estimated population size is between 250 and 390 beavers (USDA Forest Service 2005b). Forestwide, long-term beaver population trend has increased since heavy trapping has decreased, but it is less than its potential. The current distribution of beaver is reduced based on the number of inactive beaver sites that were observed (during monitoring efforts in 2007), especially in headwater streams, where water and/or a suitable food supply is lacking (USDA Forest Service 2008). In addition, Forest-wide, the long-term trend in beaver habitat is one of decline. The reduction in beaver activity that occurred from heavy trapping likely caused a lowering of water tables and a subsequent loss of willows and other riparian vegetation (Parrish et al. 1996). This, in conjunction with other factors, has reduced the quality and quantity of riparian willow habitat in the Black Hills following European settlement. The amount of aspen and other hardwoods on the Forest has also declined (USDA Forest Service 2005b). The implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines, Regional watershed conservation practices and best management practices likely maintains existing riparian habitat consistent with Forest Plan Objectives (238a), but probably at a level less than its full capability.

In the Project Area, there are active beaver colonies along Iron Creek and Spokane Creek. Additionally, remnant beaver dams and lodges can be found throughout much of the Black Elk Wilderness in perennial streams. Reasons for abandonment of these areas are not known, but chances are hardwoods and shrubs (food source) are being encroached upon by ponderosa pine. Weaker water flows from multiple years of drought and increases in pine forest may also be driving the animals to other locations.

114 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) No direct effects would occur to beaver. No indirect effects, resulting from management actions would occur to beaver habitat. Shrubs and forage would continue to grow in these riparian areas and pine may continue to encroach into these riparian areas. However, the current MPB activity is expected to release hardwoods and other riparian habitat from conifer competition. This would benefit the beaver by increasing quality habitat and food sources.

Common to All Action Alternatives No direct effects are expected to occur because of project activities.

These alternatives propose treatments along the Iron Creek and Spokane Creek corridors. Treatments include hardwood enhancement, removing and hinging pine from hardwoods stands. The action alternatives would result in more acres of hardwoods than in the no action alternative.

Beaver habitat would benefit because riparian areas that contain hardwoods and willow are expected to increase along these and other creeks, enhancing or even increasing beaver habitat and foraging opportunities. Hinging of conifers is expected to protect suckers from browsing, allowing them to grow and expand. Even in riparian areas not proposed for any mechanical treatments, hardwoods are expected to increase because mountain pine beetles would continue to kill pine that is encroaching upon or close to the hardwoods.

Beaver habitat in/along Iron and Spokane Creeks would not be negatively impacted by any of the alternatives. However, all alternatives increase hardwoods because of MPB activity, and the action alternatives include treatments to enhance hardwoods. None of the action alternatives would contribute to a loss of habitat or decrease in the beaver population Forest-wide. Post- harvest activities planned under the action alternatives may be beneficial for beaver. Treatment activities within the Norbeck project area are contributing to Objective 238a. It would continue to be met under all alternatives. Forest Plan standards and guidelines for riparian areas would be followed under all alternatives. Population viability for this species was evaluated during the Phase II Amendment to the 1997 Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2005). The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined that population viability across the Planning Area would be maintained for this species if pertinent Forest standards and guidelines are followed. This project would not change any of the standards, guidelines or objectives that provide for beaver habitat. The proposed alternatives would meet these standards and guidelines. Therefore, this species is likely to persist on the Forest. Under all alternatives, there would be adequate habitat for maintaining populations for beaver.

Cumulative Effects Through mechanical treatments and MPB activity, all alternatives are expected to increase the amount of hardwoods along riparian corridors. The increased aspen may improve habitat/food sources enough to provide the opportunity for a population increase.

Activities such as fire suppression, timber harvest and thinning, livestock grazing, noxious weed treatment, recreational activities and other management activities have and are expected to continue in the Norbeck Project area. These activities would likely occur on private lands as well. The alternatives are expected to incrementally offset some of the effects of past fire suppression by reducing pine encroachment into hardwoods, spruce and meadows. Treatment activities are expected to temporarily produce disturbance impacts to beaver, but the impacts are

115 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

expected to cease once the project is complete. Mountain pine beetle is also expected to incrementally offset some of the above effects naturally by reducing pine encroachment into hardwoods and other areas. However, because of the effects of MPB and treatment activities, there is expected to be beneficial effects to beaver because of an increase in suitable habitat.

Beaver may be impacted because of the presence of humans in the summer group homes, recreational trails that cross streams, or from vehicle traffic, which is likely to continue. Human presence may increase in the vicinity of the beaver habitat due to recreation opportunities. All may affect beaver through direct mortality, modification of behavior, habitat alteration, spread of exotics, or disturbance.

Past harvest operations in Needles2, Grizzly2 and along the Byway may have been beneficial for the water flow in the creek. Fewer pine trees in the area may lead to increased available water, which benefits beaver.

The project area has had several years of drought conditions, which may change with the moisture received the past 2 years. This factor may positively influence the riparian habitat for beaver in the area. Private lands would likely continue to be developed, some of which may include roads.

Foreseeable future activities include trail enhancement along Iron Creek, which includes building bridges over stream crossings to mitigate impacts to stream. These would have positive impacts to the stream course which would benefit beaver.

White-tailed Deer (Focus Species and MIS) The white-tailed deer is also a Focus species. The effects to this species are addressed above in the Focus Species section.

Population viability for this species was evaluated during the Phase II Amendment to the 1997 Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2005). The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined that population viability across the Planning Area would be maintained for this species if pertinent Forest standards and guidelines are followed. The proposed alternatives would meet these standards and guidelines. Therefore, this species is likely to persist on the Forest.

White-tailed deer were selected as an MIS on the Forest to evaluate forest conditions, including understory shrubs, needed to support this species. Forest-wide summer habitat trend is increasing, and winter habitat trend is stable to slightly decreasing (USDA Forest Service 2008). Black Hills white-tailed deer populations have steadily increased in recent years from an estimated population of 28,000 in 1999 to 54,000 in 2006 (Huxoll 2008) but have decreased the past two years to 45,000 in 2008 (Huxoll 2009), and is now below the SDGFP deer objective (Objective 217). The Norbeck Project is meeting Forest Plan Objectives (238a) for white-tailed deer. All alternatives are expected to create foraging habitat for this species. It is likely that the action alternatives would maintain more thermal cover and enhance shrubs. However, because of MPB activity, changes in habitat are expected to occur (See Silviculturist report) which would mostly effect thermal and hiding cover by significantly decreasing it.

Golden-crowned Kinglet (Focus Species and MIS) The golden-crowned kinglet is also a Focus species. The effects to this species are addressed above in the Focus Species section.

116 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Population viability for this species was evaluated during the Phase II Amendment to the 1997 Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2005). The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined that population viability across the Planning Area would be maintained for this species if pertinent Forest standards and guidelines are followed. The proposed alternatives would meet these standards and guidelines. Therefore, this species is likely to persist on the Forest.

Because of its association with white spruce habitat, the golden-crowned kinglet was selected as an MIS on the Forest to address this habitat type. The Forest is meeting Forest Plan Objectives (Obj. 238c) based on the acres of preferred habitat. In the short-term, the relative density in 2007 was the lowest since the bird monitoring began in 2001; however, the habitat continues to increase and exceed Objective 239 (Manage for 20,000 acres of spruce, etc.) (USDA Forest Service 2009). All action alternatives are expected to enhance spruce habitat for this species, and spruce acres are expected to increase with all alternatives because of the MPB activity. However, because of the predicted effects (See Silviculturist report) of MPB, remaining spruce would mostly convert to SS2, which is not suitable for this species.

Grasshopper Sparrow (R2 Sensitive Species and MIS) The grasshopper sparrow was selected as an MIS on the Forest to address abundance, distribution and condition of grassland habitat.

The grasshopper sparrow is also a Region 2 sensitive species. The effects to this species are evaluated in the Biological Evaluation.

Habitat and Distribution The grasshopper sparrow is found in a broad array of open grassland types but it appears to be area-sensitive, preferring large grassland patches greater than 20 acres in size. This sparrow appears to have very specific structural vegetation requirements, where minimum grass heights are > 11 inches with an average of 50% grass cover interspersed with areas of bare ground (up to 34%) and shrub cover <35%. Grasshopper sparrows are ground nesters, foraging almost exclusively on the ground. Diet consists mostly of seeds and insects, mostly grasshoppers. Primary avian predator is the loggerhead shrike (Slater 2004). In the Black Hills, they prefer native, upland grasslands with blue gramma, western wheat grass, and prairie junegrass (Panjabi 2001,2003, White and Giroir 2009). Most of the large grasslands are in private ownership. Risks to this species includes loss of native grassland habitat (species diversity and size), fire that reduces stubble height, predation, overgrazing of habitat, and pesticides that reduce prey species. Refer to Slater (2004) for additional discussion of habitat relationships, life history, and disturbance ecology.

The grasshopper sparrow has a wide distribution throughout most of North and South America from Canada to Mexico and Central America. Although this species maintains a widespread breeding range, populations have declined 69 percent since the late 1960’s (Slater 2004). In the Black Hills, this species is considered locally common migrant and summer resident (Tallman et al. 2002). The grasshopper sparrow occurs widely in native mixed grass prairies in the southern Black Hills and Elk Mountains and locally further north to the central hills (Panjabi 2001,2003, White and Giroir 2009). While they occur in the central portion of the Black Hills, their presences appears to be sporadic. Forest-wide monitoring indicated the population trend of the grasshopper sparrow has increased since first monitored in 2002. However, this may be a short- term phenomenon due to drought conditions on the Great Plains (USDA Forest Service 2008). Grassland cover types are currently short of the objective acres. Grassland acres have varied over

117 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

time. This may be due to inconsistencies as to which cover types are queried from the vegetation database. The general perception is that grassland habitats have been declining due to pine encroachment. Projects across the Forest have been emphasizing meadow and grassland restoration through removal of pine encroachment. Some of this, particularly pine removal on the periphery of prairies, may contribute to habitat enhancement for the grasshopper sparrow. The Forest is largely maintaining grassland habitat consistent with Objective 238a, but additional time and effort is needed to achieve the grassland acres identified in Objective 205 (USDA Forest Service 2009).

Suitable habitat is present in the project area within grasslands and meadows, especially in the Galena burn area and in the meadow near Lakota Lake. Permitted grazing occurs on Forest only in the portion of Norbeck referred to as Palmer. Refer to the Range section of this Chapter for more information.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 – No Action The no action alternative would have no direct effects to the grasshopper sparrow. Pine would continue to encroach into meadows, decreasing diversity in grassland communities, which would affect the habitat available to the grasshopper sparrow. No change in the acres of meadow would occur in this alternative. Mountain pine beetle caused mortality would create large openings in the project area.

Common to All Action Alternatives Similar acres of meadow enhancement treatments are proposed under all action alternatives. These alternatives would increase the acres of meadow, in the project area, by approximately 10%. These actions would enhance suitable habitat for the grasshopper sparrow by removing encroaching conifers in grasslands and their periphery and increasing understory vegetation. Prescribed fire would improve the vigor of grassland communities by removing standing vegetation, litter, and increase nutrient cycling.

The action alternatives would have the potential for inadvertent loss of individuals and/or nests in treated areas. Design criteria to reduce impacts to meadows and which would limit the period of operations are included (see Appendix B) and would limit the potential for loss. However, Alternative 4 may cause direct mortality to nesting birds because of the potential for year-round treatment in the northwest portion of the project area.

Disturbance and use of road and trails increase the potential for invasive species to spread in native grassland habitats. Noxious weed treatments would occur following proposed activities. These treatments would reduce the spread of invasive species, but may also affect plant diversity in treated areas. Overall the noxious weed treatments would be a benefit to this species.

All alternatives contribute to conservation and maintenance of grasshopper sparrow habitat (Forest plan Objectives 221, 238). Under Alternatives 3 and 4, prescribed burning is proposed within the BEW. This may substantially reduce the amount of standing dead/live trees and the amount of fuels on the ground. Potential acreage could be converted to grassland, which would benefit this species

Cumulative Effects Fire suppression and conifer encroachment may reduce suitable habitat for this species in the Norbeck project area. However, fuels’ treatments within the meadow near Lakota Lake has

118 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 created suitable habitat by removing encroaching pine. The incremental effects of the alternatives are expected to offset some of the effects of fire suppression and pine encroachment into grassland habitat. MPB infestation would continue, increasing open forest conditions under all alternatives but would have little effect on grassland habitat. The increase of MPB mortality would amplify the probability of large-scale fire.

Disturbance from project activities may have incremental impacts through additional invasive plant occurrences. Noxious weed control may decrease vegetation diversity in treated sites. Livestock grazing (over-utilization) on Forest may negatively affect this species, especially during drought conditions. Project roads and skid trails may incrementally add fragmentation impacts in grassland habitat. Heavy livestock grazing of private grasslands, conversion to agricultural crops or development, could negatively affect the use of these grasslands by reducing nesting and foraging habitat.

Summary of Effects Population viability for this species was evaluated during the Phase II Amendment to the 1997 Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2005). The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined that population viability across the Planning Area would be maintained for this species if pertinent Forest standards and guidelines are followed. The proposed alternatives would meet these standards and guidelines. Therefore, this species is likely to persist on the Forest.

Because of its association with intermediate and taller vegetation, grasshopper sparrow habitat and/or population trends are likely a good indicator of prairie grassland habitat condition. The grasshopper sparrow was selected as an MIS on the Forest to address abundance, distribution and condition of grassland habitat. Grassland cover types are currently short of the objective acres. Grassland acres have varied over time. This may be due to inconsistencies as to which cover types are queried from the vegetation database. The general perception is that grassland habitats have been declining due to pine encroachment. Projects across the Forest have been emphasizing meadow and grassland restoration through removal of pine encroachment. Some of this, particularly pine removal on the periphery of prairies, may contribute to habitat enhancement for the grasshopper sparrow. The Forest is largely maintaining grassland habitat consistent with Objective 238a, but additional time and effort is needed to achieve the grassland acres identified in Objective 205 (USDA Forest Service 2009). Forest-wide monitoring indicated the population trend of the grasshopper sparrow has been stable and upward since first monitored in 2002 (USDA Forest Service 2008). However, this may be a short-term phenomenon due to drought conditions on the Great Plains. All alternatives may create habitat for this species, but all action alternatives may better enhance or increase acres of preferred habitat for this species. Mountain pine beetle activity is also expected to increase acres of grassland by killing pine trees. Under all alternatives, there will be adequate habitat for maintaining populations of grasshopper sparrows.

The Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation completed for this project made the following determination for this species:

All action alternatives may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.

119 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Black-backed Woodpecker (Focus Species, R2 Sensitive Species and MIS) The black-backed woodpecker is also a Region 2 sensitive species. The effects to this species are evaluated in the Biological Evaluation.

Population viability for this species was evaluated during the Phase II Amendment to the1997 Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2005). The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined that population viability across the Planning Area would be maintained for this species if pertinent Forest standards and guidelines are followed. The proposed alternatives would meet these standards and guidelines. Therefore, this species is likely to persist on the Forest.

Black-backed woodpeckers were selected as an MIS to evaluate the effects of Forest Plan implementation and natural change on the ability of the Forest to support species that rely on mature and late successional forest, burned forest, insects, and snags to meet their needs. Overall, habitat for this species is being provided consistent with Objectives 221 and 238b. The “aging” of large burned areas into habitat less suitable for black-backed woodpeckers is likely being offset by the increasing acreage of insect-infested timber stands and the stable acreage of large diameter, older pines (USDA Forest Service 2008). The Forest-wide relative density for this species is probably higher than “normal” given the current habitat conditions. Black-backed woodpecker populations are ‘eruptive” as reflected in their densities in burned habitat. This pattern of rapid colonization and subsequent decline is consistent with findings of other studies (Anderson 2003). This species’ Forest-wide population trend is likely to decline in the future as vegetation management efforts to reduce the fire-hazard and insect-risk continue.(USDA Forest Service 2009). All alternatives are expected to create habitat for this species because of MPB activity and because of high fire risk, although the no action has the highest risk for stand- replacing fire.

Brown Creeper (Focus Species and MIS) The brown creeper is also a Focus species. The effects to this species are addressed above in the Focus Species section.

Population viability for this species was evaluated during the Phase II Amendment to the 1997 Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2005). The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined that population viability across the Planning Area would be maintained for this species if pertinent Forest standards and guidelines are followed. The proposed alternatives would meet these standards and guidelines. Therefore, this species is likely to persist on the Forest.

The brown creeper is selected as an MIS to evaluate the effects of Forest Plan implementation and natural change on the ability of the Forest to support species that rely on a variety of spruce and late successional and dense mature pine conditions to meet their needs. Habitat trend is stable as defined by SS 4C and 5. Forest plan objectives (238a) are being met , though short-term activities to meet the structural stage 4C objective may be affecting the Forest’s ability to provide very large trees in SS 4C (USDA Forest Service 2008). Forest-wide monitoring indicated the population trend of the brown creeper has been stable, but decreased in 2007 (USDA Forest Service 2008). The action alternatives propose to enhance late succession, large tree, and spruce habitat, which would greatly benefit this species. Also, the threat of stand-replacing wildfire and insect-infestations would be reduced. However, because of the MPB activity, it is predicted that suitable habitat for this species would not remain in the project area, but project activities are intended to retain more large trees that would become suitable habitat again in the long-term.

120 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Ruffed Grouse (Focus Species and MIS) The ruffed grouse is also a Focus species. The effects to this species are addressed above in the Focus Species section

Population viability for this species was evaluated during the Phase II Amendment to the 1997 Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2005). The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined that population viability across the Planning Area would be maintained for this species if pertinent Forest standards and guidelines are followed. The proposed alternatives would meet these standards and guidelines. Therefore, this species is likely to persist on the Forest.

The ruffed grouse was selected as an MIS to evaluate the effects of Forest Plan implementation and natural change on the ability of the forest to support species that rely on a variety of conditions in aspen to meet their needs. The long-term habitat trend for ruffed grouse is one of decline. There has been a slight decline in aspen acres over a ten-year period and it is likely that there has been an associated population decline in ruffed grouse. Thus, additional time and effort would be needed to meet Objective 238a (USDA Forest Service 2008). All alternatives may increase preferred habitat for this species because of MPB activity, but all action alternatives may better enhance or increase acres of preferred habitat for this species because of project activities.

Song Sparrow (Focus Species and MIS) The song sparrow is also a Focus species. The effects to this species are addressed above in the Focus Species section.

Population viability for this species was evaluated during the Phase II Amendment to the 1997 Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2005). The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined that population viability across the Planning Area would be maintained for this species if pertinent Forest standards and guidelines are followed. The proposed alternatives would meet these standards and guidelines. Therefore, this species is likely to persist on the Forest.

The song sparrow is selected as an MIS to evaluate the effects of Forest Plan implementation and natural change on the ability of the forest to support characteristic riparian species that rely on a variety of riparian conditions to meet their needs. Riparian habitats have decreased in quality since the pre-European settlement era, indicating a long-term declining habitat trend. More recent, shorter-term riparian trends are unclear. Small riparian protection projects have improved riparian conditions in some areas contribute to habitat enhancement and are meeting Forest plan objectives (238a) (USDA Forest Service 2008). The MBBH program was designed to statistically detect population trends over a longer time period than it has been implemented. However, a less rigorous analysis of the data suggests a stable Forest-wide population trend since 2003 (USDA Forest Service 2007). All alternatives are expected to increase suitable song sparrow habitat because of MPB activity and/or project activities. The action alternatives propose specific treatments to enhance song sparrow habitat.

Mountain Sucker (MIS and R2 Sensitive) Mountain sucker was selected as a Forest MIS to evaluate the effects of Forest Plan implementation and the natural change on the ability of streams to support characteristic fish species that rely on a variety of aquatic conditions to meet their needs (USDA Forest Service 2005).

121 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

It has been selected for project-level analysis because mountain suckers have historically been documented in Battle Creek, French Creek, Grizzly Bear Creek and Iron Creek (Stewart and Thilenius 1964) and proposed management activities may affect this species or suitable habitat.

Habitat and Distribution The mountain sucker occurs most often in cool, clear mountain streams with moderate water velocities. Stream substrate associated with mountain sucker habitat varies widely and ranges from mud to sand, gravel and boulders, although cobbles are most common. This species is found on the stream bottom and is closely associated with cover (exposed roots, undercut banks, log jams and boulders). Mountain suckers are benthic feeders and their diet is primarily simple plants like diatoms and green algae, but small invertebrates are also ingested. Spawning occurs in the spring, but the exact timing varies by elevation and water temperature. In the Black Hills, the spawning period for mountain suckers is probably June and maybe early July (J. Shearer, Coldwater Fisheries Biologist, SDGFP, pers. comm. 2006). This species is an open substrate spawner (broadcast spawner), meaning it does not build or defend a nest or redd. The incubation period of mountain sucker embryos is thought to be short, around 8 to 14 days (Belica and Nibbelink 2006).

The status of the mountain sucker in the Rocky Mountain Region and the Black Hills was assessed by Belica and Nibbelink (2006) and Isaak et al. (2003), respectively. Mountain suckers are native to the Black Hills and comprise the eastern-most range of the species. Recent surveys suggest mountain suckers occur in many of its historic drainages throughout the Black Hills (Isaak et al. 2003), but localized population reductions or absence at selected sites has occurred (USDA Forest Service 2007).

Mountain suckers were documented in Grizzly Bear Creek and Iron Creek within the project area in the early 1960s (Stewart and Thilenius 1964). Fish surveys in the mid-1980s (Ford 1988) and from 1992 to the present have not detected mountain suckers in any Norbeck Project Area streams (SDGFP 2009).

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 – No Action Under the No Action Alternative, sediment input from natural erosion processes and other anthropogenic sources would continue. The potential for increased sediment input is greatest under this Alternative if a stand replacing wildfire should occur. The Black Hills are a fire- adapted ecosystem and generally recovery from a fire disturbance is relatively short-term (3-5 years), but these effects may be exacerbated where ecosystem resiliency has been reduced. For example, instream barriers, such as Lakota Dam, may impede the upstream passage of mountain sucker to reoccupy suitable upstream habitat after a fire.

No new stream crossings are proposed in Alternative 1.

Common to All Action Alternatives Direct effects to the mountain sucker relate to in-water activities, typically associated with road- stream crossings. There would be eight constructed or new stream crossings on reconstructed roads with all of the action alternatives. Six crossings are on Iron Creek, one is on Spokane Creek and one is on Sunday Gulch. The potential to directly affect the mountain sucker only occurs on Iron Creek because this species has not been documented in Spokane Creek or Sunday Gulch. Direct effects would likely only occur if stream crossing placement/removal on Iron Creek occurs during the mountain sucker spawning period (June – early July) and would likely

122 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 only impact mountain sucker eggs because adults and juveniles should be able to swim away to avoid injury. The magnitude of this impact is further reduced given the short incubation time of mountain sucker eggs (8-14 days), the absence of mountain suckers in recent fish surveys and the small, localized area impacted.

All of the proposed management activities are likely to have negligible indirect effects given the implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines, regional watershed conservation practices and design criteria to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to aquatic habitat. Proposed vegetation management treatments likely to require the use of mechanized equipment in the Water Influence Zone (WIZ) along Iron Creek include 21.5 acres in Alternatives 2 and 4 and 15.8 acres in Alternative 3. No treatments are proposed in the WIZ along Grizzly Bear Creek. The above mentioned stream crossings are temporary and would be removed and rehabilitated upon completion of the project. These stream crossings are associated with the temporary use of approximately one mile of the Iron Creek Trail 15 as a haul route. These stream crossings will be constructed to allow the unimpeded movement of the mountain sucker consistent with Standard 1203.

Cumulative Effects The alternatives would not have an additive incremental impact on stream connectivity because no new instream barriers would be installed that impede mountain sucker movement. Existing barriers, such as Lakota Dam, are not proposed for removal and would continue to fragment stream connectivity on Iron Creek. The remediation of six stream crossings on Iron Creek would have a positive incremental impact on aquatic habitat by reducing sediment input, but the benefit may not be discernible in terms of increased mountain sucker abundance.

Proposed vegetation management activities in this decision would not have an additive impact o the mountain sucker in relation to the Needles II or Grizzly II Projects. None of the past vegetation management activities in the Needles II Project Area occurred within watersheds occupied by the mountain sucker. Vegetation management activities in the Grizzly II project treated so few acres using existing access roads along Grizzly Bear Creek that no residual effects are predicted to mountain sucker habitat. Vegetation management adjacent to Iron Creek occurred in the immediate vicinity of Lakota Lake which is not occupied by the mountain sucker and would serve as a sediment trap.

Cumulative effects are likely to be minor. Other past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions would both negatively and positively affect aquatic habitat. Overall effects to aquatic habitat from Alternatives 2, 3 or 4 are expected to be negligible due to the implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines, regional watershed conservation practices and South Dakota forestry best management practices, therefore, no discernable additive incremental impact to aquatic habitat suitability would occur. No additive incremental impact to stream connectivity would occur, though existing instream barriers, such as dams and some impassable culverts at road- stream crossings, are likely to persist. None of the alternatives would have an effect on the levels of non-native fish, so no additive impact is expected to mountain suckers from the possible negative interaction with non-native fish species.

Summary of Effects The implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines, regional watershed conservation practices and forestry best management practices would avoid and minimize adverse impacts to aquatic habitat. Remediation of six Connected Disturbed Areas related to road-stream crossings on Iron Creek would reduce sediment input and would have a positive effect on habitat quality,

123 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

though this habitat may not be currently occupied by the mountain sucker. No discernable changes in stream flow regime or water temperatures are expected because vegetation treatments would not be extensive enough for a measurable change in water yield and trees would continue to provide streamside shading. Subsequently, habitat suitability for mountain sucker spawning, feeding and sheltering would be maintained. All alternatives would conserve or enhance habitat for mountain sucker and would meet the intent of Forest objective 221.

Population viability for this species was evaluated in the Forest Plan Phase II Amendment BE (USDA Forest Service 2005). The Phase II BE determined that the mountain sucker was likely to persist for the next 50 years if land management activities are implemented consistent with the Forest Plan. All alternatives are consistent with Standard 1201 (WCPH Mgt Measure 5) and Guidelines 1205 and 3212 because no stream channel relocation is proposed and any rocks or wood in waterbodies would be left to maintain natural habitat complexity and promote bank stability. Standard 1203 (WCPH Mgt Measure 4) would be met because no new instream structures are proposed that would block flows, debris or fish movement. The proposed alternatives would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Therefore, this species is likely to persist on the Forest.

The Forestwide population and habitat trend for mountain sucker is one of decline (USDA Forest Service 2009). All alternatives would have a neutral effect on the Forest-wide population trend for the mountain sucker because stream connectivity and habitat suitability are maintained through the implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines, regional watershed conservation practices and best management practices. Subsequently, all alternatives meet the intent of Objective 238d to maintain or enhance mountain sucker habitat quality and connectivity.

The Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation completed for this project made the following determination for this species:

The determination for all action alternatives is may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.

The potential to adversely impact individuals is based on a very conservative approach that assumes mountain suckers may still be present in Iron Creek and that there is both an overlap in time and space between mountain sucker spawning and instream activity associated with stream crossing placement, use or removal.

Species of Local Concern (SOLC) Black Hills Supplement “r2_bh_2600-2005-1” to Forest Service Manual 2600 became effective November 7, 2005 and provides direction for the management of SOLC (USDA Forest Service 2005c). As defined by this supplement, a species of local concern is a plant, fish or wildlife species (including subspecies or varieties) that does not meet the criteria for sensitive status. These could include species with declining trends in only a portion of R2, or those that are important components of diversity in a local area. The local area is defined as Forest Service lands within the Black Hills National Forest. This supplement also provides a detailed explanation of the evaluation criteria used to select species of local concern and a current list for the Black Hills National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2005c). Table 45 lists potential SOLC for the Black Hills National Forest and notes which SOLC are analyzed for the Norbeck Wildlife project.

124 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Two of these SOLC species, the mountain goat and bighorn sheep are also Focus species. Project impacts to these 2 species are discussed earlier in this Chapter under Focus Species.

Table 45. SOLC List and Rationale for Project-level Analysis

Species Habitat Include in NEPA Species Present? Present? document? (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N) Atlantis fritillary YES YES YES (Speyeria atlantis pahasapae) Tawny crescent NO YES YES (Phycoides batesii) Callused vertigo YES YES YES (Vertigo arthuri) Mystery vertigo NO YES YES (Vertigo paradoxa) Frigid ambersnail NO YES YES (Catinella gelida) Striate disc NO YES YES (Discus shimekii) Sharp-shinned hawk YES YES YES (Accipiter striatus) Cooper’s hawk YES YES YES (Accipiter cooperi) Broad-winged hawk NO YES YES (Buteo platypterus) Northern saw-whet owl (Aegolius acadicus) NO YES YES Pygmy nuthatch NO YES YES (Sitta pygmaea) American dipper NO YES YES (Cinclus mexicanus) Black and white warbler (Mniotilta varia) NO YES YES Northern long-eared myotis NO YES YES (Myotis septentrionalis) Small-footed myotis NO YES YES (Myotis ciliolabrum) Long-eared myotis NO YES YES (Myotis evotis) Long-legged myotis NO YES YES (Myotis volans) Northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) YES YES YES Meadow jumping mouse NO YES YES (Zapus hudsonius campestris) Mountain goat YES YES YES (Oreamnos americanus) Bighorn sheep YES YES YES (Ovis canadensis)

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects for Species of Local Concern This portion of the document discusses the effects of the four alternatives on each Species of Local Concern (SOLC) species. Some of the species have similar habitats and are discussed together. For each species discussion, the existing condition is immediately followed by the anticipated direct, indirect and cumulative effects of each alternative to allow for ease of comparison of the alternatives.

125 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Atlantis Fritillary (SOLC) The effects to the Atlantis Fritillary and Tawny Crescent butterflies are combined due to similarities in habitat requirements. The effects discussion follows the habitat and distribution discussion for each species.

Habitat and Distribution The Atlantis fritillary is an endemic butterfly of the Black Hills and is restricted to Custer, Lawrence, and Pennington counties. It prefers wet meadows and moist canyons such as those near Dalton Lake and Lakota Lake (Marrone 2002). Recent surveys indicate species presence appears to be correlated with spruce, flowing water and relatively high elevation (Reiser and Spomer 2005).

Due to the restricted nature of the Atlantis fritillary’s distribution in the Black Hills, development or management activities within suitable habitats pose a risk to long-term persistence. Much of the fritillary’s habitat is privately owned. Surveys conducted in 2005 throughout the forest identified 20 sites with Atlantis fritillary. Of these 20 sites, only three were known to have Atlantis fritillary presence prior to this survey. Although the species may be more common than previously thought, it still has a limited range and appears tied to permanent montane wetlands in the Black Hills. One of the survey sites fell within the Project Area (Site 19) and is located along the north end of Palmer Creek. One male and one female Atlantis fritillary was identified at this location. Habitat consisted of a wet area along the riparian corridor with some spruce present (Reiser and Spomer 2005).

Surveys were conducted in 2006 (Marrone 2006) and three sites fell within the Project Area. Two of the sites (i.e., Sites 6 and 11) were along Iron Creek in the Camp Remington Area and Atlantis fritillary was present at each site. The other survey site (i.e., Site 9) was along Spokane Creek adjacent to Playhouse Road between Custer State Park and Iron Mountain Highway and Atlantis fritillary was found there also. All three areas are considered excellent habitat. Livestock grazing is not allowed in these areas and riparian habitat is in excellent condition. The areas along Iron Creek were non-commercially thinned a few years ago, which benefited spruce, hardwoods, shrubs and forbs – desirable habitat characteristics for this species.

Tawny Crescent (SOLC) The effects to the Atlantis Fritillary and Tawny Crescent butterflies are combined due to similarities in habitat requirements. The effects discussion follows the habitat and distribution discussion for each species.

Habitat and Distribution The tawny crescent is found in open meadows, stream bottoms, roads, trails, and riparian woodlands (Stefanich 2001). It is also found in mesic forest corridors across an ecotone between mixed-grass meadows or prairie grasslands to adjacent woodlands (Royer and Marrone 1992). Elsewhere in the Dakotas, adults are known to forage for nectar from a variety of floral species, including dogbane, leafy spurge and various composite flowers. Tawny crescent larvae appear dependent on asters as a food source although the specific host species and their relationship remain unclear (Stefanich 2001).

In South Dakota, the tawny crescent is restricted in its distribution to the Black Hills. The populations inhabiting the Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming are considered genetically isolated and disjunct from crescents elsewhere (Royer and Marrone 1992). Tawny crescents were

126 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 observed at two of 20 monitoring sites on the Mystic Ranger District in 2002 (USDA Forest Service 2004). However, there continue to be no reliable estimates of local abundance or population estimates for the Black Hills (Stefanich 2001). Stefanich (2001) hypothesized that the only limiting factor in the Black Hills is the destruction of this butterfly’s habitat or isolation of colonies to the extent that populations are unable to disperse.

Direct and Indirect Effects for Atlantis Fritillary and Tawny Crescent Butterflies Alternative 1 (No Action) Under the no action alternative, butterfly habitat in the project area would remain intact due to the riparian protection along Palmer, Iron and Spokane Creeks (and most other creeks within the Project area). Shrubs, hardwoods, and grasses would continue to grow in this riparian area. Pine may continue to encroach into these riparian areas. However, if the current mountain pine beetle activity continues, meadows, hardwoods, spruce, and riparian habitat may increase, providing quality habitat for butterflies. Hardwood and spruce habitat is expected to increase but the majority of the spruce habitat is expected to convert to SS2.

Common to All Action Alternatives Direct mortality because of collisions with vehicles or from prescribed burning may occur.

Commercial or non-commercial treatments, especially in hardwoods and spruce near riparian areas, are proposed within the Norbeck Project area. Treatments include spruce, hardwood and meadow enhancement—removing pine (Alternatives 3 and 4 remove only conifers <20”DBH). Butterfly habitat would benefit because habitat adjacent to riparian areas is expected to increase in size, enhancing or even increasing butterfly habitat. Spruce enhancement is expected to occur on 78 acres in all action alternatives, but it would convert to a majority of SS2. Meadow enhancement is expected to occur on 198 for Alternative 2 and on 219 acres for Alternatives 3 and 4. Even in riparian areas not proposed for any mechanical treatments, spruce, hardwoods and open, grassy areas may increase because of MPB killing encroaching conifers.

Through mechanical treatments and MPB activity, these alternatives are expected to increase the amount of habitat along riparian corridors. This increase may improve habitat enough to provide the opportunity for a population increase.

Management activities may indirectly affect this species by modifying the quality or extent of riparian habitat. Indirect effects to the butterflies are mitigated through a wide variety of standards and guidelines, watershed conservation practices, and State BMPs that protect riparian areas. Numerous objectives, standards, and guidelines strive to maintain or enhance the quality and/or quantity of existing riparian communities, wetlands and wet-meadow areas.

Cumulative Effects Activities such as fire suppression, livestock grazing, recreational activities and other management activities have and are expected to continue in the Norbeck Project area. These activities would likely occur on private lands as well. The action alternatives are expected to incrementally offset some of the effects of past fire suppression by reducing pine encroachment into hardwoods, spruce and meadows. Treatment activities are expected to contribute to direct mortality or to temporarily produce disturbance impacts to butterflies, but the impacts are expected to cease once the project is complete. Mountain pine beetle is also expected to incrementally offset some of the above effects naturally by reducing pine encroachment into hardwoods and other areas. However, because of the effects of MPB and treatment activities, there is expected to be beneficial effects to butterflies because of an increase in suitable habitat.

127 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Butterflies may be impacted because of the presence of humans in the summer group homes, recreational trails that cross streams, or from vehicle traffic, which is likely to continue. Human presence may increase in the vicinity of the butterfly habitat due to recreation opportunities. All may affect butterflies through direct mortality, modification of behavior, habitat alteration, spread of exotics, or disturbance.

Past harvest operations in Needles2, Grizzly2 and along the Byway may have been beneficial for the water flow in the creek. Fewer pine trees in the area may lead to increased available water.

The project area has had several years of drought conditions, which may change with the moisture received the past 2 years. This factor may positively influence the riparian habitat. Private lands would likely continue to be developed, some of which may include roads.

Foreseeable future activities include trail enhancement along Iron Creek and improvements to the Willow Creek Horse Camp—both of which mitigate impacts to streams and riparian habitat. These would have positive impacts of the stream course which would benefit butterflies.

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects Atlantis Fritillary and Tawny crescent habitat in/along Palmer, Iron and Spokane Creeks would not be negatively impacted by the no action alternative or the action alternatives. All alternatives increase spruce and grassland areas because of MPB activity, but the action alternatives include vegetation treatments to enhance spruce, hardwoods and meadows. Post-harvest activities planned under the action alternatives may be beneficial for butterflies. The Environmental Impact Statement for the Phase II Amendment determined that this species is likely to persist across the Planning Area if Forest Plan objectives, standards and guidelines referring to riparian and meadow habitats are followed. The action alternatives would meet these objectives, standards and guidelines. Therefore, the alternatives would contribute toward meeting Forest Objective 221.

Callused Vertigo (SOLC) The effects to the Callused Vertigo and Mystery Vertigo are combined due to similarities in habitat requirements. The effects discussion follows the habitat and distribution discussion for each species.

Habitat and Distribution In 2002, the Forest received the final report for a contract to inventory and/or monitor 357 sites for land snails (Frest and Johannes 2002). Callused vertigo was found sparingly in 63 of the 357 sites inventoried/monitored. The sites where callused vertigo was found were wet, relatively undisturbed forest, most often closed canopied white spruce or ponderosa pine with a varied understory containing relatively diverse floras and deep litter, generally on shaded north-facing slopes and often at the slope base or extending slightly onto the adjacent floodplain. The most common substrate was limestone, but callused vertigo also occurred occasionally on schist- derived soils. Down woody material that helps maintain moist soil conditions and lessens sun exposure is an important habitat element. Foraging substrate appears to consist of decayed deciduous leaves and herbaceous plants.

Callused vertigo has been found at 12 different habitats in Minnesota, with the highest densities occurring in Balsam-white spruce forests and aspen forests (Anderson 2004). They have also been found in bur oak riparian areas and mountain mahogany shrublands. The diversity of habitat types may indicate that additional locations could be found in the Black Hills. Live

128 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 specimens were identified at two sites in or near the Project Area (Sites 305 and 349), indicating that the species may be found throughout the Project Area in similar habitat (refer to Frest and Johannes 2002 for exact location of these two sites).

The narrowly restricted geographical range of the callused vertigo includes South Dakota (51 sites), Wyoming (12 sites in the Bear Lodge Mountains), North Dakota, Minnesota, and Alberta (Frest and Johannes 2002). The callused vertigo is currently ranked imperiled globally and in South Dakota; it has not been ranked in Wyoming (NatureServe 2009).

Mystery Vertigo (SOLC) The effects to the Callused Vertigo and Mystery Vertigo are combined due to similarities in habitat requirements. The effects discussion follows the habitat and distribution discussion for each species.

Habitat and Distribution In 2002, the Forest received the final report for a contract to inventory and/or monitor 357 sites for land snails (Frest and Johannes 2002). Mystery vertigo was found in 23 of the 357 sites inventoried/monitored. They were not generally abundant at any site. Mystery vertigo is generally restricted to rich lowland wooded sites, quite often in the white spruce community, but occasionally in the ponderosa pine community. The forest canopy is generally closed or nearly so, with well-developed litter and a rich understory. Sites are usually in leaf litter at the base of a wooded, north-facing slope on limestone or schist substrates. Down woody material that helps maintain moist soil conditions and lessens sun exposure is an important habitat element. Mystery vertigo was not common in taluses but could be found crawling on rock surfaces in moist weather and appears to feed on the organic coating of rock surfaces and partially decayed leaves. All sites with mystery vertigo were in the central or northern Black Hills or the Bear Lodge Mountains. Frest and Johannes (2002) did not find this species in or around the Project Area.

The mystery vertigo is rare in the United States and occurs only in South Dakota (21 sites); Wyoming (2 sites in the Bear Lodge Mountains); Michigan (1 site); Maine (2 counties); and a few northern Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota sites (Frest and Johannes 2002). The species appears to be more common in adjoining areas of southern Canada, generally from the Great Lakes eastward. Mystery vertigo is currently ranked vulnerable globally and critically imperiled in South Dakota; it has not been ranked in Wyoming (NatureServe 2009).

Direct and Indirect Effects for Callused Vertigo and Mystery Vertigo Alternative 1 (No Action) Under this alternative, there would be no treatment in spruce or dense canopy (SS 3B, 3C, 4B, 4C, 5) pine sites. No roads would be constructed or temporarily re-opened. Fire suppression is likely to continue which may increase density of pine trees and therefore canopy cover would increase. Conifers may continue to encroach into hardwoods. The denser the pine sites, the more likely a stand replacing wildfire or MPB infestation would occur. However, because of the MPB infestation, it is expected that denser pine sites are going to decrease significantly to 276 acres throughout the entire project area. Canopy would decrease as well as moisture levels for this snail species. Also, hardwoods are expected to increase because of MPB infestations. This would eventually mean more deciduous litter (one preferred habitat component).

Common to All Action Alternatives Land snails, in general, are susceptible to habitat changes that increase sun exposure, disturb ground cover, reduce microsite humidity, or compact the soil. According to Frest and Johannes

129 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

(2002), these snails may be negatively affected by road construction, livestock grazing, timber harvest, herbicides and pesticides, and high-intensity forest fires. Timber harvest and grazing may affect snails if it affects the amount of litter, soil moisture or temperature on snail colonies. Although fire is a natural disturbance, it can potentially eliminate snail habitat. The intensity of fire these species are able to survive is unknown. Road construction and maintenance can also affect snails by eliminating habitat or killing snails. Roadside brushing or weed spraying can also damage snails and/or their habitat (Anderson 2004).

All action alternatives include design criteria to avoid some impacts to the known snail colonies (Frest #305). Mountain pine beetles are expected to kill trees in dense stands and even mature spruce, thus reducing canopy cover to maintain moisture levels.

Under all action alternatives, spruce enhancement is expected to occur on 78 acres. The structural stage is 4A but would convert to more of SS2 after treatment, although 90 acres would remain as SS4A. The total expected spruce acreage after treatment and after MPB activity is expected to increase to 542 acres. White spruce represents 2% of the entire project area. There are spruce sites that are being deferred. The treatments could impact the snails, if undiscovered colonies are present, by removing habitat and by crushing them.

Hardwood enhancement treatments are expected to occur on 596 acres in Alternative 2 and 603 acres in Alternatives 3 and 4. Alternative 3 and 4 would further increase aspen within the Black Elk Wilderness as a result of the prescribed burning there. Alternative 3 would result in the largest increase of hardwoods, followed by Alternative 4, then Alternative 2.

Many of the activities proposed under the action alternatives may cause mortality of this species either directly or indirectly, if undiscovered colonies occur in the area. This species is not able to disperse from activity, other than to retreat deeper in soil. Opening up canopy and thereby changing moisture levels in the groundlayer could be detrimental to unknown colonies. Roads are also detrimental to these species.

Dense canopy pine sites would dramatically decrease in all alternatives. Proposed management would reduce dense stands, however, the mountain pine beetles outbreak would cause the majority of this change.

New construction of temporary roads would occur for 1.7, 1.5 and 1.5 miles for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4, respectively. This may cause direct mortality to the snails, if present, and their habitat could also be directly impacted.

There are no known snail colonies within the Black Elk Wilderness. Effects from activities to unknown colonies within the BEW are possible.

Cumulative Effects Activities such as fire suppression, livestock grazing, recreational activities and other management activities have and are expected to continue in the Norbeck Project area. These activities would likely occur on private lands as well. The action alternatives are expected to incrementally offset some of the effects of past fire suppression by reducing pine encroachment into hardwoods, spruce and meadows. Treatment activities, including road construction, are expected to contribute to direct mortality of snails. These impacts may be high in both known and unknown snail colonies. Mountain pine beetle is also expected to incrementally offset some of the above effects naturally by reducing pine encroachment into hardwoods and spruce.

130 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Past activities have resulted in the existing road density. The action alternatives would create <2 miles of new roads, but all roads would be closed and rehabilitated. There are no known future activities which would create new roads. Therefore, the cumulative effects would be a reduction in the impacts on this species from roads. No new trails are to be created, but recreationists may use the temp roads, directly causing mortality by crushing snails.

Spruce in the project area has not been treated in the past. Many of the spruce sites do not receive much impact from roads, recreation, or grazing. Past and on-going fire suppression activities have allowed spruce to increase, at the expense of other forest types (USDA Forest Service 2005b). The trees may be weakened in the long run. The project activities in all action alternatives in spruce are not expected to further reduce acres of spruce, but MPB activity is expected to allow an increase in spruce acres within the project area.

There are no known foreseeable future activities which would impact spruce or Frest sites within the project area. However, the Willow Creek Feasibility study would occur near Frest site 305, but it would not impact these snail species. Habitat for this species would be maintained, but MPB activity may impact this species’ habitat.

Summary of Effects to Callused Vertigo and Mystery Vertigo It is predicted that MPB activity would create open forest type habitat under all alternatives, yet it is unknown how remaining trees would be distributed across the landscape. However, the action alternatives use vegetation treatments that would hopefully maintain some groups of large trees. However, the tradeoff is that during project activities, snails could suffer direct mortality. Alternative 4 has the most potential to cause impact to undiscovered snail colonies and habitat because it is more aggressive in treatments and it opens more roads.

Only callused vertigo was found in the project area. The Environmental Impact Statement for the Phase II Amendment determined that this species is likely to persist across the Planning Area if Forest Plan standards and guidelines are followed. The proposed activities in all alternatives would be consistent with standards and guidelines including Standard 3103. Therefore, the alternatives would contribute toward meeting Forest Objective 221.

The risk of MPB activity to habitat is expected to be highest in Alternative 1.

Frigid Ambersnail (SOLC)

Habitat and Distribution Nekola (2003) considered this species a “duff-specialist.” Duff specialists were strongly affected by human activities, suggesting that protecting soil and surface characteristics are important in their conservation. In 2002, the Forest received the final report for a contract to inventory and/or monitor 357 sites for land snails (Frest and Johannes 2002). The frigid ambersnail was found in 12 of the 357 sites inventoried/monitored. The frigid ambersnail was rare at all locations, and very few live adults were observed during the early 1990s surveys. Live specimens were identified at one site near the Project Area (Site 349), indicating that the species may be found throughout the Project Area in similar habitat (refer to Frest and Johannes 2002 for exact location of this site).

Locations are widely distributed geographically across the Forest at varying elevations (3,800 to 6,800 feet). The species was usually found on limestone but also on schist soils, and colonies were often found in somewhat dry wooded limestone talus, generally near the slope base. They

131 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

were most often found in rather open ponderosa pine forest, often with a secondary deciduous tree and shrub component, although white spruce was a minor component at a few sites. According to Frest and Johannes (2002), the family of land mollusks that includes the frigid ambersnail is associated not only with rather moist forest sites but also with quite dry and open settings in much of the western United States.

The frigid ambersnail is currently found only in Iowa (14 sites), South Dakota (12 sites), and Wisconsin (Frest and Johannes 2002). The frigid ambersnail is currently ranked as critically imperiled globally and in South Dakota and Iowa (NatureServe 2009). The state of Iowa considers the frigid ambersnail an endangered species.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) Under this alternative, there would be no treatment in spruce or dense canopy (SS 3B, 3C, 4B, 4C, 5) pine sites. No roads would be constructed or temporarily re-opened. Fire suppression is likely to continue which may increase density of pine trees and therefore canopy cover would increase. Conifers may continue to encroach into hardwoods. The denser the pine sites, the more likely a stand replacing wildfire or MPB infestation would occur. However, because of the MPB infestation, it is expected that denser pine sites are going to decrease significantly to 276 acres throughout the entire project area. Canopy would decrease as well as moisture levels for this snail species. Also, hardwoods are expected to increase because of MPB infestations. This would eventually mean more deciduous litter (one preferred habitat component).

Common to All Action Alternatives Land snails, in general, are susceptible to habitat changes that increase sun exposure, disturb ground cover, reduce micro site humidity, or compact the soil. Additional risks include direct loss of habitat, barriers to dispersal (e.g., roads), and predation, trampling by grazing ungulates, intense wildfire, application of herbicides or pesticides, and toxic leakages from mining activities. According to Frest and Johannes (2002), the striate disc may be negatively affected by road construction, livestock grazing, timber harvest, herbicides and pesticides, and high-intensity forest fires. Due to the sessile nature of land snails, they have limited ability to disperse and colonize adjacent habitats.

Commercial thinning, non-commercial thinning and fuel treatments proposed in all action alternatives should increase potential habitat for this snail species. The thinning would open up the canopy and would release any deciduous components in the understory, which should benefit this species. Each action alternative would construct about 1.5 miles of new road, and open up system and unauthorized road. However, there are no known snail colonies within the area where road construction would occur. Therefore the proposed road construction in all action alternatives is consistent with Standard 3103. The only potential impact, therefore, would be on unknown colonies.

Wildfire generally destroys the microclimate and habitat desired by this snail. Overall, all action alternatives should decrease the risk of stand replacement wildfire.

Many of the activities proposed under the action alternatives may cause mortality of this species either directly or indirectly, if the species is present in the area. This species is not able to disperse from activity, other than to retreat deeper in soil. The action alternatives may benefit this species in the long-term by enhancing preferred habitat.

132 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

All action alternatives are expected to increase open pine stands (SS 1, 2, 3A, and 4A) so that 99% of the entire project area are made up of these structural stages. This is a result of vegetation treatments and MPB activity. Hardwoods enhancement is to occur in each alternative resulting in an increase in acres. Hardwoods increase the most in Alternative 3. Shrubs also increase slightly over the ‘no action’ alternative.

All alternatives enhance habitat for this species, even though treatment activities may cause direct mortality.

Cumulative Effects See effects under ‘Callused and Mystery Vertigo’ above.

Summary of Effects All alternatives create open forested stands and increase hardwoods. However, the action alternatives, especially Alternative 3, increase hardwoods more than the ‘no action’ alternative. However, the action alternatives pose the most threat to direct mortality of this species. Therefore, the ‘no action’ alternative is the preferred alternative for this snail species. Alternative 4 has the potential to cause the most impact to undiscovered colonies and habitat because it is more aggressive in treatments and it opens more roads temporarily. However, this snail species prefers open habitats that all action alternatives would create.

The Environmental Impact Statement for the Phase II Amendment determined that this species is likely to persist across the Planning Area if Forest Plan standards and guidelines are followed. The proposed activities in all alternatives would be consistent with standards and guidelines including Standard 3103. Therefore, the alternatives would contribute toward meeting Forest Objective 221.

However, MPB activity is expected to continue, and the risk of MPB activity to habitat is expected to be highest in Alternative 1.

Striate Disc (SOLC)

Habitat and Distribution In 2002, the Forest received the final report for a contract to inventory and/or monitor 357 sites for land snails (Frest and Johannes 2002). The striate disc was found live in only 18 of the 357 sites inventoried/monitored. Striate disc was most often found in litter in rich mesic forest, generally on shaded, north-facing slope bases, often bordering or ranging slightly onto stream floodplains. They were most frequently in white spruce communities but also aspen and riparian habitats at the base of slopes where deciduous trees and shrubs were often common. Most sites had soils derived from weathered limestone, although four sites were on schist substrate. Foraging substrate consists of decayed deciduous leaves and herbaceous plants. Down woody material that helps maintain moist soil conditions and lessens sun exposure is an important habitat element. Sites where the striate disc occurs appear restricted to the higher elevations of the limestone plateau of the west-central and north-central portions of the Black Hills.

The range of the striate disc includes Wyoming (2 sites), Montana (1), Colorado (perhaps 26 sites), South Dakota, Oregon (1), California (2), Utah (5), Arizona (3), and New Mexico (7) (Frest and Johannes 2002). NatureServe (2009) also lists 5 records in Montana. Live sites have also been reported from several Canadian provinces. The striate disc is currently ranked globally as G5 (secure), and S2 (imperiled) in South Dakota (NatureServe 2009).

133 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) Under this alternative, there would be no treatment in spruce or hardwoods. No roads would be constructed or temporarily re-opened. Fire suppression is likely to continue which may increase density of pine trees and therefore canopy cover would increase. Conifers may continue to encroach into hardwoods. The denser the pine sites, the more likely a stand replacing wildfire or MPB infestation would occur. Ponderosa pine canopy would decrease as well as moisture levels for this snail species. Also, hardwoods and spruce (which would convert to SS 2) are expected to increase because of MPB infestations. This would eventually mean more deciduous litter (one preferred habitat component).

Common to All Action Alternatives Land snails, in general, are susceptible to habitat changes that increase sun exposure, disturb ground cover, reduce microsite humidity, or compact the soil. According to Frest and Johannes (2002), these snails may be negatively affected by road construction, livestock grazing, timber harvest, herbicides and pesticides, and high-intensity forest fires. Timber harvest and grazing may affect snails if it affects the amount of litter, soil moisture or temperature on snail colonies. Although fire is a natural disturbance, it can potentially eliminate snail habitat. The intensity of fire these species are able to survive is unknown. Road construction and maintenance can also affect snails by eliminating habitat or killing snails. There are 35.1 miles of existing roads which would be used for implementation of Alternative 2, 35.6 for Alternative 3, and 36.6 for Alternative 4. Roadside brushing or weed spraying can also damage snails and/or their habitat (Anderson 2004).

All action alternatives have design criteria associated with treatments to reduce impacts to the known snail colony (Frest #305). However, MPB is expected to kill trees in dense stands and even mature spruce.

Under all action alternatives, spruce enhancement is expected to occur on 78 acres. The structural stage is 4A but would convert to more of SS2 after treatment, although 90 acres would remain as SS4A. The total expected spruce acreage after treatment and after MPB activity is expected to increase to 542 acres. White spruce represents 2% of the entire project area. There are spruce sites that are being deferred. The treatments could impact the snails, if present, by removing habitat and by crushing them.

Hardwood enhancement treatments are expected to occur on 596 acres in Alternative 2 and 603 acres in Alternatives 3 and 4. Because of MPB activity, acres of hardwoods are expected to increase further.

Many of the activities proposed under the action alternatives may cause mortality of this species, if the species is present in the area, either directly or indirectly. This species is not able to disperse from activity, other than to retreat deeper in soil. Opening up canopy and thereby changing moisture levels in the groundlayer could be detrimental to unknown colonies. Roads are also detrimental to these species.

Cumulative Effects See effects under ‘Callused and Mystery Vertigo’ above.

134 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects It is predicted that MPB activity would create open forest type habitat under all alternatives, yet it is unknown how remaining trees would be distributed across the landscape. However, the action alternatives use vegetation treatments that would hopefully maintain some groups of large trees. However, the tradeoff is that during project activities, snails could suffer direct mortality. Alternative 4 has the potential to cause the most impact to undiscovered colonies and habitat because it is more aggressive in treatments.

This species was found just outside the project area, but there is potential for habitat to occur within Norbeck. The Environmental Impact Statement for the Phase II Amendment determined that this species is likely to persist across the Planning Area if Forest Plan standards and guidelines are followed. The proposed activities in all alternatives would be consistent with standards and guidelines including Standard 3103 because there are design criteria for the known snail colony within the Project Area. Therefore, the alternatives would contribute toward meeting Forest Objective 221.

The risk of MPB activity is expected to be highest in Alternative 1.

Sharp-shinned Hawk (SOLC)

Habitat and Distribution Sharp-shinned hawks nest almost exclusively in conifers, with the exception of some densely leafed deciduous trees that also provide nest concealment (Platt 1976, Reynolds et al. 1982, Joy 1990). On the Forest, the only documented nests both occurred in white spruce (Stephens and Anderson 2002). Sharp-shinned hawks have also recently been detected in ponderosa pine, riparian, aspen, and burned habitats on the Forest, but these were not observations of nest sites (Panjabi 2001, 2003 and 2005).

The association between nesting habitat and young seral stage has been noted by several authors (Bildstein and Meyer 2000, Bosakowski and Smith 2002, Stephens and Anderson 2002). On the Black Hills National Forest, one of the two documented sharp-shinned hawk nests was located in a 42-acre stand of white spruce sapling/pole-sized trees. Young stands with mid-to-high canopy cover levels for nesting correspond most closely with structural stages 3B (sapling-pole stands with 40 percent to 70 percent canopy closure) and 3C (sapling-pole stands with greater than 70 percent canopy closure). Canopy closure ranged from 30 to 70 percent, but previous studies have tended to find high canopy closure (i.e., ≥68 percent) characterizing nesting habitat (Bildstein and Meyer 2000, Bosakowski and Smith 2002). In white spruce, there are currently about 658 acres in these conditions (USDA Forest Service 2007). In ponderosa pine, there are approximately 98,839 acres (USDA Forest Service 2007).

Habitat loss or alteration resulting in a loss of suitable nesting habitat as well as a decrease in prey abundance and availability are thought to be the most significant threats to accipiter species’ persistence (Reynolds 1983, Stephens and Anderson 2002). Habitat loss may also occur as forests mature beyond early seral stages.

The variety of habitats adjacent to nest stands is thought important in providing diverse prey habitats. Deciduous trees near the nest may be particularly important to the species since aspen and birch occur on only about 4 percent of the Forest (Stephens and Anderson 2002)

Habitat loss or alteration resulting in a loss of suitable nesting habitat as well as a decrease in prey abundance and availability are thought to be the most significant threats to accipiter species’

135 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

persistence (Stephens and Anderson 2002). Habitat loss may also occur as forests mature beyond early seral stages.

The sharp-shinned hawk breeds from Alaska to Newfoundland, south throughout much of North America, Mexico, and into Central and South America wherever suitable habitat occurs (Stephens and Anderson 2002). The species is considered a partial to long-distance migrant, with northern-most individuals wholly abandoning their breeding ranges and wintering in the southern United States. Other birds may remain on their breeding ranges throughout the winter. In South Dakota, the sharp-shinned hawk is considered “uncommon,” with the only recorded occurrences in the western part of the state (Peterson 1995). In Wyoming, the bird is regarded as a “common summer resident,” with some known to remain throughout the winter (Luce et al. 1999). In the Black Hills, they have been observed at all elevations (Peterson 1995), but estimates of local abundance are not available due to their low numbers (Panjabi 2003). The species has been observed an average of three times per year since bird monitoring began in 2001 (Panjabi 2005). One sharp-shinned hawk was observed on 17 August 2006 during field surveys in site 061701-30, in the Norbeck project area. The bird was perched on a large ponderosa pine tree along a steep, granite outcrop. However, the drainage below the outcrop consisted of dense pine, aspen and spruce.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) Under this alternative, pine stands may become denser. Conifers would continue to encroach into meadows and hardwoods. The threat of stand replacing wildfire would increase. Nesting habitat for the sharp-shinned hawk would be enhanced under this alternative provided that wildfires and beetles would not overtake the area. However, because of the MPB infestation in the Project area, it is predicted that SS 3B and 3C would decrease significantly, with the majority of ponderosa pine sites transitioning to SS 1 and 2. Spruce is expected to increase in acres, but again, these sites would be in SS 1 and 2.

Common to All Action Alternatives Preferred habitat characteristics for this species are not well defined. Any action alternative that would create a diversity of habitats and densities may provide the best potential opportunities for this species. SS 3B and 3C pine is very similar in all action alternatives. All three action alternatives propose the same treatments for meadow/grasslands and hardwood release. The same spruce sites are proposed for treatment and for deferral in each action alternative.

However, because of the predicted MPB activity, it is predicted that ponderosa pine SS 3B and 3C would decline by 428 and 587 acres, respectively, in all alternatives. That remaining acreage is located outside of the Wilderness. Structural stage 4A is expected to increase in these alternatives because of treatments and MPB activity. It is predicted that there would be no SS 4B, 4C, or 5. This would significantly reduce the amount of nesting habitat available for this species. Structural stage 4A is expected to increase in these alternatives because of treatments. No spruce SS 3B or 3C are expected to exist. Ninety acres of SS 4A are predicted to remain on the landscape outside of the MA 1.1A in each action alternative, but the majority of spruce is expected to convert to SS 1 and 2. Hardwoods are expected to increase in each alternative.

A change in nesting habitat, under any of the action alternatives, may cause displacement of this species if present. If there are unknown nests in the project area, then any of the action alternatives may disturb nesting if harvest occurs during the nesting season. Alternative 4 may create the most impacts to unknown nests in locations, 061703 and 061704 because there

136 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 treatment activities can occur throughout the first year of the project area. This impact is expected to be short term affecting only one brood at most if harvest operations are conducted during the nesting season. Known nests would be protected and the alternatives would meet Standard 3204.

Cumulative Effects Adverse cumulative effects are expected under all alternatives because treatments, MPB, or both are expected to significantly decrease nesting habitat. Wildfires may also affect habitat in the area.

Activities such as fire suppression, livestock grazing, recreational activities and other management activities have and are expected to continue in the Norbeck Project area. These activities would likely occur on private lands as well. The action alternatives are expected to incrementally offset some of the effects of past fire suppression by reducing pine encroachment into spruce, meadow, and hardwood habitat through vegetation treatment activities. Treatment activities are expected to temporarily produce disturbance impacts to sharp-shinned hawks, but the impacts are expected to cease once the project is complete. Mountain pine beetle is also expected to incrementally offset some of the above effects naturally by reducing pine encroachment into spruce, meadow, and hardwood habitat. However, because of the effects of MPB, there is expected to be adverse cumulative effects to sharp-shinned hawks because of loss of suitable nesting habitat.

Private lands would likely continue to be developed, some of which may include roads. All may affect sharp-shinned hawks through direct mortality, modification of behavior, habitat alteration, spread of exotics, or disturbance.

There are no known future activities which would affect spruce habitat.

Summary of Effects All alternatives provide the same amount of ponderosa pine nesting habitat. Roughly the same amount of spruce is available in all alternatives, although the ‘no action’ alternative has less SS 4A. All alternatives are expected to increase hardwood acreage because of MPB activity, but the action alternatives increase it even more because of treatments. Sufficient nesting habitat for this species may not be available within the project area because of MPB activity. The Environmental Impact Statement for the Phase II Amendment determined that this species is likely to persist across the Planning Area if Forest Plan standards and guidelines are followed. The proposed alternatives would meet these standards and guidelines, but because of MPB activity within the project area, sharp-shinned hawks may be displaced to more suitable habitat outside of the project area. Therefore, the alternatives would contribute toward meeting Forest Objective 221.

Cooper’s Hawk (SOLC)

Habitat and Distribution The Cooper’s hawk has been observed in a variety of habitats in the Black Hills, including ponderosa pine, white spruce, riparian, shrublands, and burned areas (Panjabi 2001, 2003 and 2005; Peterson 1995). The species appears to be widespread but uncommon on the Forest. Bird monitoring over the past seven years has yielded an average of about five sightings per year (Giroir et al. 2007).

137 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

The Cooper’s hawk is considered a habitat generalist but typically requires wooded areas for nesting. The most common forest type in the Black Hills, ponderosa pine, is used for nesting in other areas of the species range (Stephens and Anderson 2002). The bird is known to nest in riparian, conifer, and aspen forests (Stephens and Anderson 2002). Stephens and Anderson (2002) analyzed the likely habitat preferences of the Cooper’s hawk on the Forest based on information from nearby regions. Range-wide, most pairs nest in patches of mature forest with moderate-to-high (i.e., 60 to 90 percent) canopy closure near openings (Stephens and Anderson 2002). Nest tree diameters are usually larger than what is randomly available. The Cooper’s hawk forages opportunistically across a diversity of habitats and preys on a variety of mid-sized birds and mammals (Stephens and Anderson 2002).

In ponderosa pine, structural stages 4B (mature stands with 40 to 70 percent canopy closure) and 4C (mature stands with >70 percent canopy closure) correspond most closely to the nesting habitat preferences of the Cooper’s hawk. The Cooper’s hawk often nest near and hunt along forest edges and clearings. Riparian-woodland communities also provide potentially important habitat for the Cooper’s hawk.

The Cooper’s hawk breeds throughout the United States, southern Canada, and northern Mexico. Some birds may remain on their breeding ranges throughout the winter. In South Dakota, the Cooper’s hawk is considered “uncommon,” with the only recorded occurrences in the western part of the state (Peterson 1995). In Wyoming, it is regarded as a “common summer resident” (Luce et al. 1999). An active Cooper’s hawk nest was discovered in 2 sites within the project area (RIS 030209-20 and 061703-20). The nest stands are 4C ponderosa pine sites.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) Under this alternative, pine stands may become denser. Conifers would continue to encroach into meadows and hardwoods. The threat of stand replacing wildfire would increase. Nesting habitat for the Cooper’s hawk would be enhanced under this alternative. However, because of the MPB infestation in the Project area, it is predicted that SS 4B would decrease to only 65 acres, and SS 4C and 5 would not remain as stands within the project area. The majority of ponderosa pine sites are expected to transition to SS 1 and 2. Spruce and hardwoods are expected to increase in acres, but, these spruce sites would be in SS 1 and 2.

Common to All Action Alternatives The existing mountain pine beetle outbreak is actively decreasing preferred nesting habitat (moderate to dense, mature pine) for this species. Large trees which may be selected as nest trees are being lost to beetle caused mortality. Other habitats such as aspen and riparian areas would improve as they are released from conifer competition.

The action alternatives would retain more mature pine (SS4A) on the landscape than the no action alternative. This would benefit Cooper’s hawk by providing more large trees and potential future nesting habitat. Spruce acreage would increase under all action alternatives, however the majority of these stands would lose the mature tree component and convert to SS 1 and 2.

Any of the action alternatives may cause Cooper’s hawks, if present, to avoid, or move from, an area being treated. If there are unknown nests in the project area then any of the action alternatives may disturb nesting if harvest occurs during the nesting season. Alternative 4 would have the most potential to disturb unknown nests. Mechanical treatments, in Alternative 4 only, would occur for the first full year in locations, 061703, and 061704. This impact is expected to

138 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 be short term affecting only one brood, at most, if harvest operations are conducted during the nesting season. Known nests would be protected and the alternatives would meet Standard 3204.

Cumulative Effects Adverse cumulative effects to dense, mature conifer stands, large trees, late succession, and stands with a diversity of cover and structures, are expected as a result of the current mountain pine beetle outbreak. This is expected to adversely affect Cooper’s hawk and may cause displacement. However, the action alternatives would be expected to retain more mature pine in pockets on the landscape than no action. These mature stands could develop into a dense condition in approximately 20-30 years which would offset some of the MPB effects by greatly reducing the time needed for the development of dense pine stands following the outbreak. Also, other federal, private, or state lands surrounding the project area or even the stands treated in the Needles and Grizzly sale areas may provide dense stands of pine and large trees.

Past timber harvest on and off National Forest System lands has contributed to the loss of large mature trees. Wildfires and pine beetles have also contributed to the loss of large mature pine trees in the area. All action alternatives would continue to remove suitable (potential) raptor nest trees, but would provide protection of known nests. The possibility of future large-scale, high intensity wildfires does exist for this project area. Development and vegetation treatment of private lands is expected to continue. Any changes to this acreage are not expected to contribute to habitat loss.

Incremental impacts from the action alternatives are expected to offset some of the potential effects of large wildfires and insect outbreaks that result from past, present and future fire suppression. However, because of MPB activity that is already occurring and expected to occur throughout the entire project area, large trees are expected to significantly decrease.

Activities such as fire suppression, livestock grazing, recreational activities and other management activities have and are expected to continue in the Norbeck Project area. These activities would likely occur on private lands as well. The action alternatives are expected to incrementally offset some of the effects of past fire suppression by reducing pine encroachment into spruce, meadow, and hardwood habitat through vegetation treatment activities. Treatment activities are expected to temporarily produce disturbance impacts to Cooper’s hawks, but the impacts are expected to cease once the project is complete. Mountain pine beetle is also expected to incrementally offset some of the above effects naturally by reducing pine encroachment into spruce, meadow, and hardwood habitat. However, because of the effects of MPB, there is expected to be adverse cumulative effects to Cooper’s hawks because of loss of suitable nesting habitat.

Private lands would likely continue to be developed, some of which may include roads. All may affect Cooper’s hawks through direct mortality, modification of behavior, habitat alteration, spread of exotics, or disturbance.

Summary of Effects In general, the Cooper’s hawk is more tolerant of human presence and habitat fragmentation than other North American accipiters (Rosenfeld and Bielefeldt 1993). However, habitat loss or alteration resulting in a loss of suitable nesting habitat, as well as a decrease in prey abundance and availability are thought to be the most significant threats to accipiter species’ persistence (Reynolds 1983).

139 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Nesting habitat is probably the most important factor for long-term persistence of the Cooper’s hawk. The action alternatives propose treatments that could decrease the chances of stand replacement wildfire or MPB activity that may negatively impact the habitat desired by this species. The no action alternative provides the 65 acres of SS 4B (nesting habitat) for the Cooper’s hawk. Structural stage 4A increases in all alternatives because of vegetation treatments and MPB activity. However, it cannot be predicted how SS 4A stands would be distributed across the landscape because of MPB activity.

All alternatives are expected to increase hardwood acreage because of MPB activity, but the action alternatives increase it even more because of treatments. Sufficient nesting habitat for this species may not be available within the project area because of MPB activity. The Environmental Impact Statement for the Phase II Amendment determined that this species is likely to persist across the Planning Area if Forest Plan standards and guidelines are followed. The proposed alternatives would meet these standards and guidelines, but because of MPB activity within the project area, Cooper’s hawks may be displaced to more suitable habitat outside of the project area. Therefore, the alternatives would contribute toward meeting Forest Objective 221.

Broad-winged Hawk (SOLC)

Habitat and Distribution The broad-winged hawk is one of eastern North America’s most common woodland hawks. It is generally associated with dry to wet deciduous, mixed, or occasionally coniferous forests (Johnsgard 1990). Broad-winged hawks forage in mature to old-growth forests, along forest streams, roads, and openings (Stephens and Anderson 2003).

In the Black Hills, the broad-winged hawk nests primarily in ponderosa pine in mixed pine and deciduous habitats, occasionally with a white spruce component (Powder River Eagle Studies 2000). Although considered rare in both Wyoming (Luce et al. 1999) and South Dakota (Peterson 1995), the species was the second most frequently encountered raptor during surveys in 1996 and 1997 (Powder River Eagle Studies 2000). Of 27 broad-winged hawk nests found on the Forest, 25 were in ponderosa pine while one was in an aspen and one was in a paper birch. Nest trees had an average DBH of about 16 inches; canopy closure in nest stands averaged 66% with a range of 45 to 96% (Stephens and Anderson 2003). These nest-stand characteristics equate to structural stages 4B, 4C and 5. Nest sites typically were in areas with slopes <10 percent. No association between nest sites and forest openings or wetlands was detected on the Forest (Stephens and Anderson 2003). There were 24 broad-winged hawks identified along transects in 2004, mainly in the northern Black Hills and Bear Lodge mountains. Fourteen of these were located in aspen, eight in late-successional pine and two in the Jasper Burn Area (Panjabi 2005).

The broad-winged hawk breeds from Nova Scotia to central Alberta, south to Texas, and east to the Atlantic coast (Johnsgard 1990). These hawks are complete migrants, best known for their migratory congregations of thousands of individuals as they head south into Central and South America (Johnsgard 1990, Stephens and Anderson 2003). The species was not observed in the Project Area during field reconnaissance.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) Under this alternative, pine stands may become denser. Conifers would continue to encroach into meadows and hardwoods. The threat of stand replacing wildfire would increase. Nesting habitat for the Broad-winged hawk would be enhanced under this alternative. However, because of the

140 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

MPB infestation in the Project area, it is predicted that SS 4B would decrease to only 65 acres, and SS 4C and 5 would not remain as stands within the project area, only as scattered small pockets. The majority of ponderosa pine sites are expected to transition to SS 1 and 2. Spruce and hardwoods are expected to increase in acres, but, these spruce sites would be in SS 1 and 2.

Common to All Action Alternatives The existing mountain pine beetle outbreak is actively decreasing preferred nesting habitat (moderate to dense, mature pine) for this species. Large trees which may be selected as nest trees are being lost to beetle caused mortality. Other habitats such as aspen and riparian areas would improve as they are released from conifer competition.

The action alternatives would retain more mature pine (SS4A) on the landscape than the no action alternative. This would benefit the broad-winged hawk by providing more large trees and potential future nesting habitat. Spruce acreage would increase under all action alternatives, however the majority of these stands would lose the mature tree component and convert to SS 1 and 2.

Any of the action alternatives may cause broad-winged hawks, if present, to avoid, or move from, an area being treated. If there are unknown nests in the project area then any of the action alternatives may disturb nesting if harvest occurs during the nesting season. Alternative 4 may create the most impacts to unknown nests in locations, 061703, and 061704 because in those areas, treatment activities can occur throughout the first year of the project area. This impact is expected to be short term affecting only one brood, at most, if harvest operations are conducted during the nesting season. Known nests would be protected and the alternatives would meet Standard 3204.

Cumulative Effects Adverse cumulative effects to dense, mature conifer stands, large trees, late succession, and stands with a diversity of cover and structures, are expected as a result of the current mountain pine beetle outbreak. This is expected to adversely affect the broad-winged hawk and may cause displacement. However, the action alternatives would be expected to retain more mature pine in pockets on the landscape than no action. These mature stands could develop into a dense condition in approximately 20-30 years which would offset some of the MPB effects by greatly reducing the time needed for the development of dense pine stands following the outbreak. Also, other federal, private, or state lands surrounding the project area or even the stands treated in the Needles and Grizzly sale areas may provide dense stands of pine and large trees.

Past timber harvest on National forest and non-National Forest lands has contributed to the loss of large mature trees. Wildfires and pine beetles have also contributed to the loss of large mature pine trees in the area. All action alternatives would continue to remove suitable (potential) raptor nest trees, but would provide protection of known nests. The possibility of future large-scale, high intensity wildfires does exist for this project area. Development and vegetation treatment of private lands is expected to continue. Any changes to this acreage are not expected to contribute to habitat loss.

Activities such as fire suppression, livestock grazing, recreational activities and other management activities have and are expected to continue in the Norbeck Project area. These activities would likely occur on private lands as well. The action alternatives are expected to incrementally offset some of the effects of past fire suppression by reducing pine encroachment into spruce, meadow, and hardwood habitat through vegetation treatment activities. Treatment

141 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

activities are expected to temporarily produce disturbance impacts to broad-winged hawks, if present, but the impacts are expected to cease once the project is complete. Mountain pine beetle is also expected to incrementally offset some of the above effects naturally by reducing pine encroachment into spruce, meadow, and hardwood habitat. However, because of the effects of MPB, there is expected to be adverse cumulative effects to broad-winged hawks because of loss of suitable nesting habitat.

Private lands would likely continue to be developed, some of which may include roads. All may affect broad-winged hawks through direct mortality, modification of behavior, habitat alteration, spread of exotics, or disturbance.

Summary of Effects As described by Stephens and Anderson (2003), broad-winged hawks nesting on the Forest do not appear to prefer sites near forest openings. In the Black Hills, late-successional pine and aspen probably compose the majority of desirable habitat for the species. Broad-winged hawks prefer deciduous forests in eastern North America (Panjabi 2005). Numerous objectives, standards and guidelines maintain foraging habitat, prey availability and nesting territories.

Nesting habitat is probably the most important factor for long-term persistence of the broad- winged hawk. The action alternatives propose treatments that could decrease the chances of stand replacement wildfire or MPB activity that may negatively impact the habitat desired by this species. The no action alternative provides the 65 acres of SS 4B (nesting habitat) for the broad-winged hawk. The action alternatives would retain more mature habitat (SS4A0 on the landscape than no action. Alternative 4 maintains the most, followed by Alternatives 3 and 2. The mature stands provide options for future nesting habitat for this species. However, it cannot be predicted how SS 4A stands would be distributed across the landscape because of MPB activity.

All alternatives are expected to increase hardwood acreage because of MPB activity, but the action alternatives increase it even more because of treatments. Sufficient nesting habitat for this species may not be available within the project area because of MPB activity. The Environmental Impact Statement for the Phase II Amendment determined that this species is likely to persist across the Planning Area if Forest Plan standards and guidelines are followed. The proposed alternatives would meet these standards and guidelines, but because of MPB activity within the project area, broad-winged hawks may be displaced to more suitable habitat outside of the project area. Therefore, the alternatives would contribute toward meeting Forest Objective 221.

Northern Saw-whet Owl (SOLC)

Habitat and Distribution The northern saw-whet owl is a habitat generalist found at lower to middle elevations in forested habitat, particularly in riparian areas. The highest densities of this species tend to be found in coniferous forests (Cannings 1993). This species nests in cavities in snags excavated by flickers (Collaptes auratus) and other large woodpeckers. Nests tend to be in mature forest, while dense, sapling-pole-sized stands are preferred for roosting (Johnson and Anderson 2003). Saw-whet owls also utilize dense riparian woodlands for roosting. This species often forages along forest edges, preying on small mammals (Cannings 1993).

Structural stages 4C and 5 most closely resemble the preferred breeding and nesting habitat for the saw-whet owl. These structural stages contain mature and old growth forest with at least 70

142 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 percent canopy cover in the 4C stage. Snags are an integral part of nesting habitat. Snags do not occur evenly across the landscape. There would likely be some areas with higher snag densities that would allow the species to persist. Large trees are also important for this species because they provide future large snags.

Saw-whet owls occur from the southern boundary of Alaska, across most of Canada and into the northern tier of states from Maine to Minnesota (Johnson and Anderson 2003). The Rocky Mountains, the Cascade Range, Coastal Range and the Sierra Nevada Mountains all support year-round populations. In the Black Hills, seasonal migration is likely among high- and low- elevation habitat (Johnson and Anderson 2003). In South Dakota, the northern saw-whet owl is considered an uncommon resident (Tallman et al. 2002). The saw-whet owl was determined to be widely distributed and common in the Black Hills (Fauna West Wildlife Consultants 2003). The northern saw-whet owl is tracked by the South Dakota Natural Heritage Program (SDNHP) as a rare species and is ranked three on a rarity scale of one to five, with one being critically imperiled and five being secure (SDNHP 2007).

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) Under this alternative, pine stands may become denser. Conifers would continue to encroach into meadows and hardwoods. The threat of stand replacing wildfire would increase. Nesting habitat for the northern saw-whet would be enhanced under this alternative provided that wildfires and MPB would not overtake the area. However, because of the MPB infestation in the Project area, it is predicted that SS 4B would decrease to only 65 acres, and SS 4C and 5 would not remain within the project area. The majority of ponderosa pine sites are expected to transition to SS 1 and 2. Spruce and hardwoods are expected to increase in acres, but, these spruce sites would be in SS 1 and 2.

Common to All Action Alternatives All action alternatives propose commercial treatment in SS 4C and 5 pine sites. Because of the predicted MPB activity, it is expected that ponderosa pine in 4C or 5 (the preferred nesting habitat) would decrease significantly so that they no longer occur on the landscape within the project area. Structural stage 4A is expected to increase significantly in these alternatives because of treatments and MPB activity. However, it cannot be predicted how remaining trees would be distributed across the landscape. Spruce acreage would increase under all action alternatives but are expected to convert to mostly SS 1 and 2, although 90 acres of SS 4A may remain on the landscape. Hardwood acreage is expected to increase by 1,387 – 1,454 acres under the action alternatives because of treatment and MPB activity.

Any of the action alternatives may cause northern saw-whet owls, if present, to avoid, or move from, an area being treated. If there are unknown nests in the project area then any of the action alternatives may disturb nesting if harvest occurs during the nesting season. Alternative 4 may create the most impacts to unknown nests in locations, 061703, and 061704 because treatment activities can occur throughout the first year of the project area. This impact is expected to be short term affecting only one brood at most if harvest operations are conducted during the nesting season. Known nests would be protected and the alternatives would meet Standard 3204. Snag habitat, including large snags would increase due to the mountain pine beetle caused mortality. No snags would be cut unless deemed a safety hazard during treatments.

143 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Because of the MPB activity, suitable habitat is not expected to remain within the project area, and thus, northern saw-whet owls may be displaced to more suitable nesting habitat outside of the project area.

Cumulative Effects Adverse cumulative effects to dense, mature conifer stands, large trees, late succession, and stands with a diversity of cover and structures, are expected as a result of the current mountain pine beetle outbreak. This is expected to adversely affect the Northern Saw-whet Owl and may cause displacement. However, the action alternatives would be expected to retain more mature pine in pockets on the landscape than no action. These mature stands could develop into a dense condition in approximately 20-30 years which would offset some of the MPB effects by greatly reducing the time needed for the development of dense pine stands following the outbreak. Also, other federal, private, or state lands surrounding the project area or even the stands treated in the Needles and Grizzly sale areas may provide dense stands of pine and large trees.

Past timber harvest on National forest and non-National Forest lands has contributed to the loss of large mature trees. Wildfires and pine beetles have also contributed to the loss of large mature pine trees in the area. All action alternatives would continue to remove suitable nest trees, but would provide protection of known nests. The possibility of future large-scale, high intensity wildfires does exist for this project area. Development and vegetation treatment of private lands is expected to continue. Any changes to this acreage are not expected to contribute to habitat loss.

Activities such as fire suppression, livestock grazing, recreational activities and other management activities have and are expected to continue in the Norbeck Project area. These activities would likely occur on private lands as well. The action alternatives are expected to incrementally offset some of the effects of past fire suppression by reducing pine encroachment into spruce, meadow, and hardwood habitat through vegetation treatment activities. Treatment activities are expected to temporarily produce disturbance impacts to northern saw-whet owls, but the impacts are expected to cease once the project is complete. Mountain pine beetle is also expected to incrementally offset some of the above effects naturally by reducing pine encroachment into spruce, meadow, and hardwood habitat. However, because of the effects of MPB, there is expected to be adverse cumulative effects to northern saw-whet owls because of loss of suitable nesting habitat.

Private lands would likely continue to be developed, some of which may include roads. All may affect northern saw-whet owls through direct mortality, although unlikely, modification of behavior, habitat alteration, spread of exotics, or disturbance.

Saw-whet owls could potentially use preferred nesting and foraging habitat in Custer State Park. Foreseeable actions are unknown, though management in Custer State Park would likely result in large trees because of the tourism emphasis. Human activity at Mount Rushmore National Memorial would have minor impacts to this species although there is likely to be little suitable habitat.

Summary of Effects The action alternatives propose treatments that could decrease the chances of stand replacement wildfire or MPB activity that may negatively impact the habitat desired by this species. There would be no SS 4C/5 in all alternatives.

144 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Structural stage 4A increases in all alternatives because of vegetation treatments and MPB activity. However, it cannot be predicted how SS 4A stands would be distributed across the landscape because of MPB activity.

All alternatives are expected to increase hardwood acreage because of MPB activity, but the action alternatives increase it even more because of treatments. Sufficient habitat for this species may not be available within the project area because of MPB activity. The Environmental Impact Statement for the Phase II Amendment determined that this species is likely to persist across the Planning Area if Forest Plan standards and guidelines are followed. The proposed alternatives would meet these standards and guidelines, but because of MPB activity within the project area, northern saw-whet owls may be displaced to more suitable habitat outside of the project area. Therefore, the alternatives would contribute toward meeting Forest Objective 221.

Pygmy Nuthatch (SOLC)

Habitat and Distribution The pygmy nuthatch is a primary cavity nester that also uses secondary cavities (Ghalambor 2003, Kingery and Ghalambor 2001) found in mature yellow-pine communities throughout the West (Ghalambor 2003). Pygmy nuthatches prefer old or mature undisturbed forests, but are also known to use open, park-like stands of ponderosa pine (Kingery and Ghalambor 2001). This presents a challenge in the Black Hills where ponderosa pines typically grow very densely in the absence of disturbance. Roosting habitat for the pygmy nuthatch varies seasonally. Foraging habitat is primarily in pine stands with high canopy closure (Ghalambor 2003). Pygmy nuthatches likely need heterogeneous forests with a mixture of well-spaced old trees and trees of intermediate age (Kingery and Ghalambor 2001).

The preference for undisturbed forests may relate to the availability of large snags. The nuthatch is a weak cavity excavator, requiring soft, large snags for nesting and communal winter roost sites (USDA Forest Service 1996, Appendix H). Dead or decaying coniferous trees and snags provide substrate for nest cavities. Nesting habitat generally includes trees that average 15 to 27 inches in diameter (Ghalambor 2003, Kingery and Ghalambor 2001). Suggested practices include managing for at least three to five snags (19 inches in diameter) per acre (Kingery and Ghalambor 2001).

Structural stages 4C and 5 most closely resemble one component of preferred habitat (old or mature undisturbed forest). Structural stage 4A most closely resembles open, park-like, mature forest conditions. Phase II structural stage objectives are designed to manage for the various structural stages across the landscape in a diversity of sizes and shapes. Snags that are greater than 15 inches in diameter are an integral part of pygmy nuthatch nesting and roosting habitat. Snags do not occur evenly across the landscape. There would likely be some areas with higher snag densities that would allow the species to persist. Large trees are also important for this species because they provide foraging habitat, and because they are source for future large snags used for roosting and nesting.

The pygmy nuthatch subspecies of the Black Hills (Sitta pygmaea melanotis) is found from southern interior British Columbia and south throughout the forests of the Rocky Mountain West into Mexico and western Texas (DeGraaf et al. 1991). It is considered an uncommon resident in both Wyoming (Luce et al. 1999) and South Dakota (Peterson 1995). There are no reliable estimates of pygmy nuthatch abundance for the Black Hills (Ghalambor 2003).

145 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

On the Black Hills, as elsewhere, identified limiting factors are thought to be the availability of snags for nesting sites and winter roosting habitat and the availability of productive foraging habitat (Ghalambor 2003). Estimates of local abundance are unavailable due to the scarcity of this species and its unpredictable distribution (Panjabi 2003).

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) Under this alternative, pine stands may become denser. Conifers would continue to encroach into meadows and hardwoods. The threat of stand replacing wildfire would increase. Nesting habitat for the northern saw-whet would be enhanced under this alternative provided that wildfires and MPB would not overtake the area. However, because of the MPB infestation in the Project area, it is predicted that SS 4B would decrease to only 65 acres, and SS 4C and 5 would not remain within the project area. The majority of ponderosa pine sites are expected to transition to SS 1 and 2, but SS 4A would increase also; however, it cannot be predicted how green trees would be distributed across the landscape. Snags, especially large snags, would increase in the project area because of MPB activity.

Common to All Action Alternatives All action alternatives propose commercial treatments in SS 4B, 4C and 5 pine sites. Because of the predicted MPB activity, it is expected that ponderosa pine in 4B, 4C or 5 (the preferred nesting habitat) would decrease significantly so that they no longer occur as stands on the landscape, only as small scattered pockets. Large snags would be created, but are only expected to remain standing for 5 years. Also, canopy closure decreases significantly. Structural stage 4A is expected to increase significantly in these alternatives because of treatments and MPB activity. However, it cannot be predicted how remaining trees would be distributed across the landscape, but treatments in all action alternatives may retain the most SS4A in groups.

Any of the action alternatives may cause pygmy nuthatches, if present, to avoid, or move from, an area being treated. Action alternatives may disturb nesting if harvest occurs during the nesting season. Alternative 4 may create the most impacts to nesting in locations, 061703, and 061704 because treatment activities can occur throughout the first year of the project area. This impact is expected to be short term affecting only one brood at most if harvest operations are conducted during the nesting season. No snags would be cut unless deemed a safety hazard during treatments.

Alternative 4 is expected to retain the most mature pine (SS4A), including large trees, of all alternatives. These stands are most likely to develop into preferred nesting habitat in the future. All action alternatives are expected to retain the more mature pine in groups, than the no action alternative.

Cumulative Effects Adverse cumulative effects to dense, mature conifer stands, large trees, late succession, and stands with a diversity of cover and structures, are expected as a result of the current mountain pine beetle outbreak. This is expected to adversely affect the Northern Saw-whet Owl and may cause displacement. However, the action alternatives would be expected to retain more mature pine in pockets on the landscape than no action. These mature stands could develop into a dense condition in approximately 20-30 years which would offset some of the MPB effects by greatly reducing the time needed for the development of dense pine stands following the outbreak. Also, other federal, private, or state lands surrounding the project area or even the stands treated in the Needles and Grizzly sale areas may provide dense stands of pine and large trees.

146 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Past timber harvest on National forest and non-National Forest lands has contributed to the loss of large mature trees. Wildfires and pine beetles have also contributed to the loss of large mature pine trees in the area. All action alternatives would continue to remove suitable nest trees, but would provide protection of known nests. The possibility of future large-scale, high intensity wildfires does exist for this project area. Development and vegetation treatment of private lands is expected to continue. Any changes to this acreage are not expected to contribute to habitat loss.

Activities such as fire suppression, livestock grazing, recreational activities and other management activities have and are expected to continue in the Norbeck Project area. These activities would likely occur on private lands as well. The action alternatives are expected to incrementally offset some of the effects of past fire suppression by reducing pine encroachment into spruce, meadow, and hardwood habitat through vegetation treatment activities. Treatment activities are expected to temporarily produce disturbance impacts to pygmy nuthatches, but the impacts are expected to cease once the project is complete. Mountain pine beetle is also expected to incrementally offset some of the above effects naturally by reducing pine encroachment into spruce, meadow, and hardwood habitat. However, because of the effects of MPB, there is expected to be adverse cumulative effects to pygmy nuthatches because of loss of suitable canopy cover.

Snags that are greater than 15 inches in diameter are an integral part of pygmy nuthatch nesting and roosting habitat. Effects on snags are expected to be minimal for all action alternatives (see ‘Snags and Down Woody Material’ section). Large trees are also important for this species because they provide future large snags. The action alternatives would treat large trees, but MPB is expected to kill large trees in all alternatives.

Private lands would likely continue to be developed, some of which may include roads. All may affect pygmy nuthatches through direct mortality, although unlikely, modification of behavior, habitat alteration, spread of exotics, or disturbance.

Because of the MPB activity, limited suitable habitat is expected to remain within the project area, and thus, pygmy nuthatch may be displaced to more suitable nesting habitat outside of the project area.

Pygmy nuthatches could potentially use preferred nesting and foraging habitat in Custer State Park. Foreseeable actions are unknown. Human activity at Mount Rushmore National Memorial would have minor impacts to this species although there is likely to be little suitable habitat.

Summary of Effects The action alternatives propose treatments that could decrease the chances of stand replacement wildfire or MPB activity that may negatively impact the habitat desired by this species. There would be no SS 4C/5 in all alternatives.

Structural stage 4A increases in all alternatives because of vegetation treatments and MPB activity. However, it cannot be predicted how SS 4A stands would be distributed across the landscape because of MPB activity.

All alternatives are expected to increase SS 4A and snags because of MPB activity, but the action alternatives increase it even more because of treatments. Sufficient habitat for this species may not be available within the project area because of MPB activity. The Environmental Impact Statement for the Phase II Amendment determined that this species is likely to persist across the

147 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Planning Area if Forest Plan standards and guidelines are followed. The proposed alternatives would meet these standards and guidelines, but because of MPB activity within the project area, pygmy nuthatches may be displaced to more suitable habitat outside of the project area. Therefore, the alternatives would contribute toward meeting Forest Objective 221.

American Dipper (SOLC)

Habitat and Distribution The dipper inhabits clear, fast-flowing streams. It feeds primarily on aquatic insects and insect larvae that it catches by diving underwater. Dippers nest within 25 feet of a stream (Anderson 2002) on rocky streamside ledges and cliffs, boulders, behind waterfalls, and under bridges. During winter, dippers move to areas of open water (Anderson 2002) and may move to lower elevations.

The primary risk factor appears to be the degradation of water quality due to sedimentation and other pollutants that affect prey availability (Anderson 2002). Flow reductions, especially in the winter; likely pose a risk as well. Limiting factors are thought to be adequate summer foraging habitat, suitable winter habitat, stream connectivity and availability of nest sites.

Anderson (2002) assesses the conservation status of the American dipper on the Black Hills. This species occurs from Alaska south along the Pacific Coast to Panama and inland mountain ranges of the west, including scattered populations in southeast Oregon, Nevada, Utah, and Arizona, western and southern New Mexico, and in the Black Hills of South Dakota (Kingery 1996). The Black Hills population is at the eastern edge of its global distribution (Panjabi 2001). The dipper is not considered migratory, but movements within or between drainages are common near open, moving water during the freeze-up months of winter (Anderson 2002). There are no stream migration corridors to dipper populations to the west of the Black Hills (Backlund 2008).

In the Black Hills, the species occurs in Spearfish Creek and several of its tributaries. It has also been found at Rapid Creek and some of the streams between Rapid Creek and Spearfish Creek. However, the breeding population is now limited mainly to the Spearfish Creek watershed and Whitewood Creek (Backlund 2008). Annual monitoring along Spearfish Creek began in 1993. Surveys conducted in 2003 indicate that there are less than 100 dippers in the Black Hills (Backlund 2003).

The only stream that has potential dipper habitat within the Project Area is Iron Creek.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) No management activity would occur and therefore no effects to American dipper habitat would occur as a result. Other activities however, would continue to occur along Iron Creek. Summer group homes and recreationists would continue using areas in and along Iron Creek and fishing would continue in the creek. Riparian shrubs and habitat may thrive as MPB activity kills conifers.

Common to All Action Alternatives The action alternatives may impact potential American dipper habitat along Iron Creek. To access treatment units, several stream crossings are necessary on Iron Creek. These crossing have the potential to effect American dipper habitat. Equipment using FS 345 to enter treatment sites may impact the creek as well. However, Forest standards and guidelines, watershed

148 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 conservation practices, and State BMPs would reduce the potential for impacts at the project level. These features mitigate impacts to nesting sites, foraging habitat and winter habitat by conserving soil, aquatic and riparian systems. The WCP Handbook contains proven watershed conservation practices to protect soil, aquatic, and riparian systems. They are incorporated verbatim into the Forest Plan as standards. The State BMPs carry the same weight as guidelines. Proper implementation of the WCP Handbook practices meets or exceeds State BMPs.

Cumulative Effects There are no records of nesting dippers being present within the project area.

The action alternatives would improve riparian habitat by removing conifer competition. Mountain pine beetles would also remove conifer competition in riparian areas. These activities would have a combined benefit to American dipper habitat, riparian areas.

No livestock use occurs or is proposed, in Iron Creek. Therefore, no cumulative effects from grazing would occur.

Recreational activity continues to increase within Norbeck project area. Anderson (2002) reports dippers are not unduly disturbed by human activity, though there were factors that complicated the results in the study reported.

Management actions under the alternatives are not expected to contribute to a cumulative adverse impact to dippers or their habitat.

Summary of Effects All alternatives would improve American dipper habitat, riparian habitat, in the project area. The action alternatives would remove conifers and mountain pine beetles would kill conifers. The no action alternative would result in improved habitat through mountain pine beetles caused mortality of conifers.

The Environmental Impact Statement for the Phase II Amendment determined that this species is likely to persist across the Planning Area if Forest Plan standards and guidelines are followed. The proposed alternatives would meet these standards and guidelines. Therefore, the alternatives would contribute toward meeting Forest Objective 221.

Black-and-white Warbler (SOLC)

Habitat and Distribution A forest-interior specialist, this species tends to prefer moist, swampy forests as well as mature aspen stands. Quality habitat consists of a high canopy closure and dense understory of shrubs and small trees. During the breeding season, black-and-white warblers are found in mature and second growth deciduous and mixed deciduous-coniferous forests (Kricher 1995). Nests are placed on or near the ground and are well concealed at the base of a stump, log or rock (Kricher 1995). The species is found in a variety of habitats during migration, including forests and woodlands, especially riparian areas (Kricher 1995). The black-and-white warbler is probably more commonly encountered during migration in the Black Hills (SDOU 1991).

It is a rare breeder in the Black Hills, with breeding records confirmed in South Dakota but not in Wyoming (SDOU 1991, Luce et al. 1999). In the Black Hills, they are found mainly at lower

149 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

elevations in the eastern Black Hills and in the Bear Lodge Mountains (Panjabi 2004). They are found mostly in bur oak woodlands and associated edges (Hutton et al. 2007). Currently, there are 158 acres of bur oak within the project area.

The species has been observed at 18 transect-points since monitoring began in 2001 (USDA Forest Service 2008). Two-thirds of these sites were within the Black Hills proper, and the remaining 1/3 were in the Bearlodge Mountains. The Black Hills observations were almost exclusively at low elevations near the periphery of the Hills; all were <4,700’ asl (above sea level), and all but one were within two miles of the Forest boundary. Regardless of mountain range, most (89 percent) were in riparian zones and/or drainages. The vegetation composition of these habitats has not been analyzed, but it is suspected that bur oak, aspen, birch, and other hardwoods are important. Of the remaining two upland sites, one was along an aspen transect, and the other within a late-successional transect. Currently, there are 158 acres of bur oak within the project area yet there are no known occurrences in the project area.

The black-and-white warbler breeds in mature deciduous forests of the eastern United States and throughout Canada. Overall, its populations are slightly decreasing in the US when looking at trend analysis from 1966-2005 (Sauer and Hines 2008). Habitat fragmentation is probably the main threat to this species. The Black Hills is at the edge of the black-and-white warbler’s distribution in the United States. It is a rare breeder in the Black Hills with breeding records confirmed in South Dakota but not in Wyoming (SDOU 1991, Luce et al. 1999). There are no population trends available from breeding bird survey routes in the Black Hills or in South Dakota or Wyoming (Sauer and Hines 2008).

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 – No Action Under this alternative no treatments would occur. Ponderosa pine may continue to become denser and encroach into hardwoods, competing with them for resources. However, because of the predicted MPB effects to conifers, hardwoods are expected to increase. Aspen and bur oak would increase the within the project area, especially outside of the BEW. Riparian habitat is expected to improve because of MPB killing pine trees. More openings would be created. Pockets of ponderosa pine would remain on the landscape, but it cannot be predicted how these would be distributed.

Common to All Action Alternatives Direct effects to black-and-white warblers include potential mortality from vegetation treatments, but it is expected that this species would leave the area before that occurs. Vegetation treatments may disturb individuals, but timing restrictions are expected to lessen some of the impacts and black-and-white warblers are expected to return to the area.

Habitat for this species would be increased. Bur oak would increase to 429 acres in all action alternatives, which is more than in Alternative 1. Aspen would also be increased more than in the no action alternative. Riparian habitat would improve due to removal of conifer competition.

Alternative 2 Through mechanical treatments and MPB activity, this alternative would increase the amount of hardwoods, especially aspen and oak which is this species main habitat. The increased aspen may improve habitat enough to provide the opportunity for a population increase.

150 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Alternatives 3 and 4 Alternative 3 would result in the most acres of aspen, followed by Alternative 4. The dead trees that have fallen or the live trees that are hinged are expected to discourage browsing so that suckering may occur. Mountain pine beetle activity is also expected to create more openings within ponderosa pine sites. Riparian habitat is expected to improve because of MPB killing pine trees.

Through mechanical treatments and MPB activity, this alternative would increase the amount of hardwoods, especially aspen which is this species’ main habitat, and open pine stands available to black-and-white warblers throughout the project area. The increased aspen may improve habitat enough to provide the opportunity for a population increase.

Cumulative Effects Activities such as fire suppression, livestock grazing, recreational activities and other management activities have and are expected to continue in the Norbeck Project area. These activities would likely occur on private lands as well. The action alternatives are expected to incrementally offset some of the effects of past fire suppression by reducing pine encroachment into hardwoods and treating understories within stands to open them up. Treatment activities are expected to temporarily produce disturbance impacts to black-and-white warblers, but the impacts are expected to cease once the project is complete. Mountain pine beetle is also expected to incrementally offset some of the above effects naturally by reducing pine encroachment into hardwoods and riparian areas. However, because of the effects of MPB, there is expected to be beneficial effects to black-and-white warblers because of an increase in suitable habitat.

Management of national and state parks adjacent to Norbeck would have an unknown effect on black-and-white warbler populations. It is assumed that federal and state lands offer suitable habitats for black-and-white warblers.

Because of MPB activity, it is expected that hardwood stands and open areas would increase significantly throughout the project area. Aspen and bur oak would increase over the no action alternative. The majority of these changes occur outside the BEW.

Privately owned lands within and adjacent to Norbeck project boundary may also provide suitable breeding and migration stopover habitat for the black-and-white warbler. Resource management and conservation by companies and private citizens depends on a number of factors (e.g., desired goals, market prices, development potential, etc.), making it difficult to predict future trends in private forest structure and diversity. As a general rule, potential black-and-white warbler habitat on private lands would occur across the Black Hills; however, the extent and persistence of such habitats is uncertain.

Summary of Effects Under all action alternatives, indirect effects are expected from disturbance. All alternatives are expected to have beneficial impacts to black-and-white warblers because of MPB activity increasing hardwood and, potentially, riparian habitat. In addition, the action alternatives provide vegetation treatment. Alternative 3 provides the most acres of hardwoods after treatments are completed, followed by Alternatives 4, 2 and 1, respectively.

The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined this species is likely to persist on the Forest. This project would not change any of the standards, guidelines or objectives that provide for black-and-white warbler habitat. Implementation of Forest-wide goals, objectives, standards, and

151 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

guidelines would conserve and restore hardwood and riparian habitats in the Norbeck project area, providing potential habitat for the black-and-white warbler. This species is likely to persist because habitats would continue to be available at or above the current level. Therefore, the action alternatives would contribute toward meeting Forest Objective 221.

Northern Long-eared Myotis (SOLC)

Habitat and Distribution At the western edge of its range, the northern myotis is found in the wooded riparian zone in badlands and prairies to higher elevation coniferous and deciduous woodlands (Schmidt 2003a). In the Black Hills region, this species has been captured at elevations ranging from 4,000 to 6,500 feet (Schmidt 2003a). Luce et al. (1999) listed habitat associations as dense ponderosa pine and mixed coniferous/deciduous forest.

Hibernacula include caves and mines. Individuals tend to wedge into crevices and are not easily detected or counted (Schmidt 2003a). During the summer, non-reproductive bats roost singly or in small groups of fewer than 10 individuals. Day roosts of males and non-reproductive females have been reported in buildings; under shingles; behind shutters of buildings; underneath exfoliating tree bark; inside cavities or crevices of trees; and in caves, mines, and quarries (Schmidt 2003a). Maternity roosts have been reported in buildings, under loose bark, and in crevices and cavities of deciduous trees and ponderosa pines. Northern myotis have been documented using ponderosa pine snags as summer/maternity roosts in the Black Hills (Cryan et al. 2001) and in other regions (Rabe et al. 1998). Rabe et al. (1998) summarize some key snag characteristics for the northern myotis and four other Myotis species in Arizona; roost snags were generally larger in diameter, had more loose bark, and were found at higher densities. Cryan et al. (2001) reported the average snag size for roosts in the Black Hills was about 15.6 inches. Maternity roosts are typically small and comprise 5 to 65 individuals (Schmidt 2003a). A single offspring is born in late July (Higgins et al. 2000).

Foraging areas may include hillsides, ridge tops, and riparian woodlands (Luce et at. 1999, Schmidt 2003a). The availability of suitable hibernacula, maternity roosting sites, and foraging areas all represent potential risk factors for this species (Schmidt 2003a).

The northern myotis ranges across most of eastern North America, extending from central Quebec, Ontario, and the southern half of Manitoba, south through all of the Dakotas, eastern Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma, and then east to the Atlantic coast. Turner (1974) reported northern myotis from Pennington and Custer counties in South Dakota and Weston County in Wyoming. The South Dakota Natural Heritage Program reported records of this species from Meade, Lawrence, Jackson, and Harding counties as well. Luce et al. (1999) reported records of northern myotis from latitude 7 and longitude 21, which includes Crook and Weston Counties, Wyoming and one historical record from the western part of the state. The species has been recorded near the Project Area in Gold Bug Mine.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) Pine may become denser. Pine trees may increase in size and provide larger future snags. The dense pine conditions could lead to stand replacing wildfires and/or beetle infestation. Either of these activities could eradicate some habitat for this species but would create snags. Conifers would continue to encroach into meadows and riparian zones where this species may forage. However, because of the predicted MPB activity killing thousands of acres of pine, large pockets

152 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 of snags are expected to occur on the landscape; however, MPB-caused snags are expected to only remain standing for 5 years. Structural stage 4A is expected to increase, but SS 4C and 5 would no longer remain within the project area. Hardwoods are also expected to increase because of MPB killing conifers.

Common to All Action Alternatives No snags would be cut unless deemed a safety hazard under any of the action alternatives. Hardwoods, grasses, shrubs and forbs are expected to benefit from all of the action alternatives, which may subsequently increase prey species and foraging habitat for this bat. The project may somewhat decrease or slow-down snag recruitment by making the thinning units less susceptible to wildfire and insect outbreaks; however, MPB activity is expected to increase the amount of snags.

Meadow, shrub, and hardwood enhancement treatments are within a few acres between all action alternatives, but all these habitat types are expected to increase and are important foraging habitats. Structural stages 4B, 4C, and 5 are expected to be non-existent in all action alternatives. This may affect future recruitment of large snags that remain on the landscape longer than 5 years, yet SS 4A is expected to increase in each alternative, thus allowing larger trees to remain on the landscape. Alternative 4 is expected to retain the most SS 4A.

Firewood cutting is not permitted within Norbeck, and all roads that are opened would be closed. These closures may help deter the illegal taking of snags for firewood. Riparian habitats are proposed for protective treatments through various discipline post-harvest projects.

All action alternatives may disturb/displace roosting bats. This may be a short-term effect. Bats may return to roosting sites, if still intact after treatments are completed. Any caves and/or mines found in the project area and determined to be important bat habitat would be protected through Forest Standards/Guidelines and design criteria.

Cumulative Effects Past activities such as road building, timber harvest and burning may have caused displacement and/or mortality of roosting bats. Future enhancement of riparian areas may be beneficial to the species for foraging habitat. Habitat for this species would be conserved. Activities such as vegetation management, fuels management, livestock grazing, recreational activities and other management activities have and are expected to continue within the project area. Current MPB infestation has created potential habitat (snags) for this species. These activities would likely occur on private lands as well. Private lands would likely continue to be developed, some of which may include roads. All may affect bats through direct mortality, modification of behavior, habitat alteration, spread of exotics, or disturbance.

Management of national and state parks adjacent to the project area could affect bats. These federal and state lands may have suitable habitats for bats. It is presumed that bats move readily between Norbeck and adjacent lands. However, the extent of movements between hibernacula and summer or maternity roosts is not known for these species (Schmidt 2003a). Human disturbance to roosting-or-hibernating bats or roosting-habitat modification in areas adjacent to the Forest could negatively impact bats using the Forest at other times of the year.

In general, human disturbance in or near hibernacula may cause site abandonment and local population losses. Recreational activities including spelunking can disturb hibernating bats. Habitat loss can occur with the closure of abandoned mines or destruction of buildings used by

153 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

bats. Disturbance to cave and mine openings that changes airflow patterns, temperature regimes, and bat access can also impact bats (USDA Forest Service 2001).

Privately owned lands within and adjacent to the project boundary may also provide suitable bat habitat, but resource management and conservation by private citizens and companies depends on a number of factors (e.g., desired goals, market prices, development potential). Some loss of hibernacula and summer/maternity roosts has most likely occurred as a result of abandoned mine closures, recreational caving activities, and timber harvest on private lands.

Incremental impacts to habitat quantity are expected to be minimal for all alternatives because direct and indirect impacts are expected to be minimal.

Summary of Effects All alternatives provide for suitable roosting snags for this bat species, but Alternative 4 provides the most potential for future large snags remaining on the landscape. All action alternatives are expected to enhance foraging habitat. Suitable roosting snags would also be available with the action alternatives. There are known caves or abandoned mines within the project area, but standards, guidelines and design criteria would be implemented and these areas protected. Thus, impacts from the action alternatives on this particular bat species should be minimal.

The Environmental Impact Statement for the Phase II Amendment determined that this species is likely to persist across the Planning Area if Forest Plan standards and guidelines are followed. The proposed alternatives would meet these standards and guidelines. Therefore, the alternatives would contribute toward meeting Forest Objective 221.

Small-footed Myotis (SOLC)

Habitat and Distribution The small-footed myotis is found in a variety of habitats ranging from arid desert and badland habitats to riparian zones and grasslands. It is usually associated with rocky areas like bluffs, dissected breaks, ridges, cliffs, and major rock outcroppings within these habitats. In the Black Hills region, this species has been captured at elevations ranging from 3,800 to 6,000 feet (Schmidt 2003b).

Hibernacula for this species include mines and caves. Relatively warmer areas of caves with the least climatic fluctuations seem to be the preferred microsite. Mine hibernacula are also documented (Turner 1974). Maternity and summer roosts are usually associated with rock features (e.g., bluffs, ridges, cliffs, boulders, and major outcroppings) within a variety of habitats (Schmidt 2003b). The small-footed myotis is one of the few bat species that actually roosts in cavities at ground level. Day roosts include buildings, behind the bark of pine trees, in rock crevices, under rocks on the ground, in holes in banks and hillsides, and in abandoned swallow nests. The availability of suitable hibernacula, maternity roosting sites, and foraging areas all represent potential risk factors for this species (Schmidt 2003b).

The small-footed myotis ranges across most of western North America, extending from central British Columbia, southern Alberta and southwestern Saskatchewan, south to the central States of Mexico (Schmidt 2003b). It has been reported from all five South Dakota counties of the Black Hills (Turner 1974). Luce et al. (1999) reported records from latitude 7, and longitude 21 and 28 in Wyoming, which is most of the area bordering South Dakota with the possible exception of Weston County. However, Turner (1974) reported seven records from Weston

154 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

County, Wyoming and recorded this species as widespread but not abundant in the Black Hills. The species has been recorded within the project area at the Palmer Shaft and near the Project Area in Gold Bug Mine.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects All Alternatives Refer to ‘Northern long-eared myotis’ section above. All action alternatives may impact this bat species while roosting. There may be impacts to rock outcroppings, ground rocks and roosting trees during harvest operations. Impacts, such as these, may be more prevalent under action Alternatives 3 and 4, which proposes the most vegetation treatment. Roosting disturbance is expected to be of short duration.

The alternatives would contribute toward meeting Forest Objective 221.

Long-eared Myotis (SOLC)

Habitat and Disturbance The only records of long-eared myotis in the Black Hills come from unpublished reports (Schmidt 2003c). Clark and Stromberg (1987) report long-eared myotis occur in suitable habitat throughout Wyoming although the majority of the records are from the western half of the state. Luce et al. (1999) reported long-eared myotis in 22 of the 28 surveys in Wyoming but in only one of the two counties in the Black Hills of Wyoming. It is unknown whether the Black Hills supports a self-sustaining population (Schmidt 2003c).

This species is associated with coniferous montane habitats and has been reported foraging among trees and over woodland ponds (Schmidt 2003c). Limited data suggest that the long-eared myotis uses ponderosa pine snags as summer and maternity roosts in other regions (Rabe et al. 1998, Vonhof and Barclay 1997). Rabe et al. (1998) summarize some key snag characteristics for the long-eared myotis and four other bat species in Arizona: roost snags were generally in larger DBH, had more loose bark, and were found at higher densities. Stumps, also of large diameter, have been documented as summer roost sites for the long-eared myotis in British Columbia (Vonhof and Barclay 1997).

Although relatively little is known about this bat’s specific hibernation needs, hibernation sites include caves and mines (Higgins et al. 2000), but there are no known reports of them hibernating in the Black Hills (Schmidt 2003c). Reproductive females have been found in buildings, rock crevices, and hollow trees. Reported day roosts for this species include buildings (often abandoned), under loose tree bark, in hollow trees, among timbers of an unused railroad trestle, in caves and mines, in cliff fissures, and in portable latrines (Schmidt 2003c). This bat often uses caves and mine tunnels as nightly roosts (Higgins et al. 2000, Schmidt 2003c).

The long-eared myotis ranges across much of montane western North America, extending from central British Columbia; the southern half of Alberta and the southwestern corner of Saskatchewan; south to Baja California along the Pacific coast; along the western edges of the Dakotas; and most of Wyoming and Colorado to northwestern New Mexico and northeastern Arizona (Schmidt 2003c).

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects All Alternatives Refer to ‘Northern long-eared myotis and small-footed myotis’ sections above.

155 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Long-legged Myotis (SOLC)

Habitat and Distribution The long-legged myotis is primarily associated with montane forest. In the Black Hills, this species occurs primarily at elevations between 4,500 and 6,500 feet (Turner 1974). This species has been documented using ponderosa pine snags as summer/maternity roosts in the Black Hills (Cryan et al. 2001) and in other regions (Rabe et al. 1998). Cryan et al. (2001) found the long- legged myotis roosting in rock crevices in the Black Hills where they may be subject to disturbance by rock climbing activities. Snags used for roosting in the Black Hills were larger in diameter, in a greater state of decay, and were in higher densities when compared to random snags (Cryan et al. 2001). Roosts were generally on south-facing slopes within late-successional pine forests. Day roosts are usually under the bark of ponderosa pine and in snags. These bats prefer dead snags characterized by reduced needles and twigs, loose bark, broken tops, hard-to- spongy heartwood, and spongy-to-soft sapwood. Roost snags are generally taller than surrounding trees, close to other available trees, and surrounded by a relatively open canopy. Reproductive females have been found roosting in buildings, rock crevices, under the bark of trees, and in hollow trees (Schmidt 2003d). Hibernating individuals are known to use caves in the Black Hills, including Bush’s and Jewel Caves (Schmidt 2003d, Luce et al. 1999, Turner 1974).

The long-legged myotis forages over meadows, ponds, streams, and open mesic habitats of the Black Hills where it feeds on flying insects, particularly moths (Luce et al. 1999, Turner 1974). Although this species is the most common and widely distributed bat in the Black Hills (Turner 1974), general limits to persistence include availability of roost sites, hibernacula, and foraging areas. The reported preference of this bat for roosting in snags suggests that the availability of mature forests with abundant snags may be a limiting factor (Schmidt 2003d).

The long-legged myotis is common across the western United States. Its range extends across most of western North America, from southeastern Alaska through the western and southern half of British Columbia and the southern half of Alberta, down the western edge of the Great Plains states and into central Mexico (Schmidt 2003d). This species is considered the most common and widely distributed member of the genus Myotis in the Black Hills region and has been reported from all counties occupied by the Black Hills in both South Dakota and Wyoming (Schmidt 2003d, Luce et al. 1999, Clark and Stromberg 1987, Turner 1974). This species was detected at the Palmer Shaft.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects All Alternatives Refer to ‘Northern long-eared myotis and small-footed myotis’ sections above.

Northern Flying Squirrel (SOLC)

Habitat and Distribution This nocturnal mammal is a resident of the mountainous areas of the western United States and boreal forests of North America. The northern flying squirrel in the Black Hills is an isolated population with the nearest population located in the forests of western Wyoming (Wells-Gosling and Heaney 1984). On the Black Hills, abundance is highest in the northern hills where more complexity exists within the forest (Hough 2008).

156 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Throughout their range, northern flying squirrels inhabit a wide variety of woodland habitats, typically dominated by conifers or mixed coniferous/deciduous forests (Wells-Gosling and Heaney 1984). Recent studies have indicated northern flying squirrels occupy a variety of forest types and are not necessarily old growth dependent (Cotton and Parker 2000). Turner (1974) noted that the highest densities are likely found in white-spruce forests in moist canyons of the northern Black Hills. Duckwitz (2001) found flying squirrels in Wind Cave National Park in ponderosa pine types that had an open canopy allowing understory grasses to prosper. Open pine types may provide the “openness” necessary for gliding. Locations where flying squirrels were found in Wind Cave National Park did have large pines. Stands of dense doghair pine were avoided (Duckwitz 2001).

Hough (2008) found that ponderosa pine is the most important foraging habitat in the Black Hills. Flying squirrels selected areas with larger trees and more canopy cover. Structural stages 1, 2 and 3B were avoided, structural stages 3C and 4B were selected for, and structural stages 3A, 4A and 4C were used in proportion to availability. Aspen and birch were avoided. Grass and shrub areas do not provide good foraging habitat due to the lack of fungus growth and seed production (Hough 2008). Structural stages 3A, 3C, 4A, 4B, 4C and 5 all provide suitable habitat on the Forest.

White spruce has increased on the forest over the past century, but is patchily distributed and occurs in low abundance. Structural stage 5 (old growth) pine has increased slightly recently, but has decline of the long term (USDA Forest Service 2007).

Standing snags and downed logs are also habitat components. Northern flying squirrels typically nest in tree cavities or abandoned woodpeckers holes in winter and summer. They may also build nests of twigs, bark, and roots and use abandoned bird nest platforms in summer (Wells-Gosling and Heaney 1984). Snag density on the Forest is above the Forest Plan objective (USDA Forest Service 2007).

This nocturnal mammal is a resident of the mountainous areas of the western United States and boreal forests of North America. The northern flying squirrel in the Black Hills is an isolated population with the nearest population located in the forests of western Wyoming (Clark and Stromberg 1987, Wells-Gosling and Heaney 1984). In 2005, a total of 47 flying squirrels were captured in the Black Elk Wilderness and Custer State Park as part of an ongoing research project. Den sites were predominantly in cavities in snags (Hough and Dieter 2006).

Although flying squirrels are thought to prefer mesic, mature, spruce forests in the Black Hills, mature and late-successional stage pine forests (Structural Stages 4C and 5) on more mesic sites may also contain the snag resource northern flying squirrels appear to require. Flying squirrels have been reported within the Norbeck project area.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) Under this alternative no treatments would occur in the project area. Pine trees may become denser in time. This condition may lead to an increased chance of stand replacing wildfire and beetle infestation. However, because of the MPB infestation in the Project area, it is predicted that SS 4B would decrease to only 65 acres, and SS 4C and 5 would not remain within the project area. The majority of ponderosa pine sites are expected to transition to SS 1 and 2. Spruce and hardwoods are expected to increase in acres, but, these spruce sites would be in SS 1 and 2. Structural stage 4A is expected to increase, but it cannot be predicted how trees would be

157 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

distributed across the landscape. Snags are also expected to increase, but MPB-killed trees are expected to only remain standing for 5 years.

Common to All Action Alternatives Direct mortality, although unlikely, from treatment activities may occur if flying squirrels remain in the area. All of the action alternatives propose treatments in the denser stands of ponderosa pine, and this may cause displacement of flying squirrels. Also, any of the action alternatives may disturb nesting if harvest occurs during the nesting season. This impact is expected to be short term. However, because of the MPB activity, flying squirrels may be displaced to more suitable habitat outside of the project area.

Habitat fragmentation is a concern for flying squirrels. All action alternatives in conjunction with MPB activity are expected to cause habitat fragmentation.

Acres of 4A ponderosa pine are higher in the action alternatives compared to the existing condition. SS 4B, 4C, and 5 acres would no longer remain on the landscape with any alternative because of MPB activity. Spruce is expected to increase in acreage, but convert to SS 1 and 2. Ninety acres of SS 4A spruce would remain. All action alternatives propose similar hardwood enhancement treatments.

No snags would be cut unless deemed a safety hazard during treatments. Snag habitat is expected to increase.

Alternative 2 Under this alternative, SS 4A pine acres are expected to increase by nearly 2,700 from the existing condition. Aspen is expected to increase by 944 acres.

Alternative 3 Under this alternative, SS 4A pine acres are expected to increase by 2,041 acres from the existing condition. This alternative increases the acreage of hardwoods the most. It is expected that more large trees would remain on the landscape than Alternative 2.

In addition, this alternative proposes prescribed burning within the BEW. This has potential of killing more snags and green trees that are remaining. Habitat may not be suitable for flying squirrels.

Alternative 4 Under this alternative, SS 4A pine acres are expected to increase by 3,688 acres from the existing condition. Hardwoods increase under this alternative. Of the action alternatives, Alternative 4 would retain more SS4A pine conditions in the project area and may lead to more snags in the future for possible northern flying squirrel use. However, because of MPB activity, it cannot be determined how trees would be distributed across the landscape.

In addition, this alternative proposes prescribed burning within the BEW. This has potential of killing more snags and green trees that are remaining. Habitat may not be suitable for flying squirrels.

Cumulative Effects Activities such as vegetation management, fuels management, livestock grazing, recreational activities and other management activities have and are expected to continue within the project area. These activities would likely occur on private lands as well. Private lands would likely

158 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 continue to be developed, some of which may include roads. All may affect flying squirrels through direct mortality, modification of behavior, habitat alteration, spread of exotics, or disturbance.

Northern flying squirrels have relatively small ranges, generally less than 42 acres (Cotton and Parker 2000), and are non-migratory. Because of these small ranges, management activities on national and state parks adjacent to Norbeck are not likely to affect northern flying squirrel populations. These federal and state lands may have suitable habitats for northern flying squirrels, but movement between Norbeck and those lands is not known.

Privately-owned lands within and adjacent to the project boundary may also provide suitable northern flying squirrel habitat, but resource management and conservation by private citizens and companies depend on a number of factors (e.g., desired goals, market prices, development potential). Private lands managed for timber harvest may tend toward fewer acres in the late- successional stage forest and fewer snags. Potential northern flying squirrel habitat is assumed to occur on private lands across the project area; however, the extent and persistence of such habitat is uncertain.

Summary of Effects All alternatives affect habitat for the flying squirrel. However, the action alternatives treat stands to a SS4A that may remain in larger groups. However, because of MPB activity, it cannot be predicted how large trees would be distributed across the landscape. This species may be displaced to more suitable habitat outside of the project area.

The Environmental Impact Statement for the Phase II Amendment determined that this species is likely to persist across the Planning Area if Forest Plan standards and guidelines are followed. The proposed action alternatives would meet these standards and guidelines. Therefore, the alternatives would contribute toward meeting Forest Objective 221.

Meadow Jumping Mouse (SOLC)

Habitat and Distribution This species is strongly associated with riparian habitats along small streams in meadows and habitats beneath forests with an understory of deciduous shrubs, grasses, forbs and fallen logs; it is presumed to disperse primarily along stream corridors (Luce et al. 1999). The meadow jumping mouse is a profound and continuous hibernator, retreating to burrows in dry ground from October to May. Burrows are also used for nests (Luce et al. 1999).

Domestic animal overgrazing, which consistently removes dense vegetation along eastern creeks in Wyoming, is thought to have contributed to this species’ scarcity (WYNDD 2002). However, there is little evidence that the mouse is scarce relative to historic abundance. The meadow jumping mouse, in general tends to occur at relatively low abundance and it is uncertain whether the current abundance is different than the past. Limits to abundance and distribution include reduction of understory shrubs, grasses and forbs in low-to-mid elevation riparian areas (Luce et al. 1999, WYNDD 2002). Fragmentation of appropriate riparian habitat may limit this species’ ability to disperse.

Meadow jumping mice range across Alaska through Canada, the northern and eastern United States, and across the Great Plains to the eastern foothills of the Rocky Mountains (WYNDD 2002, Whitaker 1972). The Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius campestris)

159 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

is a separate subspecies that occurs in the Black Hills region (Beauvais 2001) and is listed as rare in Wyoming (Luce et al. 1999). There are seven recorded occurrences of this species on the Bearlodge Mountains of the Black Hills, including the type specimen collected in 1864 (WYNDD 2002). Turner (1974) collected a total of 207 specimens from across the Black Hills and Bear Lodge Mountains in South Dakota and Wyoming. He collected the species as far south as Wind Cave National Park and characterized it as common throughout the study area (Black Hills and Bear Lodge Mountains). Cryan and Ellison (2005) found the species still occurs throughout the Black Hills area, and several observations of this species occurred within the Norbeck project area.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) No treatments in riparian areas would occur under this alternative. Livestock grazing would continue around in on allotment, which includes riparian areas. Riparian grasses may continue to receive high seasonal use. Mountain pine beetle activity is expected to continue in the area, increasing spruce, hardwoods and meadows. This may increase quality habitat for this mice species.

Common to All Action Alternatives Mortality could result from project activities; however, timing restrictions for project activities would help minimize mortality. However, Alternative 4 may allow treatments throughout the entire first year, thus increasing the risk of mortality to this species.

All three action alternatives propose meadow, spruce, and hardwood enhancements, and some of these are in riparian areas. Because of MPB activity, pine encroachment into these sites is expected to decrease or slow down. Prescribed burning within some of these sites may also enhance vegetation this species needs.

Cumulative Effects Activities such as vegetation management, fire suppression, livestock grazing, recreational activities and natural events such as drought and flooding have caused impacts to riparian areas within the project area. Fire suppression has resulted in an increase of pine trees which may lead to a change in water tables. Other management activities have and would continue in and adjacent to the project area. These activities would likely occur on private lands as well. Private lands would likely continue to be developed, some of which may include roads. All may affect jumping mice through direct mortality, modification of behavior, habitat alteration, spread of exotics, or disturbance.

Cumulative effects to the meadow jumping mouse result from the incremental impact (direct and indirect effects) associated with the alternatives when added to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions.

Private lands occur frequently within riparian areas. These private lands provide suitable habitat, but conditions may have been altered by private land management activities such as livestock grazing or draining to convert to drier site conditions for subsequent haying.

Summary of Effects None of the alternatives are expected to cause detrimental impacts to riparian areas within the Project Area. Timber treatments to enhance hardwoods and meadows next to riparian streams are

160 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 proposed, but this would benefit this species. Therefore the action alternatives would move the riparian areas to better condition overall in the project area.

The Environmental Impact Statement for the Phase II Amendment determined that this species is likely to persist across the Planning Area if Forest Plan standards and guidelines are followed. The proposed action alternatives would meet these standards and guidelines. Therefore, the alternatives would contribute toward meeting Forest Objective 221.

Threatened, Endangered and R2 Sensitive Species There are no Threatened or Endangered species which have habitat within the Norbeck project area. Therefore, no effect to Threatened or Endangered species would occur.

The following discussion is relative to Region 2 Sensitive Species. Refer to the Norbeck Project Area BA/BE for a thorough analysis of species and effects from alternatives. A summary of the BA/BE is located in Appendix G.

Table 46 lists R2 sensitive species that occur or have habitat in the project area. These sensitive species were analyzed in the Norbeck BA/BE. Region 2 sensitive species not listed in the table below do not have habitat in the project area. Some of the species listed also have other designations, such as Focus Species or MIS species. Those species with dual designations were discussed earlier in this Chapter. Specifically, the following species are also Focus species and are discussed in that section; bighorn sheep, Northern goshawk, and black-backed woodpecker. The grasshopper sparrow and mountain sucker are also MIS species and are discussed in the MIS section.

Table 46. R2 Sensitive Species Analyzed in the Norbeck Wildlife Project

Further Species Habitat Species 1 2 Analysis Habitat Description/Analysis Rationale Present Present 3 Provided This species forages on insects in a wide variety of habitats including grasslands Fringed Myotis YES YES YES and forested areas. Roosting sites also (Myotis thysanodes) vary but include snags, caves, mines, and rock crevices (Keinath 2004). Townsend’s big- Forages on insects in a variety of habitats eared bat including forested and wet areas. Roosts YES YES YES (Corynorhinus in a variety of structures including caves, townsendii) mines, and buildings (Schmidt 2003a). Spruce forests with complex near-ground American marten YES YES YES structure, extending into Adjacent (Martes americana) ponderosa pine stands (Buskirk 2002). Prefers vegetation openness (grasslands, rocky areas, large burns and clear-cuts). Bighorn Sheep (Ovis Existing herds in the Black Hills are canadensis YES YES YES located in Custer State Park, in the canadensis) Spring Creek area, and in the Elk Mountain range (Beecham et al. 2007). In the Black Hills, bald eagles are still Bald Eagle considered winter residents or spring/fall (Haliaeetus YES YES YES migrants. Usually found near unfrozen leucocephalus) water or carrion in winter (Tallman et al. 2002, USFWS 2008d).

161 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Further Species Habitat Species 1 2 Analysis Habitat Description/Analysis Rationale Present Present 3 Provided Forages in a variety of forested areas Northern goshawk and small openings; nests primarily in YES YES YES (Accipiter gentilis) dense mature conifer forests (Kennedy 2003). Flammulated owl Open ponderosa pine forests, cavity NO YES YES (Otus flammeolus) nester (McCallum 1994). Open burned areas with large snags; oak Lewis’s woodpecker YES YES YES and cottonwood forests (Anderson 2003, (Melanerpes lewis) Panjabi 2003). Burned areas with a high density of pre- Black-backed burn snags; dense and/or mature forests woodpecker YES YES YES with a high snag density (Anderson 2003, (Picoides arcticus) Panjabi 2003). American three-toed Mature spruce forests, burned areas woodpecker NO YES YES (Wiggins 2004). (Picoides dorsalis) Grasshopper Found almost exclusively in native mixed- sparrow grass prairies (Panjabi 2003). Suitable NO YES YES (Ammodramus habitat for this species may be present in savannarum) the Galena burn area. Northern leopard Riparian and wetland areas for tadpoles, frog YES YES YES subadults, and breeding adults; upland (Rana pipiens) habitats for foraging adults (Smith 2003). Wet meadows, woodlands, and forest- Black Hills redbelly meadow edge habitat in the Black Hills snake (Storeria YES YES YES (Smith and Stephans 2003). Denning occipitomaculata habitat could include anthills and rocky pahasapae) outcrops areas near these habitats. Large rivers, lakes, reservoirs, prairie Mountain sucker streams but most often in cool, clear, (Catostomus YES YES YES moderately swift mountain streams with platyrhynchus) mud, cobble, or boulder substrate (Isaak et al. 2003). Cooper’s mountain Lowland wooded or riparian areas on snail NO YES YES limestone soils (Frest and Johannes (Oreohelix strigosa 2002). cooperi) Tallgrass prairie and extensive Regal fritillary grasslands with violets (Royer and butterfly NO YES YES Marrone 1992). Not suspected to occur in (Speyeria idalia) project vicinity. 1 Confirmed records of species in project area or immediate vicinity. 2 Habitat Present- Suitable habitat known or suspected to occur. 3Further Analysis Provided- If the species is not suspected to occur and if suitable habitat is not present or habitat would not be affected by the proposed project then no further effects analysis for that species is necessary because they would not be expected to be adversely affected by the project as proposed. Refer to the Habitat Description/Analysis Rationale section of Table 1.

The Phase II Forest Plan Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005b) evaluated population viability, and determined that all federally listed and sensitive species are likely to persist on the Forest over the next 50 years if standards and guidelines are followed, and if conditions move toward Forest Plan objectives. All standards and guidelines would be followed in all action alternatives of the Norbeck Project. Furthermore, all alternatives are consistent with Objective 221, which is to conserve or enhance habitat for sensitive species. Mountain pine beetle activity is expected to affect habitat within the project area, but the project activities are following

162 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 standards and guidelines. Therefore, persistence of all R2 sensitive species would not be affected by any alternative of the Norbeck Wildlife Project.

With implementation of Forest Plan direction and project specific design criteria, a determination of “May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing” is made for the following species for all action alternatives:

· Fringed Myotis · Black-Backed Woodpecker · Townsend’s Big-Eared · American Three-Toed Woodpecker Bat · American Marten · Grasshopper Sparrow · Rocky Mtn. Bighorn · Northern Leopard Frog Sheep · Bald Eagle · Black Hills Red-Belly snake · Northern Goshawk · Cooper’s Mountain Snail · Flammulated Owl · Regal Fritillary Butterfly · Lewis’s Woodpecker · Mountain Sucker

Raptors There were three active raptor nests found during survey work in 2006 other than goshawk; two red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) nests and one Cooper’s hawk nest (Accipiter cooperi). Additionally, there is one historic Cooper’s hawk nest site in the Grizzly planning area. These nests would be protected during project implementation.

All Action Alternatives One red-tailed hawk nest (030302-6) is in a treatment site. It is proposed for a variable density thin to 30BA. An unknown species raptor nest is located in 061703-16. Design criteria is included to provide no cut buffers around these nests.

All action alternatives must adhere to the recommended spatial and timeline buffers for these nest areas. Refer to ‘Design Criteria- Raptors’ section below for specific information of proposed treatments within the spatial buffer zone, 0.5 miles, for the above 3 nests.

The action alternatives could adversely affect nesting raptors during timber felling operations if unknown nests occur. However, because of timing restrictions for the project area, all 3 nests, especially the red-tailed nest within a treatment area, should provide adequate protections from disturbance. Also, every effort should be made to educate timber markers and contractors to observe for stick nests in trees and defensive behavior by hawks/raptors. Despite these precautions, it is possible that raptor species could be adversely affected and active nests lost.

Cumulative Effects Past timber harvest has contributed to the loss of large mature trees often used by raptors as nest trees. The action alternatives have the potential to remove suitable raptor nest trees. Mountain pine beetle activity and fire suppression are expected to continue. Management and activity on surrounding private lands would also continue. Treatments are expected to incrementally offset the effects of fire suppression. There could be short-term adverse direct and/or indirect effects to

163 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

raptor species due to the action alternatives, but ‘design criteria’ would help mitigate some of those. However, MPB activity is expected to adversely affect habitat for raptor species that require dense nesting habitat.

Conclusion The action alternatives would protect known raptor nests. Proposed activities may decrease potential nesting habitat by removing large trees, but, habitat for some raptors may increase because of tree harvesting. All action alternatives propose to restore meadows, and ground vegetation should increase in harvest units. Prey species’ habitat (i.e. small mammals and insects) for most raptors should subsequently improve. All alternatives are expected to reduce habitat for raptors requiring dense stands for nesting.

Migratory Birds Many species of migratory birds are of international concern due to naturally small ranges, loss of habitat, observed population declines and other factors. The Black Hills National Forest recognizes the ecological and economic importance of birds, and approaches bird conservation at several levels by implementing: (1) Forest Plan objectives, standards and guidelines, (2) a Forest-wide bird monitoring program, and (3) site-specific mitigation and effects analyses for identified species of concern.

The Forest Plan contains a variety of objectives, standards, and guidelines that further the conservation of migratory birds. Objectives describe desired resource conditions. The most relevant objectives for bird conservation are those relating to vegetation diversity, landscape structural diversity, snags and down woody material, riparian condition, habitat improvements, and disturbance processes. Standards and guidelines are designed to help achieve those objectives and are implemented at the project level. The most relevant standards and guidelines for migratory birds that occur on the Forest are presented in discussions of individual birds in the Species of Local Concern, Management Indicator Species, Threatened and Endangered Species and Region 2 Sensitive Species sections of this document.

Bird monitoring is conducted at the Forest-level to determine species distribution, abundance, and trend (Panjabi 2001, 2003 - 2005, Beason et al. 2006, Hutton et al. 2007, Giroir et al. 2007, White and Giroir 2009). The monitoring is designed and conducted by the RMBO to provide statistically rigorous population trend data for at least 61 species that breed in the Black Hills. Trend data would assist the Forest in determining whether additional conservation measures are necessary.

Species of concern applicable to project-level conservation are identified by many sources, including the Endangered Species Act, the Regional Forester’s sensitive species list, the Black Hills National Forest MIS and Species of Local Concern list, internal and public scoping efforts, and the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) (USFWS 2008). BCC 2008 publication partitions North America into 37 Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs, Fig. I). The Black Hills is included in BCR 17 – Badlands and Prairies, and this table has changed since the existing condition report was written. Of the 28 bird species found in BCR 17, 15 are duplicated on the Regional Forester’s sensitive species list, and are evaluated in the BA/BE if they have potential to occur in the Black Hills. Six species are not expected to occur in the Black Hills due to lack of habitat. There are 7 remaining species that could potentially occur in the Black Hills: golden eagle, prairie falcon, upland sandpiper, black-billed cuckoo, red-headed woodpecker, pinyon jay,

164 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 and dickcissel. Of these 7 species, the golden eagle and red-headed woodpecker have the potential to occur within the Project Area and are evaluated below.

Golden Eagle The golden eagle is typically found in open country from desert grasslands to above timberline. It usually avoids densely forested areas. Typical habitat is grass-shrub, shrub-sapling and/or open coniferous forests (Johnsgard 1990). This species prefers large trees and cliffs for nesting, roosting and perching. Additionally, cliffs overlooking grasslands serve as typical nest sites. They may use the same nest or alternate nests between years (DeGraaf et al. 1991). Golden eagles hunt by soaring-searching and using perch sites to identify prey (Johnsgard 1990). Typical food items include: marmots (Marmota flaviventris), prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus), ground squirrels (Spermophilus spp.), weasels (Mustela spp.), lagomorphs (Sylvilagus and Lepus spp.), rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis), and most medium-sized birds (DeGraaf et al. 1991).

Golden eagles breed from western Alaska east through Canada, south to Baja California, northern Mexico, west-central Texas, western Oklahoma, Nebraska and the Dakotas. The species winters from south-central Alaska, southern Canada and throughout the western breeding range (Johnsgard 1990). They are considered uncommon permanent residents in western South Dakota (Tallman et al. 2002) and only ten have been detected during recent bird monitoring efforts (Giroir et al. 2007). Golden eagles were observed in the project area during 2008 surveys. Golden eagles are commonly seen feeding on carrion along roads in the Black Hills during winter (personal observation).

Effects of Project on Habitat Contiguously forested habitats, which currently make up a large portion of the Norbeck project area, are not preferred by golden eagles, but they may be included in a home range if suitable nesting or foraging habitat is intermixed. The Norbeck project area, especially within the BEW, does contain some rim-rock outcrops that could provide typical nesting substrates. Eagles do forage in the forest meadows, or in nearby grasslands and large burned forest areas.

Pine encroachment, commercial and non-commercial thinning, and prescribed burning treatments proposed for the Norbeck project may have a positive effect on foraging habitat because it may open up the project area. Also, MPB activity, is expected to kill large amounts of pine, opening up the area, potentially providing more foraging opportunities.

Red-headed Woodpecker (Migratory Bird) The red-headed woodpecker is commonly found in deciduous woodlands, especially with beech or oak, lowland and upland habitats, river bottoms, open woods, groves of dead and dying trees, orchards, parks, open agricultural country, savanna-like grasslands with scattered trees, and forest edge and along roadsides. It is also a species of open country, attracted to burns and recent clearings (Smith et al. 2000). This species nests in dead trees or in dead portions of live trees, e.g., well-weathered dead pines, pine stubs that have long since lost their bark, maple, birch (Betula), cottonwood (Populus), oak, and in utility poles, often in open areas with little ground vegetation or in stands of trees with no understory (Smith et al. 2000).

Red-headed woodpeckers breed from the eastern United States, west to the edge of the Great Plains in New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana. They are also found in extreme southern Canada from Saskatchewan to New Brunswick, and are most common in the mid- western and Gulf Coast states (Smith et al. 2000). They occur locally in the Black Hills, where

165 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

they are generally uncommon to rare. At present, they occur in very low densities, primarily in burn areas. Red-headed woodpeckers breed in the eastern portion of Colorado in riparian habitat and urban parks. They are found throughout Wyoming but primarily breed in the eastern and north-central parts of the state.

Monitoring data from 2001 through 2007 showed that this species was detected exclusively in burned habitat. The highest density was in 2007 with 1.48 birds/km2. There were several observations of red-headed woodpeckers during field surveys in 2008, and they were also observed by RMBO during 2001-2008 field seasons in the project area (Panjabi 2003, Panjabi 2004, Beason et al. 2006, White and Giroir 2009. As stated above, the project area contains sufficient snags in burn areas to support this species.

Effects of Project on Habitat This is an edge species that depends on snags for nesting. Timber harvest and mechanical thinning operations, along with MPB activity, are expected to have positive impacts on this bird’s habitat. Snags may also be created by prescribed burning. Silviculture The existing condition of, and alternative effects to, forest vegetation is presented there. The habitat objectives identified for the focus species would be accomplished by mechanical and/or prescribed burning methods as described in Chapter 2. How the alternatives would impact susceptibility of the area to mountain pine beetles are also discussed. The expected outputs of timber volume are also presented.

Alternative 1 – No Action No new management actions would occur in the project area under this alternative.

This alternative would not treat any acres to a low or medium insect rating (USDA Forest Service 2005). Ponderosa pine sites currently in structural stages 3B, 3C, 4B, 4C and 5 would be expected to experience considerable mortality (Allen 2009). The high population of mountain pine beetle attacks and resulting mortality would not only affect the largest trees, but also smaller trees down to 3 inches diameter at breast height. The majority of these sites would change to structural stages 1 and 2. Single-storied sites lacking advanced regeneration would change to structural stage 1, while multi-storied sites with advance regeneration would change to structural stage 2.

Common to All Alternatives Proposed mechanical treatments would harvest only green conifers and green conifers infested with mountain pine beetle larvae. Snags and hardwoods would not be harvested unless they pose a safety hazard or need to be removed for road and landing construction.

Alternative 2 This alternative would mechanically treat 2,793 acres to a low or medium insect rating. Clearcuts would comprise approximately 210 of those acres. Sites with a low or medium insect rating are more likely to retain the overall stand structure than sites with a high insect rating.

Alternative 2 is the proposed action which was designed to manage vegetation to benefit focus species identified in the Norbeck focus species list (Griebel et al., 2007). It would produce

166 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 approximately 42,500 hundred cubic feet (CCF) of sawlog volume and approximately 10,000 CCF of Products Other than Logs (POL) as a byproduct of the mechanical habitat improvement treatments.

Alternative 3 Alternative 3 was designed to further protect large trees and to address effects to wildlife and wildlife habitat and in treated sites. Additionally, this alternative addresses benefits to non- Wilderness values at risk. Alternative 3 would utilize prescribed burning in the Black Elk Wilderness to treat fuels adjacent to values outside the Wilderness, such as summer home groups, Custer State Park and Mount Rushmore National Monument.

To further protect large trees for wildlife habitat, Alternative 3 would increase areas where POL thinning and Understory removal occurs. It also proposes to retain large trees (≥20” DBH) within some hardwood enhancement and meadow enhancement areas.

This alternative would mechanically treat 2,956 acres (163 more than Alternative 2) to a low or medium insect rating. This includes 150 acres of clearcutting. Effects to ponderosa pine sites not mechanically treated would be expected to be similar to Alternative 2. It is expected that Alternative 3 would experience less mortality than Alternative 2 and much less than Alternative 1, based on the amount of acres mechanically treated.

This alternative would produce approximately 38,000 hundred cubic feet (CCF) of sawlog volume and approximately 10,500 CCF of Products Other than Logs (POL) as a byproduct of the mechanical habitat improvement treatments.

Prescribed burning would occur both within and outside of the Black Elk Wilderness in this alternative. Prescribed burning within the Black Elk Wilderness is for the purpose of protecting values outside the Wilderness, not habitat objectives. Most of the Black Elk Wilderness is expected to experience extensive mountain pine beetle-caused overstory mortality (Allen 2009). The expected overstory mortality, combined with abundant advanced regeneration should convert most of the Black Elk Wilderness into structural stage 2. The large amount of fuel on the ground from mountain pine beetle-caused mortality is expected to facilitate an intense fire during prescribed burning, killing most of the ponderosa pine advanced regeneration and converting sites in structural stage 2 to structural stage 1.

Prescribed burning would occur outside of the Black Elk Wilderness on 2,211 acres. Effects are expected to be similar to the effects in Alternative 2.

Alternative 4 Alternative 4 was designed to addresses the same issues as Alternative 3, as well as, the effects on wildlife habitat by the mountain pine beetle infestation in the project area. This alternative treats more ponderosa pine sites to structural stage 4A than the other alternatives and contains design criteria to guide prescribed burning implementation within areas affected by mountain pine beetle-caused mortality.

Alternative 4 would produce approximately 40,500 hundred cubic feet (CCF) of sawlog volume and approximately 10,500 CCF of Products Other than Logs (POL) as a byproduct of the mechanical habitat improvement treatments.

167 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

It is expected that Alternative 4 would result in the least amount of mature conifer mortality caused by mountain pine beetles. This alternative would treat and create the more acres of mountain pine beetle-resilient structural stage 4A. This alternative would mechanically treat 3,473 acres (439 more than Alternative 3) to a low of medium insect rating. Clearcuts would comprise 79 of those acres. Effects to untreated areas of ponderosa pine would be the same as in the other alternatives.

Prescribed burning would occur both within and outside of the Black Elk Wilderness in this alternative. The planned acres and areas burned would remain the same as in Alternative 3. However, in this alternative, design criteria for prescribed burning in the Black Elk Wilderness would limit mortality of overstory trees and advanced regeneration in areas affected by the mountain pine beetle infestation (refer to Alternative 4 description in Chapter 2).

Most of the Black Elk Wilderness would experience extensive mountain pine beetle-caused overstory mortality. The design criteria in Alternative 4 would protect more large trees and areas of advanced regeneration than in Alternative 3.

Prescribed burning would occur outside on the Black Elk Wilderness on 2,211 acres, same as in Alternative 3. Prescribed burning would have the same effects outside of the Black Elk Wilderness as in Alternative 3.

Table 47. Acres of Ponderosa Pine Mechanically Treated to a Low or Medium Insect Rating by Alternative

Alternative 1 2 3 4 Total Acres of Ponderosa Pine 0 2,793 2,956 3,395 Clearcut Acres (included in total) 0 210 150 79

Table 48. Expected Timber Volumes by Alternative Sawlog Volume in hundred Product Other than Logs (POL) Alternative cubic feet (CCF) Volume in CCF Alternative 1 0 0 Alternative 2 42, 500 10,000 Alternative 3 38,000 10,500 Alternative 4 40,500 10,500

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects to forest vegetation were discussed earlier in this Chapter under Wildlife Habitat.

168 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Black Elk Wilderness

Existing Condition

Introduction The 13,542 acre Black Elk Wilderness lies in the center of the Norbeck project area (see Map 2 in Appendix A). It was designated as Wilderness by Congress on December 22, 1980 and extended to its current size of 13,542 acres, in 2002 through P.L. 107-206. The Black Elk Wilderness is relatively small in size compared to other Wilderness areas. It is unique as it is the only Wilderness area in the Black Hills National Forest. It is also unique among National Forest Wilderness areas as it is surrounded by a wildlife preserve, the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. The Black Elk Wilderness is bordered by Mount Rushmore National Memorial to the northeast and Custer State Park to the south, both local and National destinations. The 850 acre Upper Pine Creek Research Natural Area, established in 1932, is entirely within the Black Elk Wilderness.

Harney Peak is in the Black Elk Wilderness, which is named for the visionary and holy man. This 7,242 foot peak is the highest point in the United States east of the Continental Divide. To the , Hin Han Kaga (Harney Peak) is the center of the world. Lakota tribes have long standing oral traditions about the mountain. The peak and surrounding granite formations and cliffs of the Wilderness area are very distinct and dramatic geological formations.

The Black Hills Forest Plan has designated the Black Elk Wilderness as management area 1.1A. It is managed to protect and perpetuate natural processes while providing opportunities for solitude and self-reliance.

Wilderness Values The 1964 Wilderness Act, Section 2(c) defines, in part, Wilderness as including “...(4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.” These Wilderness values are defined in the Act. Other definitions or translations of Wilderness values have been written. The experience of Wilderness is the subject of many of the important works by American philosophers and naturalists. These writings emphasize nature appreciation, education, freedom, solitude and simplicity as well as spiritual, aesthetic, and mystical dimensions of the Wilderness experience.

Ecological Value Wilderness areas contribute to the overall health of ecosystems. Natural disturbances occur and are allowed to play their natural role in the ecosystem. In the Black Elk Wilderness, wildfires have been fully suppressed. Therefore, the ecological process of fire has not played its natural role in the Black Elk Wilderness. Wilderness areas can also preserve healthy watersheds for current and future generations by eliminating potential pollution. Wildlife habitat is available and buffered from human development or interference. In the Black Elk Wilderness, dense, mature conifer habitat and towering rock outcrops occur for species which use those habitats.

Geological Value Wilderness area may contain and protect valuable natural features including caves, canyons, geysers, mountains, fossils, and spires. The Black Elk Wilderness includes dramatic granite spires.

169 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Scientific Value Wilderness areas provide opportunity for scientific study. They can provide baseline data for environments not actively managed, providing the contrast for monitoring forest management activities conducted outside a Wilderness environment. The Upper Spring Creek research Natural Area is entirely within the Black Elk Wilderness and is to be managed for non- manipulative research, education and biodiversity conservation.

Educational Value Wilderness areas can provide unique settings for teaching ecosystem stewardship as well as science, literature, history, civics, outdoor skills and others. The Black Elk Wilderness has been used for such educational experiences. Students experience the Wilderness and the values it provides, which can instill in young stewards an appreciation for land ethics.

Scenic and Aesthetic Value The scenic beauty of the Black Elk Wilderness is viewed from within, but also from outside the Wilderness. This Wilderness can be viewed from many perspectives in the general area, including along major travelways.

Historical and Cultural Values Cultural and archeological sites may occur within Wilderness. These sites contribute to our knowledge of human history of the area. The Black Elk Wilderness contains Harney Peak which is the considered the center of the world to the Lakota people. Evidence of non-indigenous human use in the Black Elk Wilderness is present as well.

Wilderness Character One of the central mandates of the 1964 Wilderness Act is that “each agency administering any area designated as Wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the Wilderness character of the area.” Although Wilderness character is not defined in the Wilderness Act, it may be described as the combination of biophysical, experiential, and symbolic ideals that distinguish Wilderness from all other lands. This description is based on the Definition of Wilderness from Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act, to identify four qualities of Wilderness related to Wilderness character.

All Wildernesses, regardless of size, location, or any other feature, are unified by this statutory definition of Wilderness.

The four qualities of Wilderness character analyzed for this project are:

Untrammeled – Wilderness is essentially unhindered and free from modern human control or manipulation. The Wilderness Act states that Wilderness is: “…an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man.” Natural – Wilderness ecological systems are substantially free from the effects of modern civilization. The Wilderness Act states that Wilderness “…generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature.” Undeveloped – Wilderness is essentially without permanent improvements or modern human occupation. Outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. Recreation – Wilderness provides outstanding opportunities for people to experience solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation, including the values of inspiration and

170 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

physical and mental challenge. The Black Elk Wilderness does provide for the Wilderness experience. However, heavy use areas and the perimeter areas are less suited to silence than the inner core area which is most removed from human influences. The Black Elk Wilderness has experienced human control and influence through suppression of wildfires, development and use of trails, helicopter overflights, and other recreational uses. Previous to its designation as Wilderness, timber harvest, road building, jeep tours, development of the Harney Peak lookout tower and other human influences occurred in the Black Elk Wilderness. While the lookout tower still remains, it is no longer used as a fire lookout.

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Common to All Alternatives Processes such as wildfire and mountain pine beetle outbreaks, are natural and consistent with the values and character of Wilderness and are part of the Wilderness experience. The evidence of natural disturbance, such as widespread conifer mortality caused by the mountain pine beetle, is prominent and is consistent with the Wilderness setting.

No new developments would occur in the Wilderness under any alternatives and therefore, no change to the undeveloped character of Wilderness would occur. No change to the geological, educational or historic qualities of the Black Elk Wilderness would occur.

Alternative 1 – No Action -

Wilderness Values and Character Under Alternative 1, no new management actions would occur in the project area. This alternative would have no effect on Wilderness values or character resulting from active management. Natural processes would generally continue to occur, with the notable exception of fire suppression. The evidence of natural disturbance, such as widespread conifer mortality caused by the mountain pine beetle, is prominent and is consistent with the Wilderness setting.

Alternative 2 Alternative 2 is designed to manage vegetation to benefit game animals and birds. There are mechanical treatments proposed on approximately 4,935 acres and prescribed burning proposed on approximately 2,158 acres. Some of the proposed mechanical treatments and prescribed burning are adjacent to the Wilderness boundary (see Maps 12 and 15 in Appendix A.) No treatment would occur within the Black Elk Wilderness. There would be short-term, indirect effects on Wilderness values and character in the proposed action.

Wilderness Values and Character The proposed activities would occur outside of the Wilderness. However, these activities may impact the Wilderness values and character of aesthetics and solitude.

During implementation, proposed activities would temporarily reduce the solitude, quietness and peace Wilderness offers, particularly along the perimeter. The scenic values of the Wilderness would be affected by smoke from prescribed fire which would temporarily sullen the views and the clean air. These impacts however would be temporary and would not directly affect the core of the Wilderness setting.

171 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 3 and 4 Forest Service Manual direction for fire management within Wilderness is contained at FSM 2324. Two objectives are listed at FSM 2324.21; 1) Permit lightning caused fires to play, as nearly as possible, their natural ecological role within wilderness, and 2) Reduce, to an acceptable level, the risks and consequences of wildfire within wilderness or escaping from wilderness. This project focuses on objective 2.

These alternatives are analyzed together because they both propose active management, prescribed burning, within the Black Elk Wilderness. Alternative 3 proposes to burn approximately 5,291 acres and Alternative 4 proposes to burn up to 5,291. The potential effects to Wilderness values and character are the same for both alternatives.

Wilderness Values and Character Indirect effects to Wilderness values and character from activities proposed outside of the Wilderness would be the same as discussed under Alternative 2.

Fire exclusion, in the Black Elk Wilderness, as a result of suppression, include higher fuel accumulations than what would normally occur. These alternatives propose to reduce fuel accumulations with management-ignited fire as a first step toward restoring natural fire regimes. All such actions have the potential to diminish the untrammeled and natural qualities of Wilderness in the short term, though they are intended to help restore natural conditions over the long term. Wilderness designation provides that “land retain its primeval character and influence [and] generally appears to be primarily affected by the forces of nature.” This project is designed to enhance these characteristics by reintroducing the “primeval” force of fire, albeit by humans, as the primary element of change. Given the close proximity of the values at risk, it is not feasible to accomplish this strictly by management of lightning ignitions. The use of prescribed fire in the Wilderness portions may be closed during implementation, and the noise and appearance of a helicopter, if allowed for burning, could disrupt one’s solitude.

Direct effects to Wilderness values and character would result from the proposed prescribed burning within the Black Elk Wilderness. Short-term direct effects include; human generated noise which would temporarily impact the opportunity for solitude; and aesthetic impacts from smoke.

Prescribed fire would impact Wilderness values and character, such as ecological, scientific, scenic and aesthetic values as well as the natural and untrammeled character qualities. These impacts could impact the Wilderness experience. Wilderness values and character would be permanently affected by a Wilderness prescribed burn treatment since the Wilderness would be “imprinted” with mans work on the landscape. Smoke and activities from prescribed burning or mechanical treatment would be evident in the short-term only.

All actions that manipulate or control ecological systems inside Wilderness diminish the untrammeled and natural qualities of Wilderness character. For example, when naturally ignited fires are suppressed inside Wilderness, when animals or plants are transplanted inside Wilderness, Wilderness is manipulated and the untrammeled and natural qualities of Wilderness character diminished. Allowing for unhindered ecological processes within Wilderness is desired, regardless of what the resulting conditions are.

172 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Cumulative Effects to Wilderness Values and Character The cumulative impact area for this analysis is the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve project area: activities beyond the project area have no effect on the Wilderness resource within. There is no other Wilderness area on the Black Hills National Forest. There are only a few roadless areas in the Black Hills National Forest, including Inyan Kara.

The Inyan Kara area would be the closest “Wilderness” experience outside the Black Elk one could have in the Black Hills National Forest. There is a proposal for a prescribed burn in the Inyan Kara area. This prescribed burn would temporarily impact visitors as smoke and activities from prescribed burning would be evident in the short-term. As with the Black Elk Wilderness proposed burning, the full extent of the Inyan Kara burn would not likely be implemented at one time. Therefore, if the Inyan Kara burn and the possible burn in the Black Elk Wilderness occur at the same time there would be a short-term, cumulative effect to potential Wilderness type experience on the Forest. Users would be temporarily displaced to other sections of the Black Elk Wilderness or Inyan Kara. Opportunities for a Wilderness experience would be available in those portions of the Black Elk Wilderness not burned by prescription.

This cumulative effects analysis includes activities occurring from 1980 to 2020. The Black Elk Wilderness was designated by Congress on December 22, 1980. The project is expected to be completed in 2020.

Past, present and future activities within the Norbeck Project Area boundary, but outside the Wilderness boundary, include timber harvest, timber thinning, wildlife, grazing, temporary road construction, noxious weed control, wildlife habitat improvement projects, and dispersed recreation. A list documenting known past, present and foreseeable future activities for this area is included in the project record.

The value of the spiritual and aesthetic qualities associated with recreational experiences could be changed by fire hazard reduction treatments. Changes would result from the appearance of burned ground and vegetation. The amount of change would depend on the area where fire is applied and the intensity of the fire at the time of ignition. Intensity would depend on other factors such as weather, moisture and available fuel. The alternative descriptions display the anticipated area affected by burning.

Other activities such as trail maintenance, wildfire suppression, recreational uses and administrative activities (public contacts, law enforcement and education) would continue to take place in the Wilderness and adjacent to the Wilderness. Activities within or adjacent to the Wilderness which create noise or generate smoke could have a temporary cumulative effect on Wilderness values and character.

Recreational users, including outfitter/guides, within the Black Elk Wilderness are impacting Wilderness values and character. In addition, scenic helicopter flights over the Wilderness impact Wilderness values and character. Fire suppression activities have impacted Wilderness values, specifically the ecological and scenic values, and Wilderness character, specifically untrammeled and natural. Therefore, the proposed activities, combined with other past, present and future activities would result in a cumulative effect to the values and character of the Black Elk Wilderness.

Processes such as wildfire and mountain pine beetle outbreaks, are natural and consistent with the values and character of Wilderness and are part of the Wilderness experience. Therefore, these actions do not add to cumulative effects.

173 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Summary of Effects to the Black Elk Wilderness Alternative 2 would result in short-term, indirect and cumulative effects to the values and character of the Black Elk Wilderness. Noise and smoke from proposed activities outside the Wilderness boundary would impact values and character within the Wilderness.

Alternatives 3 and 4 would have both direct and indirect effects to the values and character of the Black Elk Wilderness. Short-term impacts to scenic and aesthetic values as well as the opportunity for solitude would occur during implementation of the proposed burn. Visual impacts would subside over time. Longer term impacts to the untrammeled and natural characters of Wilderness would occur.

The proposed prescribed burning in the Black Elk Wilderness, in Alternatives 3 and 4 is consistent with Forest Service Manual direction for management of fire in Wilderness (FSM 2324.2). Alternatives 3 and 4 are also consistent with the following direction in the Black Hills Forest Plan:

§ Goal 1.1A-403: Restore fire in Wilderness to its natural role in the ecosystem. § Standard 1.1A-4101: Manage fire and fuels to promote the fire regime ecosystem. § Guideline 1.1A-4102: Emphasize the use of prescribed fires...to reduce unnatural buildups of fuels and to simulate conditions representative of a ponderosa pine fire regime. The proposed prescribed fire would manage fuels to promote the fire regime by reintroducing fire into the Black Elk Wilderness where fire has been fully suppressed since its designation in 1980. Alternatives 3 and 4 would meet this direction.

Alternative 3 would not meet Forest Plan standard 4104 and would require a project specific Forest Plan Amendment to be fully implemented. Refer to Chapter 2 and the Scenery section of this Chapter for more information. Fire and Fuels

Existing Conditions

Introduction Compared to historic conditions, much more of the Black Hills landscape is now forested, which reduces the acreage of open meadows and hardwood stringers which serve as natural fuel breaks (USDA Forest Service 2005). Significant structural changes have occurred from the presettlement forest in 1870 to the current forest in 2005. In general, there has been a shift in density from relatively open to relatively closed stands across the range of variation in basal areas. As a result of this increased fuel loading, more of the Black Hills is susceptible to, and affected by, large, intense forest fires. Fire exclusion has allowed ponderosa pine to encroach into the non-pine communities within the Norbeck project area, contributing to the reduction in size of the hardwood cover type and creating dense, closed-canopy ponderosa pine stands.

Fire Regime and Condition Class Historically, fires were more frequent and less severe. Fire suppression activities have trended the forest outside historic ranges. Fire regimes characterize the role fire plays in an ecosystem. Currently, there are three general types of fire regimes in the Black Hills (USDA Forest Service 2005). Table 49 below describes each of the 3 fire regimes.

174 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) rating is used to describe the degree of departure from the historic fire regime (Hann et al. 2003) for a particular location. Table 50 describes each of the 3 fire regime Conditions Classes.

Table 49. Fire Regimes in the Black Hills (USDA Forest Service 2005)

General Major Controlling Fire Regimes Distribution Characteristics Variables Evidence of surface fire in ponderosa pine forests throughout the Weather (fires occur Black Hills, most during dry periods), Fires recur within any frequent at the Prairie- Climate (extensive fires stand at relatively short Forest ecotone and less tend to occur in dry intervals (10-15 years) frequent in interior Frequent low severity years that follow 1-3 wet burning at low severity forests at mid- to high fire regimes years), and Fuels (fuels in the canopy and soil elevations (Fisher et al. gradually accumulate and variable severity in 1987, Brown and Sieg during the intervals the understory 1996, Brown and Sieg between successive 1999, Brown et al. fires) 2000, Wienk 2001, Brown 2003, Wienk et al. 2004) Weather and Climate are the primary Large areas of even- controllers (most Fires recur within any aged and dense forest ignitions extinguish by stand at long intervals and of closed canopy, themselves because of (100 -500+ years) mature or old-growth wet conditions; Infrequent high severity burning at high severity forest at the time of extensive fires occur fire regimes in the canopy and settlement are evidence only in very dry understory and at of stand-replacing summers; variability in variable severity to the disturbance (Graves fuels usually has little soil 1899, Shinneman and influence on fir Baker 1997) frequency extent or severity Proposed as the dominant model for fire regimes in ponderosa pine forests of the Black Hills. Under this model, These fire regimes are surface fire forms the intermediate between background process the frequent low Weather, Climate and creating forest structure severity and the Fuels all influence fire and landscape pattern. infrequent high severity frequency, extent, and However, fires fire regimes. Fires occur Mixed severity fire severity, in complex sometimes burn with at variable intervals (10- regimes ways that are not well mixed severity with both >100 years) and burn at understood, with a surface fire and a variable severity enormous variability stand-replacing (patches of high over time and space component, and may severity intermingled sometimes create large with patches of low or areas of high severity intermediate severity) burns. Forest patches are variable in size and within patch structure (Lentile et al. not in press)

175 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 50. Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) rating descriptions (Hann et al., 2003)

Fire Regime Condition Class Description FRCC1 · Fire regimes are within the historical range. Low Departure from the central · Risk of losing key ecosystem components is low. tendency* of the historic fire · Vegetation attributes are intact and functioning within the historical range. regime. · Fire regimes are moderately altered from their historical range. FRCC2 · Risk of losing key ecosystem components is moderate.

· Vegetation attributes have been moderately altered from their historical range. Moderate Departure from the · central tendency* of the historic Fire frequencies have departed from natural frequencies by one or more fire regime. return intervals, resulting in changes to fire size, intensity, severity, and landscape patterns. · Fire regimes are significantly altered from their historical range. FRCC3 · The risk of losing key ecosystem components is high. · Vegetation attributes have been significantly altered from their historical High Departure from the central range. tendency* of the historic fire · Fire frequencies have departed from historical frequencies by multiple return regime. intervals, resulting in dramatic changes to fire size, intensity, severity, and landscape patterns. * Central tendency refers to a composite estimate of vegetation characteristics including: species composition, structural stage, stand age, canopy closure, and mosaic pattern; fuel composition; fire frequency, severity, and pattern; and other associated natural disturbances.

Figure 1. Typical stand structure for each Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC)

176 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

The coarse-scale national data characterizes the Black Hills as primarily Condition Class 3 (USDA Forest Service 2005). Much of the Norbeck project area exhibits conditions which may result in severe crown fire. Therefore the Norbeck project area can also be characterized as being in a Condition Class 3. Past wildfires in the Norbeck area were generally small, low-intensity surface fires. However, given the right conditions, stand-replacing fires could occur.

Fire Risk Risks are defined as those uses or human activities which have the potential to result in a wildfire ignition. Table 51 displays known fire history within the Norbeck project area and notes which of those are in the Black Elk Wilderness (BEW). Figure 2 displays the location of each known fire. Of the fires identified, 46 were lightning-caused, 11 human caused, 2 miscellaneous, and 2 unknown. Both fire history occurrence data as well as large fire history (exceeding 20 acres) in and around the project area are depicted. In addition, the percent of the project area impacted by each fire is shown in Table 52.

Table 51. Fire History in Norbeck from 1950 to 2008 Fire Size Fire Size Number of Fires in Norbeck Number of Fires in BEW Class (acres) A 0 – ¼ 33 17 B ¼ to 9 23 15 C 10-99 2 2 D 100 – 299 E 300-999 1 F 1000-4999 G 5000+ U Unknown 2 1

177 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 2. Fire History Occurrence from 1950 to 2008

Table 52. Norbeck Project Large Fire History Fire Fire Name Cause Total Acres Acres within project Percent of Project Area Year Galena 1988 Lightning 16670 623 2 Elk Horn 2003 Human 41 41 <1 Spokane 1987 Lightning 23 1 <1 Lost Cabin 2002 Lightning 23 23 <1

178 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Table 53. Black Elk Wilderness Large Fire History Fire Total Acres within Percent of Fire Name Cause Year Acres Wilderness Wilderness Elk Horn 2003 Human 41 41 <1 Lost Cabin 2002 Lightning 23 23 <1

The number of fires on Black Hills National Forest system lands has remained fairly constant at 65-130 starts per year. The number of fires that have escaped initial attack has also remained constant. However, these escaped fires have become larger and are more difficult to control with an average large fire size increasing from under 1000 acres per fire in the early 1900’s to over 8000 acres in recent years, having burned approximately 239,000 acres since 1980.

When looking at past large fires in this area, extreme weather conditions do not have to occur to result in a large fire. Many large fires were initiated on moderate-weather-condition days and resulted in large runs on subsequent days with more extreme weather conditions. Also of interest, most large fires caused by natural ignitions occur in the month of July while most human caused fires occur in August or September (USDA Forest Service 2008a).

Values at Risk Values are defined in the Forest Plan EIS (USDA Forest Service 2005, Appendix E-80) as any or all natural resources, improvements, or other values that may be jeopardized if a fire occurs. The Norbeck interdisciplinary team identified values within the project area as listed below.

Communities at Risk (see figure 3): The Norbeck analysis area coincides with the following At-Risk Community buffers: - Keystone: ½, 1, 2, and 3 mile - Custer: 2 and 3 mile - Hill City: 2 and 3 mile - Hayward: 3 mile The Black Elk Wilderness coincides with the following At-Risk Community buffers: - Keystone: ½, 1, 2, and 3 mile - Hill City: 3 mile Under 97th percentile weather conditions, a fire in these fuel models can spread over 1 mile per hour (Scott et al. 2005). The Jasper Fire experienced rates of almost 15 miles per hour on the first day and during its largest growth period over 20 miles per hour (USDA Forest Service 2000a). Under the 97th percentile weather conditions, spread rates of up to 4 miles per hour can be expected with higher rates during gusts, with increased spotting (USDA Forest Service 2008a). Under these conditions, all the values listed above could be impacted by fire originating within the project area within the first 12 hours of a fire starting. There are 225 structures within the project boundary which could be impacted within the first few hours and thousands more have the potential to be impacted within the first 12 hours.

179 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 3. Norbeck Communities at Risk

In addition to values-at-risk outside of the Wilderness that would be threatened from a fire occurring under 90th percentile weather conditions, values-at-risk within the Black Elk Wilderness include:

· Cultural Resources · Harney Peak

Other values-at-risk not mentioned above include:

· Non-National-Forest Lands including Mt. Rushmore, Custer State Park and Private

180 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

· Wildlife habitat, including snags, forage, riparian areas, security cover, and mid-to-late seral stands of ponderosa pine · Private businesses · Recreation Facilities · Private Structures · Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway · Commercial Timber Stands · Financial investments in wildlife habitat improvements · Powerlines

Fire Hazard Fire hazard is defined as a fuel complex that determines the ease of ignition and the resistance to control. Hazard is an expression of what kind of fire may potentially occur and how it affects human values. The fire hazard rating increases as the amount and continuity of surface and canopy fuels increases. As the amount of fuel on a given landscape increases and fuel profiles become more horizontally and vertically continuous, the intensity of a wildfire in that landscape would be expected to increase. Areas with high fire hazard rating have the potential to exhibit more extreme fire behavior with more severe effects than those with a low hazard rating.

As a result of the mountain pine beetle (MPB) activity within the project area, changes in fuels profiles have occurred. In the areas where the MPB is most prevalent, stands that had an overstory canopy now do not as a result of the high levels of mortality. In many cases, the mortality has been so high that these stands are now classified as a Structural Stage 1 (grass) or 2 (seedling/sapling). The trees that were once green and standing have started falling to the ground and as a result fuel loadings can be 40 to 60 tons per acre (USDA Forest Service 1990).

According to Langowski (2006), research has shown that post-outbreak stands had increased rates of surface fire spread, fireline intensity and total heat release. They also have increased potential for crown fire initiation but decreased potential for active crown fire spread. Chances for crown fire initiation were also greater due to larger amounts of dead aerial fuels in the overstory. Observations and theoretical considerations indicate that both fire severity and probability of crown fires may increase following outbreaks due to increased fuel loading and changed fuel characteristics. During the first 2-3 years following beetle-kill, while most of the dead needles are retained on the killed trees, there is a greater likelihood of a crown fire because foliar moisture content may be as low as 7% as compared to live needle moisture content of 100%. Once needles drop to the forest floor, more solar radiation reaches the surface forest litter and winds more readily penetrate the open canopy potentially drying out the litter more than in a live canopy. Once the dead needles have fallen, the remaining branchwood in dead crowns would not support development and spread of a continuous crown fire. Once the dead trees have fallen, the increased distances among neighboring residual trees should result in a decrease in the likelihood of a crown fire developing because of breaks in crown fuels. However, those fallen trees would increase surface woody fuel loading, increasing fire intensity and resulting flame length. Residual live trees may have enough surface-fire intensity near their crown bases to result in stand-replacing crown fires.

Langowski (2006) summarizes that crown fire hazard in MPB-affected stands can be best described as bi-modal. Crown fire hazard is higher than in non-MPB affected stands during the 2-3 years post-outbreak while most of the dead needles are retained on the killed trees and again

181 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

following snag fall and stand-re-initiation when surface fire spread and intensity would be higher than in non-MPB affected stands due to increased surface fuel loads.

The BHNF Forest Plan assigns fire hazard rating by structural stages. This measurement of fire hazard is appropriate to use in stands that have not been affected by MPB; however, they may not apply to stands that have seen high levels of mortality as a result of MPB activity. In Langowski’s discussion summarized above, fire hazard is higher in MPB-affected stands during the 2-3 years post-outbreak. Prior to the MPB outbreak in the Norbeck area, the stands currently experiencing high levels of beetle caused mortality were classified as having very high fire hazard ratings. Based on the discussion by Langowski, the post-outbreak stands would remain at a fire hazard rating of very high. Therefore, based on the availability of fuels to sustain a fire, an overall hazard rating of high to very high exists in approximately 88% of the project area. Table 54 and figure 4 display estimated fire hazard ratings for the whole project area, as well as for the Wilderness and non-Wilderness portions of the project area.

Table 54. Existing Fire Hazard Ratings in the Norbeck Project Area - 2009

Wilderness Non-Wilderness N.F. Total Project Fire Hazard Rating Acres % Acres % Acres % Low 173 1 923 7 1096 4 Moderate 463 3 1583 12 2046 8 High 788 7 2109 16 2897 11 Very High 12118 89 8570 65 20688 77 Total 13542 100 13185 100 26727 100

Existing Fire Hazard Rating

100%

Very High 75% High Moderate 50% Low

25%

0% Wilderness Non_Wilderness Total Project Area

Figure 4. Existing Fire Hazard Rating

The high fire hazard that exists in the Norbeck Project Area is a result of the disruption of the historic fire regime, creating a landscape dominated by large, contiguous dense stands of ponderosa pine with a high loading of surface and ladder fuels. Post-outbreak MPB fuel loadings are increasing, thus increasing the potential to sustain a fire. In an area such as Norbeck, where

182 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 high fire risk resulting from concentrated public use coincides with high to very high fire hazard, the probability of wildfire with undesirable effects is more likely and could be very detrimental to many of the unique values existing in and around this project area.

Air Quality Air quality in the Black Hills is considered to be excellent with pollution concentrations lower than both State and Federal standards (USDA Forest Service 2005). Maintaining and improving air quality in the Black Hills and Western South Dakota is desired. Although usually short in duration, smoke from wildfires and prescribed fires has the potential to affect air quality. The EPA addresses smoke from wildland fire under their natural events policy at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/nepol.pdf (USDA Forest Service 2005).

The Norbeck project area is in the vicinity of two Class I Airsheds; Badlands National Park (60 miles east) and Wind Cave National Park (20 miles south). Norbeck, along with the remainder of the Black Hills, is designated as a Class II area allowing higher concentrations of pollutants than the Class I Airsheds. Maintenance of high air quality and visibility is of special interest in this area due to the presence of such unique sights as Mount Rushmore, Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway, Harney Peak, and six adjacent communities. Smoke generated by wildfire is usually in greater volume than smoke from prescribed burning and cannot be mitigated. Smoke generated under controlled conditions of prescribed burning can be mitigated.

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1: No Action The no action alternative assumes that no change in management would occur within the project area. Management actions currently being practiced, including fire suppression would continue to be practiced. The only other changes that would occur on the landscape would be those that occur as a result of natural occurrences or those resulting from other project decisions.

The current mountain pine beetle outbreak is expected to run its course by 2013. Changes to fire hazard are expected within the project area resulting in substantial areas of dead trees. Trees that die as a result of MPB infestation would likely begin falling to the ground in 1 to 3 years (see the Silviculture Report prepared for this project, in the project file). It is estimated that in 2013, approximately 40% of trees killed by mountain pine beetle, would have fallen across the entire project area. However, the arrangement of fallen trees would depend upon the number of years since the mortality occurred. Higher concentrations of fallen trees would occur in the oldest snags.

The disturbance related to the MPB has the potential to change the existing fire regime condition class of the project area. The project area would continue to possess a high risk of losing key ecosystem components, resulting in increased fire size, intensity and severity. A FRCC 3 would continue to be expected because the high risk of losing key ecosystem components as a result of a wildfire would continue to be present. The MPB disturbance would not be a fire disturbance and therefore would not reduce the existing fuel conditions. This trend would continue until a fire disturbance. Any change in FRCC would then be based on the intensity and size of that fire.

Fire risk is not expected to change because the probability of an ignition occurring is not expected to change. The actions associated with this alternative are not substantial enough to

183 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

significantly alter human activities or usage in the area therefore fire risk is not expected to change because the probability of an ignition occurring is not expected to change.

According to Langowski (2006), research has shown that post-outbreak stands had increased rates of surface fire spread, fireline intensity and total heat release. They also had increased chances for crown fire initiation but decreased chances for active crown fire spread. Chances for crown fire initiation were also greater due to larger amounts of dead aerial fuels in the overstory. Observations and theoretical consideration indicate that both fire severity and probability of crown fire may increase following outbreaks due to increased fuel loading and changed fuel characteristics.

Crown fire hazard in MPB-affected stands can be best described as bi-modal. Crown fire hazard is higher than in non-MPB affected-stands during the 2-3 years post-outbreak while most of the dead needles are retained on the killed trees and again following snag fall and stand-re-initiation when surface fire spread and intensity would be higher than in non-MPB-affected stands due to increased surface fuel loads.

The measurement of structural stage to determine fire hazard is not appropriate in stands that have been affected by MPB therefore quantifying the fire hazard is not an option. Qualitatively, in the absence of treatments prior to the use of prescribed fire, the fire hazard is expected to increase across the project area. The only action that could reduce the fire hazard is a wildfire. The longevity of that wildfire would likely be directly associated with the intensity of that fire.

Although air quality would not be directly impacted under the no action alternative, there would not be any control over the timing or amount of emissions released into adjacent airsheds in the event of a wildfire. A large wildfire has the potential to make a much greater impact on adjacent communities and class 1 airsheds, possibly exceeding National Air Quality Standards. The EPA addresses smoke from wildland fire under their natural events policy at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/nepol.pdf. (USDA Forest Service 2005).

To best analyze the impacts of a fire escaping from the Wilderness and the threat to identified values-at-risk outside the Wilderness, Fire Spread Probability (FSPro) modeling was completed. FSPro is a spatial model that calculates the probability of fire spread from an ignition point over a specified time period in the absence of suppression. The model helps to assess fire growth potential. This allows a thorough evaluation of the potential for a fire to escape from the Wilderness and impact values at risk outside the Wilderness.

Each analysis for all three alternatives was performed under the same weather conditions. A random ignition centered in the Black Elk Wilderness was used for all alternatives. The only modeling difference was fuel characteristics as a result of the action alternatives and the progression of the MPB. All fire scenarios were allowed to proceed for a 7 day window. The first three days of analysis was performed at a weather scenario equivalent to that of the 90% weather and the remaining 4 days was modeled using random historical weather conditions.

Of the 1,024 fires ran on the No Action Alternative, the largest fire ever modeled was 47,743 acres with an average fire size of 6,819 acres. Fifty percent of all fires modeled were larger than 5,166 acres with 10% of all fires larger than 14,941 acres (Figure 5).

184 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Figure 5. Alternative 1 Final Fire Size Histogram

Very few of the natural fuel breaks and past harvest units within the analysis area are large enough to moderate a rapidly-spreading high-intensity fire. (USDA Forest Service 2008a) Therefore, it is likely that a large-scale stand-replacement fire would eventually occur within the analysis area. Due to the projected high level of surface fuel loading (40-60 tons/acre) these fires could be quite severe resulting in undesirable effects.

The ability for fire to aid in achievement of the habitat objectives listed above is solely based on whether or not a wildfire happens in the project area. If a wildfire does not take place, fire would not play a role in meeting any habitat objectives. If a wildfire does take place, the effects of that fire on the vegetation would again be related to the severity and size of that fire. Fire severity and intensity have a large influence on composition and structure of the plant community following a fire. Fire intensity mostly influences survival of aboveground vegetation. Post-fire vegetation responses also depend on the characteristics of the plan species on the site, their susceptibility to fire, and the means by which they recover after fire. (USDA Forest Service 2000)

The No Action alternative would not contribute to the need to reduce the risk of fire escaping from the Wilderness and threatening values-at-risk outside the Wilderness. If a wildfire does not occur under this alternative, the habitat objectives would not be promoted by the use of fire. If a wildfire does occur, due to the unknown nature how a wildfire would burn through the area, a wildfire could either assist or hinder the habitat objectives listed.

Alternative 2 Alternative 2 focuses on the management of vegetation to benefit game animals and birds. All of the treatments including the use of prescribed fire were designed around benefiting game animals and birds. Although some of the treatments may have some fuels benefits, no treatments were designed with a fuels purpose.

This alternative would treat 4,935 acres mechanically and 2,158 acres with prescribed fire. Fuel breaks would be developed on 300 acres on lands adjacent to private lands, non-forest lands, and

185 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

arterial and collector roads that have adjacent “lop-and-scatter” slash treatments. Many follow- up or consecutive treatments, including both mechanical treatments and prescribed fire would be implemented, resulting in more than one treatment in some sites.

In the Black Elk Wilderness, the current mountain pine beetle outbreak would take the same path as described for the No Action alternative. All MPB effects identified in Alternative 1 would be the same for Alternative 2 within the Black Elk Wilderness.

Outside the Wilderness, treatments would decrease the potential for large-scale high-intensity fires. Within treatment areas, fire behavior characteristics would be mixed-severity in nature opposed to those areas not treated, which would experience more high-severity to stand- replacement fire behavior. The chances for successful initial attack would increase and the potential adverse effects to the identified values-at-risk would decrease. In addition, an improvement of FRCC would be expected as conditions move toward a more natural condition.

Fire risk is not expected to change because the probability of an ignition occurring is not expected to change. The actions associated with this alternative are not substantial enough to significantly alter human activities or usage in the area therefore fire risk is not expected to change because the probability of an ignition occurring is not expected to change.

As with the No Action alternative, the measurement of structural stage to determine fire hazard is not appropriate in stands that have been affected by MPB, therefore quantifying the fire hazard is not an option. Qualitatively, the fire hazard is expected to improve on the 6,001 acres which are being treated by either prescribed fire or mechanical treatment. If a wildfire were to occur, the longevity and improvement of fire hazard would be directly associated to the fire intensity of that fire. Accomplishing prescribed broadcast burning objectives is estimated to require approximately 10-15 ignition days per year for 3 to 10 years. Although usually short in duration, smoke from prescribed fires has the potential to affect air quality. Smoke generated by wildfire is usually greater and cannot be mitigated; however, smoke generated under controlled conditions can be mitigated using the following means:

· Limit treatment area size · Specify wind direction and speed · Specify minimum mixing heights · Stagger ignitions These mitigation techniques in addition to other control methods for smoke management minimize the impacts of smoke on visibility and human health.

FS Pro analysis was performed on this alternative and accounted for the MPB effects as well as the commercial, non-commercial and prescribed fire treatments taking place outside the Wilderness. The analysis was performed under the same weather scenario and time period.

Of the 1,024 fires ran on Alternative 2, the largest fire modeled was 43,133 acres with an average fire size of 6,543 acres. Fifty percent of all fires modeled were larger than 5,239 acres with 10% of all fires larger than 13,482 acres.

186 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Figure 6. Alternative 2 Final Fire Size Histogram

The prescribed fire acres coupled with mechanical vegetation treatments did reduce the largest fire size when compared to the No Action alternative. No treatment would occur within the Wilderness, which resulted in similar effects as the No Action alternative within the Wilderness.

Alternative 2 would contribute to the prescribed burning habitat objectives. As part of this alternative, 695 acres would be targeted to enhance forage, 223 acres to enhance hardwoods, 38 acres to enhance large trees, 276 acres to enhance meadows, 52 acres to enhance shrubs and 874 acres to enhance stand diversity. These enhancements would be achieved by varying fire intensities to target different species. Any wildfire within the project area would have the potential to either assist or hinder the enhancement of the habitat objectives depending upon the nature of the fire, such as was described under the No Action alternative.

187 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 2 Habitat Objectives

900

800

700

600

500

Acres 400

300

200

100

0 Forage Hardw ood Large Tree Meadow Shrub Stand Diversity Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement

Figure 7. Alternative 2 Habitat Objectives

This alternative would meet Forest Plan Goal 10, establishing and maintaining a mosaic of vegetation conditions to reduce occurrences of large-scale, high-intensity fire, insect and disease events, and would facilitate insect and disease management and firefighting capabilities. Standard 4103 would also be met: utilizing prescribed fire to achieve management objectives.

Alternative 3 Alternative 3 takes a more aggressive approach to fuels than Alternative 2. Prescribed fire treatments within the Wilderness are designed to reduce the potential for a fire escaping from the Wilderness and threatening resources outside the Wilderness. Mechanical and prescribed fire treatments designed outside the Wilderness are designed to achieve specific habitat objectives for wildlife, especially those on the Focus Species list.

This alternative would treat 4,723 acres mechanically and 7,502 acres with prescribed fire. Of the 7,502 acres of prescribed fire, 5,291 of those acres would be implemented within the Wilderness. Fuel breaks would be developed on 335 acres on lands adjacent to private lands, non-forest lands, and arterial and collector roads that have adjacent “lop-and-scatter” slash treatments. As in Alternative 2, many follow-up treatments or consecutive treatments including both mechanical and prescribed fire are proposed, resulting in more than one treatment in some sites.

In the Black Elk Wilderness, the current mountain pine beetle outbreak would be similar as described for the previous two alternatives. The biggest difference in this alternative compared to Alternative 2 is that follow-up burning within the Wilderness under post-beetle conditions would occur. In addition, less mechanical treatment and more prescribed fire outside the Wilderness would occur compared to Alternative 2.

188 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

The effects of implementing Alternative 3 are analyzed below under three different scenarios: 1) Only those treatments identified outside the Wilderness being implemented, 2) Only those treatments identified inside the Wilderness being implemented, 3) Implementation of treatments both inside and outside the Wilderness.

Treatments Outside Wilderness All MPB effects identified in Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would be the same for Alternative 3 within the Black Elk Wilderness. The following analysis assumes that only treatments outside the Wilderness would occur. The prescribed burning identified inside the Wilderness as part of Alternative 3 would not occur.

As in Alternative 2, within treatment areas, fire behavior characteristics would be mixed-severity in nature opposed to those areas not treated which would experience more high-severity to stand- replacing fire behavior. The chances for successful initial attack would increase and the risk to the identified values-at-risk would decrease. In addition, an improvement of FRCC would be expected as conditions moved towards a more natural condition.

As with Alternative 2, Fire risk is not expected to change because the probability of an ignition occurring is not expected to change. The actions associated with this alternative are not substantial enough to significantly alter human activities or usage in the area therefore fire risk is not expected to change because the probability of an ignition occurring is not expected to change.

As with the previous two alternatives, the measurement of structural stage to determine fire hazard is not appropriate in stands that have been affected by MPB, therefore quantifying the fire hazard is not an option. Qualitatively, the fire hazard would be expected to improve on the 5,652 acres being treated by either prescribed fire or mechanical treatment. In addition, if a wildfire were to occur, the longevity and improvement of fire hazard would be directly associated to the intensity of that fire.

Accomplishing prescribed broadcast burning objectives is estimated to require approximately 10-15 ignition days per year for 3 to 10 years. Although usually short in duration, smoke from prescribed fires has the potential to affect air quality. Smoke generated by wildfire is usually greater and cannot be mitigated; however, smoke generated under controlled conditions can be mitigated using the same means as in Alternative 2.

FS Pro analysis was performed on this alternative and accounted for MPB effects only within the Wilderness with no prescribed fire treatment. The same ignition point was used for this scenario as the previous alternatives. Commercial and non-commercial treatments and prescribed fire treatments taking place outside the Wilderness boundary were analyzed. The analysis was performed under the same weather scenario and time period as in the previous alternatives.

Of the 1,024 fires ran on Alternative 3 with treatments outside the Wilderness only, the largest fire modeled was 45,801acres with an average fire size of 6,759 acres. 50% of all fires modeled were larger than 5,222 acres with 10% of all fires larger than 14,342 acres (Figure 8.

189 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 8. Alternative 3, Non-Wilderness Only, Final Fire Size Histogram

The effects as a result of the treatments occurring outside the Wilderness are very similar to that of Alternatives 1 and 2. Under this alternative, some of the areas receiving treatment in Alternative 2 were deferred in Alternative 3, thus resulting in a slightly larger average fire size and largest fire.

Alternative 3 does contribute to the prescribed burning habitat objectives. As part of this alternative, there would be an increase in acres from Alternative 2 for forage enhancement of 10 acres to 705 acres, and large tree enhancement an increase of 190 acres to 228 acres. There would be a reduction of 2 acres to 221 acres for hardwood enhancement, reduction of 9 acres to 297 acres for meadow enhancement, and a reduction of 136 acres to 738 acres for stand diversity. These enhancements would be achieved using the same methods as described in Alternative 2. As with Alternatives 1 and 2, any wildfire within the project area has the potential to either assist or hinder the habitat objectives depending upon the nature of the fire as described under the No Action alternative.

190 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Alternative 3 Habitat Objectives

800

700

600

500

400 Acres

300

200

100

0 Forage Hardw ood Large Tree Meadow Shrub Stand Diversity Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement

Figure 9. Alternative 3 Habitat Objectives

This alternative would meet Forest Plan Goal 10 of establishing and maintaining a mosaic of vegetation conditions to reduce occurrences of large-scale, high-intensity fire, insect and disease events, and would facilitate insect and disease management and firefighting capabilities. Standard 4103 would be met: utilizing prescribed fire to achieve management objectives.

Treatments Identified Inside Wilderness The biggest difference in this alternative compared to the other alternatives is the use of prescribed fire within the Wilderness under post-beetle conditions. Only treatments identified within the Wilderness are being analyzed. A No Action alternative would be analyzed for areas outside the Wilderness.

Treatments would decrease the risk for large-scale high-intensity fires. Within treatment areas, fire behavior characteristics would be mixed-severity in nature opposed to those areas not treated which would experience more high-severity to stand-replacing fire behavior. The chances for successful initial attack would increase within the treated areas and the potential risks to the identified values-at-risk would decrease. An improvement of FRCC would be expected as conditions moved toward a more natural condition.

As with Alternatives 1 and 2, fire risk would not be expected to change because the probability of an ignition occurring would not be expected to change. The actions associated with this alternative would not be significant enough to reduce fire risk. The only action that could reduce fire risk would be a wildfire. Once an area burned it would reduce the probability of that area being burned again for a period of time. The reduction of that risk and longevity associated with that reduction would be directly proportional to intensity and size of that fire.

191 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

As with the previous alternatives, the measurement of structural stage to determine fire hazard is not appropriate in stands affected by MPB, therefore quantifying the fire hazard is not an option. Qualitatively, the fire hazard would be expected to improve on the 5,291 acres treated by prescribed fire. If a wildfire were to occur, the longevity and improvement of fire hazard would be directly associated with the intensity of that fire.

Accomplishing prescribed broadcast burning objectives is estimated to require approximately 10-15 ignition days per year for 3 to 10 years. Although usually short in duration, smoke from prescribed fires has the potential to affect air quality. Smoke generated by wildfire is usually greater and cannot be mitigated; however, smoke generated under controlled conditions can be mitigated using the same means as in Alternative 2.

FS Pro analysis was performed on this alternative and accounted for MPB effects and prescribed fire treatment within the Black Elk Wilderness. No commercial or non-commercial treatments or prescribed fire treatments proposed outside the Wilderness boundary were analyzed. The analysis was performed under the same weather scenario and time period as in the previous alternatives.

Of the 1,024 fires ran on Alternative 3 with treatments outside the Wilderness only, the largest fire modeled was 20,152 acres with an average fire size of 4,350 acres. 50% of all fires modeled were larger than 3,822 acres with 10% of all fires larger than 8,472 acres (Figure 10.

Figure 10. Alternative 3, Wilderness Only, Final Fire Size Histogram

The effects resulting from treatments occurring only inside the Wilderness are significantly different than those in the above alternatives. The use of prescribed fire within the Wilderness reduced average fire size, as well as largest fire size. This is a direct result of prescribed fire

192 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 reducing hazardous fuel accumulations following the MPB outbreak versus no prescribed fire in the Wilderness in the previous alternatives. The goal of conducting prescribed burning within the Wilderness is to reduce the likelihood of a fire threatening resources outside the Wilderness. Although wildlife habitat could benefit from prescribed burning within the Wilderness, this would not be the focus of these treatments.

This alternative would meet Forest Plan Goal 10 by establishing and maintaining a mosaic of vegetation conditions to reduce occurrences of large-scale, high-intensity wildfire, insect and disease events, and would facilitate insect and disease management and firefighting capabilities. Standard 4103 would be met: utilizing prescribed fire to achieve management objectives. In addition, this alternative would meet standard 1.1A-4101 by managing fire and fuels to promote the fire regime ecosystem within the Black Elk Wilderness.

Treatments Identified both Inside and Outside Wilderness. Treatments in Alternative 3 would have a significant effect on fire behavior both inside and outside the Wilderness. The chances for successful initial attack would be much greater under this alternative and the risks to values-at-risk outside the Wilderness would be greatly reduced. This analysis assumes all treatments would occur, both inside and outside the Wilderness.

As in Alternative 2, within treatment areas, fire behavior characteristics would be mixed-severity as opposed to those areas not treated, which would experience more high-severity to stand- replacing fire behavior. The chances for successful initial attack would increase and the risks to values-at-risk would decrease. In addition, an improvement of FRCC would be expected as conditions moved toward a more natural condition.

As with Alternative 2, fire risk would not be expected to change because the probability of an ignition occurring would not be expected to change. The actions associated with this alternative would not be significant enough to reduce fire risk. The only action that could reduce fire risk would be a wildfire. Once an area burned it would reduce the probability of that area being burned again for a period of time. The reduction of that risk and longevity associated with that reduction would be directly proportional to intensity and size of that fire.

As with the previous alternatives, the measurement of structural stage to determine fire hazard is not appropriate in stands that have been affected by MPB therefore quantifying the fire hazard is not an option. Qualitatively, the fire hazard is expected to improve on the 10,943 acres which would be treated both inside and outside the Wilderness by either prescribed fire or mechanical treatment. If a wildfire were to occur, the longevity and improvement of fire hazard would be directly associated with the fire intensity of that fire.

Accomplishing prescribed broadcast burning objectives is estimated to require approximately 10-15 ignition days per year for 3 to 10 years. Although usually short in duration, smoke from prescribed fires has the potential to affect air quality. Cumulatively more smoke would be generated by this alternative than Alternative 2 over the life of the project. However, on a daily to weekly basis, an increase in smoke production compared to Alternative 2 is not expected. Smoke generated by wildfire is usually greater and cannot be mitigated; however, smoke generated under controlled conditions can be mitigated using the same means as in Alternative 2.

FS Pro analysis was performed on this alternative and accounted for MPB effects and prescribed fire in the Wilderness as well as the commercial, non-commercial and prescribed fire treatments proposed outside of the Wilderness. The analysis was performed under the same weather scenario and time period.

193 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Of the 1,024 fires ran on Alternative 3 with all treatments both inside and outside the Wilderness, the largest fire modeled was 18,592 acres with an average fire size of 4,169 acres. 50% of all fires modeled were larger than 3,842 acres with 10% of all fires larger than 7,897 acres (Figure 11).

Figure 11. Alternative 3 Final Fire Size Histogram

Treatments outlined in Alternative 3 would significantly decrease the risks from a fire escaping from the Wilderness on values-at-risk outside the Wilderness. The treatments proposed in Alternative 3 also have a significant effect on fire behavior both inside and outside where vegetation treatments occurred.

This scenario does contribute to the prescribed burning habitat objectives. The habitat objectives would be the same as those identified in the scenario entitled “Direct and Indirect Effects of treatments identified outside the Wilderness” discussed above.

This alternative would meet Forest Plan Goal 10 by establishing and maintaining a mosaic of vegetation conditions to reduce occurrences of large-scale, high-intensity wildfire, insect and disease events, and would facilitate insect and disease management and firefighting capabilities. Standard 4103 would be met: utilizing prescribed fire to achieve management objectives. In addition, this alternative would meet standard 1.1A-4101 by managing fire and fuels to promote the fire regime ecosystem within the Black Elk Wilderness.

Alternative 4 Alternative 4 was designed to reduce the effects of MPB on Wildlife Habitat. From a fuels standpoint, this alternative takes a less aggressive approach than Alternative 3, but a more aggressive approach than Alternative 2 to decrease the likelihood of a fire starting inside the

194 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

BEW and escaping and threatening values-at-risk outside the BEW. Mechanical and prescribed fire treatments are again designed outside the Wilderness to achieve specific habitat objectives.

This alternative would treat 5,190 acres mechanically and 7,502 acres with prescribed fire. Of the 7,502 acres of prescribed fire, 5,291 of those acres would be implemented within the Wilderness. Fuel breaks would be developed on 59 acres on lands adjacent to private lands, non- forest lands, and arterial and collector roads that have adjacent “lop-and-scatter” slash treatments. As in Alternatives 2 and 3, many follow-up or consecutive treatments including mechanical treatment and prescribed fire are proposed, resulting in more than one treatment in some sites.

The biggest difference in this alternative compared to Alternatives 2 and 3 is that burning within the Wilderness under post-beetle conditions may or may not take place depending upon what conditions are present in specific burn units. In addition to prescribed burning limitation, Alternative 4 would mechanically treat more acres than the previous two alternatives, with resulting reduced stand densities. Conditions where prescribed burning would be unacceptable under this alternative are as follows:

§ Burn units where at least 30 percent of the unit contains live seedlings/saplings and poles at a density of greater than or equal to150 trees per acre, would be deferred from burning. § Retain surviving live conifers in structural stage 4A, 4B, 4C or 5. Inclusions of live conifers with a structural stage of 4A, 4B, 4C or 5 that are at least one-acre in size and occur within burn units would have an acceptable mortality level of 10 percent8. (Guideline 4108) § Burn units in the Wilderness containing a high percentage of live mature trees would be deferred from burning. § Site-specific habitat conditions and wildlife habitat needs would be considered when deciding if prescribed burning is appropriate at that time within the portion of Norbeck outside of the Black Elk Wilderness. Site-specific fuels conditions and fuel treatments in place adjacent to the Black Elk Wilderness would be considered when deciding if the planned prescribed burning is appropriate at that time within the Black Elk Wilderness. § Protect all improvements within Wilderness during prescribed burning. Field review of the post-beetle conditions would occur prior to any prescribed burning. The effect of those treatments identified in Alternative 4 would be directly proportional to the amount of prescribed fire conducted within the Black Elk Wilderness. If minimal prescribed fire is conducted the effects of this alternative would be very similar to that of Alternative 2. If the majority of the prescribed fire identified is conducted the effects would be similar to that of Alternative 3.

The effect of the treatments identified in Alternative 4 would be directly proportional to the amount of prescribed fire conducted. If minimal prescribed fire were conducted, the effects of this alterative would be very similar to that of Alternative 2. If the majority of the prescribed fire identified were conducted, the effects would be similar to that of Alternative 3.

As with the previous two action alternatives, fire behavior characteristics would be mixed- severity in nature opposed to those areas not treated, which would experience more high-severity

8 It is predicted that large-scale mortality of mature conifers would occur as a result of the existing mountain pine beetle outbreak in Wilderness. The extent of mature conifers that would survive the outbreak is estimated; therefore, the exact amount or spatial arrangement is unknown.

195 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

to stand-replacing fire behavior. The chances for successful initial attack would increase and the risk to the values-at-risk would decrease. In addition, an improvement of FRCC would be expected as condition moved toward a more natural condition.

Fire risk is not expected to change because the probability of an ignition occurring is not expected to change. The actions associated with this alternative are not substantial enough to significantly alter human activities or usage in the area therefore fire risk is not expected to change because the probability of an ignition occurring is not expected to change.

As with the previous alternatives, the measurement of structural stage to determine fire hazard is not appropriate in stands that have been affected by MPB therefore quantifying the fire hazard is not an option. Qualitatively, the fire hazard would be expected to improve in the areas which would be treated both inside and outside the Wilderness by either prescribed fire or mechanical treatment. The amount of improvement would depend on the amount of prescribed fire implemented. A minimum amount of 7,401 acres and a maximum amount of 11,410 acres of improvement is proposed. If a wildfire were to occur, the longevity and improvement of fire hazard would be directly related to the fire intensity of that fire.

Accomplishing prescribed broadcast burning objectives is estimated to require approximately 10-15 ignition days per year for 3 to 10 years. Although usually short in duration, smoke from prescribed fires has the potential to affect air quality. Cumulatively more smoke would be generated by this alternative than Alternative 2 over the life of the project; however, on a daily to weekly basis an increase in smoke production compared to Alternative 2 is not expected. Smoke generated by wildfire is usually greater and cannot be mitigated; however, smoke generated under controlled conditions can be mitigated using the same means as in Alternative 2.

FS Pro analysis was not performed on this alternative due to the uncertainty of what exactly would be treated. A reduction in both average and largest fire size is expected to be more than Alternative 2 as a result of more acres being treated, resulting in lower stand densities. However, this reduction is not expected to be as much as in Alterative 3 due to the potential for fewer acres to be treated than in Alternative 3.

Alternative 4 does contribute to the prescribed burning habitat objectives. As part of this alternative there would be a decrease in forage enhancement but an increased in stand diversity when compared to the previous two alternatives. This alternative would treat 511 acres for forage enhancement, 221 acres for hardwood enhancement, 228 acres for large tree enhancement, 267 acres for meadow enhancement, and 52 acres for shrub enhancement and 932 acres for stand diversity. These enhancements would be achieved using the same methods as described in Alternative 2. As with Alternatives 1 and 2, any wildfire within the project area has the potential to either assist or hinder the enhancement of the habitat objectives depending upon the nature of the fire as described under the No Action alternative.

196 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Alternative 4 Habitat Objectives

1000

900

800

700

600

500 Acres 400

300

200

100

0 Forage Hardw ood Large Tree Meadow Shrub Stand Diversity Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement

Figure 12. Alternative 4 Habitat Objectives.

This alternative would meet Forest Plan Goal 10 by establishing and maintaining a mosaic of vegetation conditions to reduce occurrences of large-scale, high-intensity wildfire, insect and disease events, and would facilitate insect and disease management and firefighting capabilities. Standard 4103 would be met: utilizing prescribed fire to achieve management objectives. In addition, this alternative would meet standard 1.1A-4101 by managing fire and fuels to promote the fire regime ecosystem within the Black Elk Wilderness.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects in the Norbeck Project were analyzed using those activities occurring within the project boundary and those activities occurring within 3 miles of the project boundary. Expanding the boundary by three miles allowed for a broader landscape analysis and captured effects of wildfire that could threaten the project area from outside the project area. Those effects were analyzed for the next 15 years, which allows for MPB to run its course and mechanical and prescribed fire activities to be completed. The cumulative effects were considered on all ownerships that fall within the area described.

In the Norbeck Project area, past, present and reasonably foreseeable future management actions, as well as the spread of the MPB are applicable to interpreting changes in fuel conditions. Past management activities may have created situations that increased as well as decreased the risk of large-scale, high-intensity wildfires. For example, wildfire suppression leads to a buildup of down woody material and increased stocking of trees and related ladder fuels. This scenario increases fire hazard. Lack of thinning in dense pine stands contributes to an increase in wildland fire behavior. These dense stands have contributed to the spread of MPB. If fires had been allowed to burn instead of being suppressed over the past 75-100 years, a significant acreage would have burned at a more frequent interval and a lower intensity. However, today’s conditions favor wildfires of increased fire intensity due to longer fire return intervals.

197 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Vegetation treatments identified on adjacent lands within the cumulative effects area would enhance the cumulative value of both FRCC and fire hazard. In areas not being treated, the potential would increase for sustained crown-fires. Fireline intensity would be greater. With this fire behavior, forest suppression objectives would likely not be met.

Fire occurring several miles outside of the project area could affect Norbeck under the right conditions. On the Black Hills National Forest, fires in adjacent areas have previously had the ability to make large runs of up to 12 miles. Although this event is rare and requires extreme conditions, a large-scale high-intensity fire is more probable if no treatments were implemented. A fire starting in Norbeck under the right conditions would not only threaten or damage/destroy improvements in the immediate area, but also have the potential to burn into or affect surrounding communities such as Keystone, Hill City, Custer, and Hayward within one burning period (12 hours). A large-scale, intense wildfire brings with it numerous risks and effects. Homes in the path of a wildfire are perhaps the most immediately recognized value-at–risk; however, severe wildfires put numerous other important values at risk including critical infrastructure, critical fish and wildlife habitat, firefighter and public health and safety, soil productivity, clean air, and functional fire-adapted ecosystems (Graham et al., 2004). Some of these values are also threatened by the secondary effects of wildfire, such as soil erosion, landslides and the spread of exotic species (Graham et al., 2004).

Any of the action alternatives are expected to have positive long-term cumulative effects related to fire and fuels. The proposed treatments, combined with monitoring and foreseeable future projects, would decrease the risk of large-scale, high-intensity wildfire damage as well as decrease fuel loading. This would move the project area toward a more desirable condition. The proposed treatments would reduce stand density and canopy closure, bringing the forest back to a more historical condition. Adjacent area projects would also have an impact. These projects combined with the treatments proposed in Norbeck would efficiently decrease the hazardous fuels for longer periods of time.

Summary of Effects Analysis has demonstrated that all action alternatives would change fire behavior within treated areas to be mixed-severity in nature opposed to those areas not treated which would experience more high-severity to stand-replacing fire behavior. The chances would increase for successful initial attack in all action alternatives and the risk to the values-at-risk would decrease. An improvement of FRCC would be expected as conditions moved toward a more natural condition. Under the No Action alternative, there would be no change in fire behavior, therefore no improvement in existing FRCC.

Fire risk is not expected to change because the probability of an ignition occurring is not expected to change. The actions associated with this alternative are not substantial enough to significantly alter human activities or usage in the area therefore fire risk is not expected to change because the probability of an ignition occurring is not expected to change.

Fire hazard is expected to decrease in all action alternatives. Alternatives 2, 3 (Outside the BEW), and 3 (Inside the BEW), are all very comparable with only 717 acres separating the three alternatives. Alternative 3 would improve nearly twice as much as the other 3 action alternatives with a decreased fire hazard on approximately 10,943 acres. Alternative 4 is expected to decrease overall fire hazard, however the full extent of the decrease would depend on the amount of prescribed fire being implemented. If the least amount of prescribed burning is implemented, the acres of decreased fire hazard would be greater than that of Alternative 2, 3(outside the BEW),

198 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

and 3(Inside the BEW). However, if the maximum amount of prescribed burning is implemented, Alternative 4 would decrease fire hazard more than any of the alternatives. The no action alternative would not decrease fire hazard in the project area.

Fire Hazard Improvement

12000 10,943

10000

8000

5,652 6000 5,291

Acres 4,935

4000

2000

0 0 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 3 Alternative 3 (Outside BEW (Inside BEW Only) Only)

Figure 13. Fire Hazard Improvement

Table 55. Fire Histogram Summary

Alternative 3 Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Fire Size Non- 3 Alternative 4 1 2 3 Wilderness Wilderness

Average Fire Size (ac.) 6,819 6,543 6,759 4,350 4,169 6,543 - 4,169

Largest Fire Size (ac.) 47,743 43,133 45,801 20,152 18,592 43,133 18,592

199 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Air quality would be affected by all action alternatives. More smoke would be generated by Alternative 3 than Alternative 2. The amount of smoke generated by Alternative 4 would depend upon the acres of prescribed burning implemented. Smoke generated by prescribed burning can be mitigated while smoke generated by wildfire is usually greater and cannot be mitigated. To best analyze the impacts of a fire escaping from the Wilderness and the threat of that escape on the identified values-at-risk outside the Wilderness, Fire Spread Probability (FSPro) modeling was completed. The action alternatives modeled showed a reduction in both average fire size and largest fire size compared to No Action. An FSPro run was not modeled for Alternative 4 due to the uncertainty of exact acreage treated. The effects of that alternative would be more than Alternative 2 but less than Alternative 3. Prescribed burning within the Wilderness significantly reduced both the average and largest fire size.

FSPro Fire Summary

50,000 47,743 45,801 43,133 Average Fire Size

40,000 Largest Fire Size

30,000

Acres 20,152 20,000 18,592

10,000 6,819 6,543 6,759 4,350 4,169

0 Non-Wilderness Wilderness

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 3 Alternative 3

Figure 14. FSPro Fire Summary

All action alternatives except for Alternative 3 (Wilderness only) saw improvements in prescribed burning habitat objectives. Alternatives 3 and 4 were slightly higher in total acres than Alternative 2; however, Alternative 2 was higher in stand diversity acres than Alternatives 3 and 4.

200 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Prescribed Burning Habitat Objective Comparison

2500

2000

1500 Stand Diversity Shrub Enhancement

Acres Meadow Enhancement 1000 Large Tree Enhancement Hardwood Enhancement Forage Enhancement 500

0 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 3 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 (Non- (Wilderness) Wilderness)

Figure 15. Prescribed Burning Habitat Objective Comparison

All action alternatives would meet Forest Plan Goal 10 by establishing and maintaining a mosaic of vegetation conditions to reduce occurrences of large-scale, high-intensity wildfire, insect and disease events, and would facilitate insect and disease management and firefighting capabilities. Standard 4103 would be met: utilizing prescribed fire to achieve management objectives. In addition, this alternative would meet standard 1.1A-4101 by managing fire and fuels to promote the fire regime ecosystem within the Black Elk Wilderness.

There would be visual effects. Forest visitors would see activity piles from roads for approximately 1 to 5 years. Although the length of time a pile exists depends upon contracting and weather conditions, the majority of piles do not sit longer than two years (one winter needed for curing). Some piles may be sold for chips; however this can delay their disposal. The District promotes the use of firewood, thus some piles may be left for that purpose. Scorched areas from broadcast burning and pile burning would be visible.

Fuels treatments would not prevent wildland fires from occurring. However, by doing fuels treatments, the risk of an extreme wildfire would be greatly decreased. To harness the most benefit, fuels treatments would need to occur in adjacent planning areas in order for treatments to be most effective at a landscape scale. Soils and Hydrology

Soils Watersheds are comprised of different components and each component applies its signature to the watershed, making each watershed unique. These components include: watershed boundaries, precipitation and climate, geology, soils, slope, watershed condition, streams, lakes,

201 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

floodplains, wetlands, beneficial uses, water quality and quantity, private land, connected disturbed areas (CDAs) and roads.

Existing Condition The objective of soil resource management is to improve or maintain long-term soil productivity. Soil productivity is the inherent capacity of a soil to support the growth of specified plants, plant communities, or a sequence of plant communities. In order to improve or maintain long-term soil productivity, soil disturbance should be minimal and adequate measures taken to protect the surface soil, keep the soil in pace, reduce compaction, and maintain nutrient and organic matter levels (USDA Forest Service 1996).

There are 19 soil map units within the Norbeck project area. Four (4) soil map units with the following symbols, BtE, BuE, MtE and RkG, comprise 85% of the project area and the other 15 soil map units occupy 3% or less (see Table 56 below and Map 19, in Appendix A).

Table 56. Soil Map Units in the Norbeck Project Area Soil Map Soil Map Unit Percent of Percent Outside of Percent Inside of Unit Slope Name Project Area Wilderness Wilderness Symbol BsB Bullflat-Cordeston <1% 1% <1% 2-9% Buska-Mocmont- BtE 31% 26% 37% 10-40% Rock Outcrop Buska-Rock BuE 7% 11% 2% 10-40% Outcrop BvC Buska-Virkula <1% 1% 0% 2-15% CvB Cordeston 2% 3% 2% 2-10% Cordeston- CwB 1% 2% <1% 0-6% Marshbrook HfC Heely-Cordeston <1% <1% 0% 6-15% HgB Hilger <1% <1% 0% 0-6% HgD Hilger <1% 1% 0% 6-40% HoD Hilger-Virkula <1% <1% 0% 2-30% MsC Mocmont <1% 1% 0% 2-12% Mocmont-Rock MtE 6% 10% 1% 10-40% Outcrop Complex Pactola-Virkula- PaE 1% 2% 0% 10-40% Rock Outcrop Pt Pits, Quarries <1% <1% 0% Rock Outcrop- RgG 2% 4% 0% 40-80% Buska Rock Outcrop- RkG 41% 31% 57% 40-80% Mocmont Rock Outcrop- RlG 3% 5% <1% 40-80% Pactola VpC Virkula-Pactola <1% <1% 0% 2-15%

202 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Soil Health Assessment Forest Service crews conducted soil health assessments in 9 sites in the project area in 2006. These sites were located within the following five soil map units with the following symbols: Buska-Mocmont-Rock Outcrop (BtE), Buska-Rock Outcrop (BuE), Cordeston-Marshbrook (CwB), Mocmont-Rock Outcrop Complex (MtE) and Rock Outcrop-Mocmont (RkG). These units represent 86% of the project area. The purpose of this assessment was to evaluate recovery of sites previously disturbed in past management actions. Additional information and photos are available in the project file.

The findings were that all sites visited had Properly Functioning Soil Health Ratings. At some of the sites there were some residual effects and some platy conditions were observed. These were small isolated areas and were well under 15% limit set by Forest Plan Standard 1103. All areas had excellent ground cover, infiltration was excellent and no erosion was occurring.

Soil Erosion The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil Erosion Hazard Rating (EHR) of soil units comprising at least 1% of the project area are displayed in table 57.

Table 57. Erosion Hazard Ratings of Major Soil Map units in the Norbeck Project Area Soil Map Unit Soil Map Unit Name Percent of NWPA Slope EHR Symbol Buska-Mocmont-Rock BtE Outcrop 31% 10-40% Moderate BuE Buska-Rock Outcrop 7% 10-40% Moderate CvB Cordeston 2% 2-10% Low CwB Cordeston-Marshbrook 1% 0-6% Low Mocmont-Rock Outcrop MtE Complex 6% 10-40% Moderate-High PaE Pactola-Virkula-Rock Outcrop 1% 10-40% Moderate RgG Rock Outcrop-Buska 2% 40-80% Very High

RkG Rock Outcrop-Mocmont 41% 40-80% Very High

RlG Rock Outcrop-Pactola 3% 40-80% Very High The very high EHR in 3 map units, as noted above is due to the steep slopes within these sites.

Soil Heating “Soil heating is caused by severe fires that occur when humus and large fuels are dry and large fuels are consumed near the ground. Soil heating sterilizes the soil, alters soil physics, consumes organic matter, and removes much of the site’s nutrients,” (USDA Forest Service 1996).

Soil Compaction “Soil compaction is caused by excess weight of vehicles and animals. It impairs infiltration, root growth, and soil biota,” (USDA Forest Service 1996). There are four soil map units in the project area which are more susceptible to compaction than the other soil map units. These 4 soil map units (with the symbols BvC, HoD, PaE, VpC) comprise approximately 1-2 percent of the project area (see Map 19, Appendix A). Forest Plan monitoring of soil compaction has occurred across the Black Hills since 1999 (USDA Forest Service 2007). There is evidence that Black Hills soils can compact when timber harvest occurs on moist or wet soils, and that harvesting when soils

203 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

are dry can prevent or limit compaction. Field soil surveys conducted in 2006 in the project area did not note detrimental residual soil compaction.

Nutrient Removal In the Norbeck project area, there are 3 soil map units (with the symbols MsC , MtE and RkG) which may contain soil organic matter of less than 2%. The 3 map units comprise approximately 47% of the project area.

Geologic Hazards One soil map unit (with the symbol RgG) in the project area has a high potential for mass movement. This soil unit occupies approximately 2% of the project area.

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action -

Soil Erosion This alternative would not have any new activities within the project area so soil erosion would not be affected and would remain unchanged. Areas where erosion is occurring, would not change. There would be no direct effects to soil productivity from soil erosion with this alternative because no new activities are planned. Extensive areas of soil erosion can occur following large-scale, high intensity wildfire events. Fire hazard and the potential for wildfire would continue to increase in this alternative.

Soil Heating There would be no direct effect to soil productivity from soil heating with this alternative because no burning would occur. If a wildfire were to occur, the soils could be adversely affected.

Soil Compaction This alternative would not have any new activities occurring within the project area so soil compaction would not be affected. There will be no direct or indirect effects to soil productivity from soil compaction with this alternative because no new activities are planned.

Nutrient Removal This alternative would not have any new activities within the project area therefore; soil nutrients would not be affected. There will be no direct or indirect effects to soil productivity from nutrient removal with this alternative because no new activities are planned.

Geologic Hazards This alternative would not have any new activities within the project area; therefore the potential for mass movement of soil would not be affected. There would be no direct or indirect effects to soils from geologic hazards, mass movement.

204 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

Soil Erosion The alternatives vary in potential for soil erosion by the extent of vegetation treatments on soils with a very high erosion hazard rating where the slope is greater than 20 percent. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would implement mechanical treatments on soils with a very high erosion hazard rating with slopes greater than 20 % on 1,054; 950; and 1,034 acres, respectively. Prescribed fire is not expected to impact soil productivity from soil erosion because the organic layer of soils would not be burned off and would remain to protect soils from erosion. Implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines, which include WCPs and BMPs would minimize the potential for erosion in any alternative.

Soil health surveys conducted in the project area in 2006 found that no erosion was occurring at the sampled sites. Erosion was observed, however, on old road beds used as hiking trails, especially those with horse traffic. No new Forest System roads would be constructed in any alternative.

The potential for erosion is increased on steeper slopes. Therefore, the following design criteria is included for all action alternatives: “On soils with very high erosion hazard rating and slopes between 20 and 40%, machinery operations must be restricted to dry or frozen soil conditions” and “On soils with very high erosion hazard ratings and slopes steeper than 40%, ground skidding must be avoided”. This design criteria, coupled with Forest Plan standards and guidelines, which include WCPs and BMPs would be effective in limiting soil erosion.

Based on the acres of mechanical treatments proposed on soils with a very high erosion hazard rating, Alternative 2 has the greatest potential for soil erosion, followed by Alternative 4 with Alternative 3 having the least potential. Although the alternatives would vary in the potential for effects, very little erosion would be expected due to design criteria, including Forest Plan direction.

Soil Heating Effects to soils from heating from management actions can come from two sources, burning slash piles and prescribe fire.

Burning slash piles would cause detrimentally impacted soils from soil heating in small isolated locations throughout the project area. These areas would contribute toward the 15% limit of detrimentally impacted soils within the units (Standard 1103), but would be minimal as small isolated areas. Any runoff from these areas due to detrimentally impacted soils would be absorbed by surrounding areas. Concerns to soil productivity from soil heating occur when large contiguous areas are impacted, which would not occur as the result of this project.

Prescribed fire is proposed on approximately 2,158 acres for Alternative 2; 7,502 acres for Alternative 3; and up to 7,502 acres in Alternative 4. There is potential for soil heating impacts to occur on acres burned. However implementing the design criteria, “conduct prescribed fires to minimize the residence time on the soil while meeting the burn objectives, this is usually done when the soil and duff are moist” would minimize the effects to the soil from soil heating. There could be more potential direct effects from Alternatives 3 and 4 because more acres are proposed to be burned, however no direct effects are expected.

205 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Soil Compaction Activities on soils subject to compaction when wet can change the characteristics of these soils, causing more runoff or resulting in poor plant growth. Implementing Forest Plan standards and guidelines and specific design criteria (Appendix B) on these soils would mitigate these problems. Activities would only be allowed when the soils are dry or frozen, operating with low impact equipment or operating equipment on slash. In addition, skidders would remain on approved skid trails. Skid-trails would average 100 feet apart center to center. Track mounted felling equipment would be allowed to work off the approved skid trails. Trees would be bunched to allow skidders to reach them from the approved skid trails. These design criteria would minimize the potential for soil compaction as the result of the activities.

The action alternatives are expected to have similar effects regarding soil compaction due to mechanical treatment activities. The design criteria, including Forest Plan standards and guidelines, which include WCPs and BMPs, would result in little potential for compaction. The difference between Alternatives 2, 3 and 4, regarding impacts to soils from compaction are based on acres of mechanical treatments on soils subject to compaction. Prescribed fire has no effect on the soil from compaction because of no or limited use of equipment capable of causing compaction.

Acres of proposed treatment on soils subject to compaction, by alternative, are shown in table 58. Based on these acres, Alternative 4 has the greatest potential for soil compaction, followed by Alternative 3 with Alternative 2 having the least potential for soil compaction. Very little soil compaction would be expected to occur and it could be a short-term impact. Forest Plan Monitoring (USDA Forest Service 2009a) on one site has shown “there is evidence that conditions were such that within one geographic area, on at least one soil type, and to the depth sampled, that the mean soil bulk density decreased from levels above the threshold classified as “detrimental compaction” to levels below the threshold within the time period of one year”.

Table 58. Acres of Mechanical Treatment on Soils Subject to Compaction, by Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Acres 0 373 418 426

Nutrient Removal The difference between Alternatives 2, 3 and 4, regarding impacts to the soil resource from nutrient removal are based on acres of mechanical treatment proposed on soils that could have low organic matter. Prescribe fire does not affect soil productivity from nutrient removal because organic material is not physically removed from the site. Prescribe burning would change the form or composition of the nutrients but most would be still be available on site.

It is estimated that 1,303; 1,257 and 1,436 acres of mechanical treatment for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4, respectively are located on soils that could potentially have low organic matter. Treatment prescriptions in these stands include clearcut, thin from below, free selection, group retention, group selection with thinning, hardwood release, individual tree selection, preparatory cut, pine encroachment, products other than logs, precommercial thin, spruce release, understory removal or variable density thinning. These prescriptions, except group selection, variable density thinning to 30 and 40 basal area, clear cut and group retention harvest, would leave enough residual material in the stand to meet Forest Plan Guidelines and Standard 1102.

206 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

To insure adequate amounts of material remains on site the following design criteria are included: For group selection and variable density thinning to 30 and 40 basal area the design criteria, “On soils with low organic matter in the topsoil, retain 50% or more of the fine (less than three (3) inches in diameter) logging in the stand for each group selection and variable density thinning to 30 and 40 basal area prescriptions” would be applied to those prescriptions to maintain enough organic material on site. For the prescriptions of clearcut and group retention, the design criteria, “On soils with low organic matter in the topsoil, retain 90% or more of the fine (less than three (3) inches in diameter) logging slash in the stand for each clear cut and group retention harvest prescription” would be applied to those prescriptions to maintain enough organic material on site.

Geologic Hazards All the action alternatives would treat the same acres of soils with a high mass movement potential, on slopes greater than 20%. Approximately 46 acres meeting these conditions are proposed for treatment in each alternative. Three (3) of these acres are proposed clearcuts on sites 093003-110 (1 acres) and 093003-111 (2 acres). These clearcuts would result in a loss of live tree roots in these sites and have a risk of mass movement. Design criteria for this project would restrict activities to dry or frozen condition on slopes 20 to 40% (see appendix B). Implementing the design criteria would minimize or eliminate the risk of mass movement.

Cumulative Effects to Soils The cumulative effects area for the soils resource is the project area. The effects of the alternatives on the soils resource would be contained within the project area. The timeframes used to consider effects of past, present and future activities are from 2000 through 2020. This time frame would include impacts from recent timber harvesting in the Needles and Grizzly sales and through completion of proposed activities in this project. The past, present and future activities considered in this analysis are presented in Appendix F.

Forest plan standards and guidelines, as well as site specific design criteria would be implemented in all alternatives. When implemented as described, no adverse cumulative effects to soils are expected to occur. Past monitoring shows that when FPS&G are implemented on similar projects, this standard is met (USDA Forest Service 2008b). It is further expected that the sum of any land unit within the project area which would be in a severely burned, detrimentally compacted, eroded or displaced condition would be less than 15 percent, as described in Standard 1103. The following discussion considers the cumulative effects of potential disturbances to long-term soil productivity in accordance with Forest Plan standard 1101.

Soil Erosion There have been past activities or events in the project area that have caused minor soil erosion. The past activities are generally road-related where water has been concentrated. There are no known areas of severe erosion currently occurring. Site-specific design criteria are included with each action alternative to limit the potential for erosion. This design criteria, coupled with other soil protection measures included in Forest Plan standards and guidelines, including WCPs, it is expected that erosion would be minimal and would be within the limits of Forest Plan standard 1103 for the action alternatives. There would be no cumulative effects to soil erosion resulting from the no action alternative.

207 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Soil Heating Events that could cause negative effects of soil heating are wildfires and to a lesser degree, prescribed burning. Prescribed burning within the project area would be implemented in a manner designed to reduce the potential for adverse soil heating impacts. Prescribed burning would have beneficial effects by reducing long term fire hazard and the potential for high intensity wildfire that could have soil heating effects. Therefore, no adverse cumulative effects would be expected under any alternative.

Soil Compaction Timber harvest activities, including the Needles and Grizzly timber sales, have the potential to cause soil compaction. Equipment used during harvest operations can compact soil, particularly when soils are wet. Landing areas have concentrated vehicle use and piles of timber. Forest level (USDA Forest Service 2009) and project specific monitoring in 2006, was completed to determine lingering effects of timber harvest on soil compaction. Monitoring done in 2006 specifically looked at areas previously harvested, including landings. The monitoring revealed that little compaction occurred from past timber harvesting and that it recovers over time. Project specific design criteria (see appendix B) and implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines would limit potential compaction from the alternatives. Therefore, minimal cumulative impacts to the soil from compaction are expected and would be within the limits set by Forest Plan standard 1103. No cumulative effects from the no action alternative would occur.

Nutrient Removal There would be no cumulative impacts to soil nutrients from any alternative within the project area because sufficient residual material and trees would be left for nutrient recycling after project implementation.

Geologic Hazards There is little potential for mass movement of soils in this project area. Actions that influence mass movement of soils include timber harvesting and road building. There would be no cumulative impact to mass movement of soils from any alternative. The action alternatives include design criteria to minimize and reduce the risk of landslides within the treatment area.

Hydrology The project area lies within parts of six HUC 6 watersheds and 13 HUC 7 watersheds (tables 59 and 60). HUC 6 watersheds are generally 10,000 to 50,000 acres in size.

Table 59. HUC 6 Watersheds

Watershed Percent of Watershed Percent of Watershed HUC 6 Number Watershed Name Acres in Project Area in Wilderness 101201090301 Upper French 49,252 9% 0% Creek 101201090302 Lower French 35,521 <1% 0% Creek 101201090501 Upper Battle Creek 37,321 52% 30% 101201090503 Grace Coolidge 39,514 5% 0% Creek 101201090601 Upper Spring Creek 43,067 6% 3% 101201090603 Sheridan Lake 29,305 13% 5% (Black Hills National Forest 2001)

208 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Table 60. HUC 7 Watersheds

Percent of Percent of Watershed HUC 7 Number Watershed Name Watershed in Watershed in Acres Project Area Wilderness 10120109030104 Willow Creek 9,356 35% 0% 10120109030107 French Creek/Stockade 5,703 21% 0% 10120109030202 French Creek/Blue Bell 7,811 <1% 0% 10120109050101 Upper Battle Creek 9,238 44% 20% 10120109050102 Grizzly Bear Creek 6,640 88% 71% 10120109050104 Middle Battle Creek 4,319 8% 0% 10120109050105 Upper Iron Creek 5,733 91% 62% 10120109050106 Lower Iron Creek 6,413 65% 15% 10120109050301 Galena Creek 5,182 <1% 0% 10120109050302 Upper Grace Coolidge 7,453 5% 0% 10120109050305 Spokane Creek 6,485 25% 0% 10120109060105 Spring Creek/Sunday 9,182 29% 12% Gulch 10120109060302 Palmer Creek 9,076 43% 15% 92,591 (Black Hills National Forest, 2001)

Watershed Condition As part of this analysis, NWSI (Natural Watershed Sensitivity Index) and Impact Indexes were calculated on 7th level watersheds with more than 33 percent of the watershed within the project area. The Natural Watershed Sensitivity Index (NWSI) is used to assess watershed sensitivity and compare one to another. Sensitive areas in each watershed were identified using three criteria: (1) riparian areas/streamside management zones, (2) severely erodible soils, and (3) slopes greater than 60 percent. The sum of all areas (in acres) meeting any of the NWSI criteria divided by the total watershed acreage produces the NWSI. Three qualitative categories were established for the index values:

Low Sensitivity 0-29% Moderate Sensitivity 30-65% High Sensitivity 66-100% Impact Index account for those impacts that are most likely to affect stream health. Connected disturbed areas (CDAs) are those disturbed sites that drain directly into streams. Disturbed areas in close proximity to streams are most likely to be hydrologically connected. Impact Index values less than 11 percent are considered minor.

Table 61. Watershed Condition

Watershed Condition Sensitivity Impact HUC 7 Number Watershed Name Index % Index % 10120109030104 Willow Creek 36% 0% 10120109050101 Upper Battle Creek 52% 3% 10120109050102 Grizzly Bear Creek 67% 1% 10120109050105 Upper Iron Creek 45% 3% 10120109050106 Lower Iron Creek 44% 3% 10120109060302 Palmer Creek 33% 1% Average 46% 2%

209 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Five watersheds fall into the Moderate Sensitivity category and one watershed has High Sensitivity. Large amount of soils with severe erosion rating, a high percentage of perennial and intermittent streams and presence of steep slopes contribute to elevated numbers. These index numbers are some of the highest in the Black Hills and are tied to the local geology.

The Impact Index numbers for the watersheds are generally low and in the category that is considered minor. There are no roads in the BEW and limited roads in the NWP, which contributes to the low Impact Index numbers. Most of the roads that are in the watersheds are outside both these boundaries.

Streams There are approximately 122 miles of streams within the project area. Fifty-two percent (52%) are perennial, 15% are intermittent and 33% are ephemeral. Streams and their length within the project area are displayed in table 62.

Table 62. Watershed Condition

Name Perennial Intermittent Ephemeral Battle Creek 1.89 ----- 0.53 Bismark Lake Creek 0.43 ------Buckeye Gulch ----- 0.26 ----- French Creek 2.08 ------Greyhound Gulch ----- 1.23 1.13 Grizzly Bear Creek 9.77 ------Hay Draw ------0.46 Iron Creek 10.75 ----- 0.27 Johnson Canyon ----- 0.10 ----- Lafferty Creek 1.04 ------Lost Cabin Creek 3.06 ------Nelson Creek 2.36 ------No-Name Gulch 0.54 0.49 ----- Palmer Creek 2.69 ------Pine Creek 2.88 ------Potato Gulch ------0.65 Rabbit Gulch 0.39 0.73 0.14 Spokane Creek 2.83 0.72 ----- Sunday Gulch 3.54 0.47 0.24 Toll Gate Creek ----- 1.62 0.55 Willow Creek 2.30 ------Un-named 16.95 12.90 36.51 63.50 18.52 40.48

Lakes There are four lakes within the project area. All are reservoirs or manmade. Horsethief Lake is located on Pine Creek, which is a tributary to Battle Creek and is 16 acres in size. Lakota Lake is located on Iron Creek, which also is a tributary to Battle Creek and is10 acres in size. Stockade Lake is on French Creek and is 124 acres. Sylvan Lake is located on Sunday Gulch, which is a tributary to Spring Creek and is 23 acres. Stockade and Sylvan Lakes are located in CSP (Custer State Park).

210 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Floodplains There are 506 acres of mapped 100-year floodplains within the project area, of which 38 acres are within the Wilderness. The floodplains are mapped by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). A floodplain is any area susceptible to inundation by floodwaters. The 100-year flood is a flood having a one percent (1%) chance of being equaled or exceeded in magnitude in any given year. The mapped FEMA floodplains within the NWPA are associated with Battle Creek, French Creek, Grizzly Bear Creek, Iron Creek, Palmer Creek, Stockade Lake and Sylvan Lake.

Wetlands There are 48 miles of mapped linear wetlands and 206 acres of mapped wetland polygons within the project area. Approximately 63% of the linear wetlands and 98% of the wetland polygons are located outside of the Wilderness. Eighty-three percent (83%), or 172 acres, of the polygons are bodies of water, Horsethief Lake, Lakota Lake, Stockade Lake and Sylvan Lake. These wetlands are associated with Willow Creek, French Creek, Battle Creek, Grizzly Bear Creek, Iron Creek, Spokane Creek, Spring Creek and Palmer Creek.

Beneficial Uses The South Dakota DENR (Department of Environment and Natural Resources) assigns water quality standards based on the beneficial uses of each water body. All streams in South Dakota are assigned the beneficial uses of irrigation, fish and wildlife propagation, recreation, and stock watering. Within the project area the streams in Table 63 have additional designated beneficial uses.

Table 63. Beneficial uses

SD Beneficial Uses Coldwater Coldwater Limited Water Body Permanent Marginal Fish Immersion Contact Fish Life Life Recreation Recreation Propagation Propagation Battle Creek X X Bismark Lake Creek X X French Creek X X Grizzly Bear Creek X X Horsethief Lake X X X Iron Creek X X Lafferty Gulch Creek X X Lakota Lake X X X Palmer Gulch Creek X X Pine Creek X X Stockade Lake X X X Sylvan Lake X X X

(SD DENR, 1999)

Water Quality There are two (2) lakes and one (1) stream within the project area that are currently on the SD 303(d) Waterbody List (SD DENR 2008). This list is a list of waterbodies that do not meet water quality standards for the assigned beneficial uses, therefore need a TMDL (total maximum daily

211 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

load) developed. TMDLs are assigned by the State overseen by EPA, and are tools for the management of water quality.

Horsethief Lake – This lake is on the list for not meeting the beneficial use of Coldwater Permanent Fish Life. Parameters of concern are pH and water temperature. The listed cause is natural source. This lake is the result of damming Pine Creek. Eighty-seven percent (87%) of this 1,772 acre watershed is within the BEW. Sylvan Lake – This lake is on the list for not meeting the beneficial use of Coldwater Permanent Fish Life. The parameters of concern are pH, temperature and TSI (Trophic State Index). The listed cause is non-point source. This lake is the result of damming Sunday Gulch. The entire 554 acre watershed for this lake is within Custer State Park. Battle Creek – This stream is on the list for not meeting the beneficial use of Coldwater Permanent Fish Life. The parameter of concern is water temperature. The listed cause is natural sources.

Streamflow Regime Streamflows throughout the Black Hills have been reduced over the last century, which is likely a result of fire suppression and the associated increase of woody biomass (trees). Higher leaf areas from increased woody biomass increases evapotranspiration and interception, resulting in lower streamflows and the drying of springs (USDA Forest Service 2003b).

Peak flow data has been collected for a limited time on several streams in and around the project area. The streams include Battle Creek, eight (8) years, French Creek, 15 years, Grizzly Bear Creek, seven (7) years, and Sunday Gulch, 18 years. Peak flows occurred from March to October with the most occurring in June. (USGS Surface Water for USA 2007a, b, c, d & e). The Black Hills are prone to flash flooding due to steep stream gradients and intense thunderstorms.

Stream Health Stream health, defined as “ The condition of a stream versus reference conditions for the stream type and geology, using metrics such as channel geometry, large woody debris, substrate, bank stability, flow regime, water chemistry and aquatic biota” (USDA Forest Service 2006). Bismark Lake Creek was not assigned a Stream Health Rating (SHR) due to its short length and location between Bismarck and Stockade lakes. Since most of French Creek within the project area is impacted by Stockade Lake, a SHR is not being assigned to this section of stream.

The majority of streams and unnamed tributaries have a SHR of robust. Some streams have a SHR of diminished or at-risk due mainly to impacts from roads and trails or where channels were moved.

Roads are generally the number one watershed concern in a project area. Roads tend to concentrate water and put it where it is not designed to go. There are by far fewer roads in this planning area than average in the Black Hills. Roads are not allowed within Wilderness and are restricted in the Norbeck wildlife preserve.

Connected Disturbed area (CDAs) are areas that contribute sediment to streams or wetlands causing degradation of physical function and water quality, and increase peak flows that may alter physical channel processes. When a disturbed area flows into a waterbody without sufficient delay from vegetated filter strips or sediment detention structures, it is connected to the waterbody. During field inventory, 28 CDAs were identified within the project area. Three of these are road related and the remaining 25 are related to trail crossings.

212 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Water Quality and Stream Health This alternative would have no new activities within the project area. Current conditions of temperature/oxygen, sediment, water purity, aquatic life, and bed and bank stability would be expected to remain unchanged under this alternative. No change to existing stream health ratings would occur. However, if a large scale disturbance, such as a high intensity wildfire, were to occur these elements of water quality and stream health would be impacted. Alternative 1 would have the potential for such a fire to occur, given the existing fire hazard of the area.

Streamflow Regime Alternative 1 would not have any new activities within the project area. Therefore, no direct effects to flow regime would occur. Indirect effects include an increase in biomass over time, which would generally reduce the amount of water available for streamflow. Large stand replacing fire would occur and would impact flow regime.

Riparian Ecosystems, Flood Plains and Wetlands This alternative would not have any new activities within the project area so there would be no direct or indirect effect on riparian ecosystems, floodplains or wetlands as a result of no action.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2, 3 and 4

Water Quality and Stream Health Mechanical vegetation treatments and prescribed fire within the Water influence Zone (WIZ) can impact factors which contribute to water quality and overall stream health. However, with implementation of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (FPS&G), which include WCPs and BMPs potential impacts would be reduced (refer to Appendix B). The acres of treatments within the WIZ differs by alternative. Each of these alternatives would use the same roads and crossings in the WIZ.

The action alternatives would implement similar acres of mechanical treatments within the WIZ, from 232 acres in Alternative 3 to 246 acres in Alternative 2. Alternative 4 is between the other alternatives at 240 acres. There is only a 14 acre difference of mechanical treatment within the WIZ between the alternatives, so the effects of the alternatives are similar relating to sediment. The prescriptions are reducing the basal area and would not impact stream health or affect stream shading and would maintain or improve long-term stream health and riparian ecosystem condition, consistent with Forest Standard 1301. With implementation of the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (FPS&G), which include WCPs and BMPs, the potential to generate sediment from commercial treatments is low in Alternatives 2, 3 & 4, a slight increase over Alternative 1.

Prescribed burning within the WIZ would occur on 122 acres for Alternative 2; 436 acres for Alternative 3 and up to 436 acres in 4. The potential to generate sediment is low because soils within the WIZ and next to the streams are generally wetter. When these areas are burned there is enough residual organic matter left on the soil surface to minimize or prevent erosion. Also prescribed fire is generally performed when there is soil moistures, leaving a layer of organics

213 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

that protect the soils from erosion. With the implementation of the FPS&Gs, which include WCPs and BMPs, the amount of sediment from prescribed fire would be minimal for Alternatives 2, 3 & 4, a slight increase over Alternative 1.

Maintenance and temporary use of roads within the WIZ and at stream crossings have the potential to increase sediment. All action alternatives would have nearly identical mileages of road maintained and used, as well as stream crossings. It is extremely difficult to quantify how much sediment would be produced, so the amount of activity within the WIZ would be used as a comparison for the alternatives. With the implementation of the FPS&Gs, which include WCPs and BMPs, the amount of sediment from roads would be minimal for Alternatives 2, 3 & 4, a slight increase over Alternative 1.

There would be eight (8) constructed or new stream crossings on reconstructed roads with all of the action alternatives. The crossings would be removed and rehabilitated upon completion of the project. Six (6) are on Iron Creek, one (1) is on Spokane Creek and one (1) is on Sunday Gulch. The type of crossing would influence the amount of sediment generated. With the use of bridges or arch culverts, some sediment is expected to be introduced to the streams, but not in quantities that would affect the aquatic resource. Concrete mats are being considered as an option for the crossings. This option has the potential to impact aquatic resources because the mats would be placed directly on the stream bottom.

Upon completion of the use of the road along Iron Creek, the fill could be used to obliterate the road prism adjacent to the stream crossings, converting it to back to a trail and fixing an ongoing sediment problem that was created when the road was originally converted to a trail. With the implementation of the FPS&Gs, which include WCPs and BMPs and design criteria, impacts to the aquatic resource from sediment generated from bridge or arch culvert stream crossings would be minimal for Alternatives 2, 3 & 4, a slight increase over Alternative 1. However, the potential for sediment with the use of concrete mats in Iron creek could have negative impacts to the aquatic resource due to the number of crossings.

The type of crossing used can have different impacts. There are three (3) possible crossings that are currently being considered: bridge, arch culvert and concrete mats. The bridge would provide the least impact to Iron Creek because the span would allow footings to be away from the creek. The arch culvert is the next best option but would require footing work closer to the stream. Either of these two options would provide minimal impact to the stream from sediment because the design criteria can minimize or prevent sediment from entering Creeks.

The third and least desirable option is temporary concrete mats. The mat would be placed on the stream bottom and would disturb the stream bed when installed and removed. Vehicles would drive through the water on the concrete mats. Sediment would be added to the Creek both during the installation and removal process as well as during use. Because sediment would be generated with use of temporary concrete mats on the 6 crossings in Iron Creek, this option has the potential to have detrimental impacts to the aquatic resource.

As a benefit of the activities, an additional eight (8) CDAs would be corrected. The six (6) crossings on Iron Creek identified above are CDAs and would be fixed. Another one on a tributary to Spokane Creek and one on Sunday Gulch would be repaired.

Overall, the potential for sedimentation in all action alternatives would be about the same There would be a slight increase in potential for sedimentation from the action alternatives in the short term (<5 years) due to ground-disturbing activities such as timber harvest, road crossings or

214 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 prescribed fire. In the long-term (>5 years), sediment potential would be reduced by the action alternatives (Iron Creek, Spokane Creek & Sunday Gulch) as compared to existing conditions because of the repair of the CDAs.

Reducing the stand density on 15% of the project area for Alternative 2, 14% for Alternative 3 and 16% for Alternative 4 with commercial and non-commercial timber activities would have a positive effect but minimal impact on stream temperature and oxygen. Biomass would be reduced, resulting in more water being available for stream flow. More water would help maintain stream temperatures.

There is not much difference between Alternatives 2, 3 or 4 regarding impacts to the aquatic resource from temperature/oxygen. As far as the vegetation treatments, there may be a slight difference in alternatives because of a difference of acres treated, but comparatively, 467 acres difference or almost two percent (2%) of the planning area, is not going to make much of a difference. These alternatives are similar and would have the greatest positive effect on water temperature and oxygen over the no action alternative because more water would be available for stream flow.

There is no difference between the Alternatives 2, 3 or 4, regarding impacts to the aquatic resource from water purity. None of these activities involves placing concentrated pollutant sources near water bodies or applying harmful chemicals near water bodies. There would be no direct or indirect effect to water purity.

There is not much difference between the Alternatives 2, 3 or 4, regarding impacts to the aquatic resource from migration barriers or riparian damage. Impacts from roads are the same for all alternatives because all action alternatives are using the same roads and crossings.

These alternatives would not increase or decrease any migration barriers and no riparian damage would occur because the stream crossings have been impacted before and would accommodate aquatic passage. Riparian areas would be avoided. No direct or indirect effects would occur to aquatic life from migration barriers or riparian damage.

Skid and forwarding trail have the potential to cross perennial and intermittent streams affecting bank stability. Crossing the stream could break down the bed and banks. If this occurs, actions would be taken to fix and restore the bed and banks so it would be a short-term effect.

There is not much difference between the Alternatives 2, 3 or 4, regarding impacts to the aquatic resource from bed and bank stability. The alternatives are basically the same for potential stream crossings for skidders and forwarders. By implementing the FPS&G, which include WCPs and BMPs all action alternatives would have the same impacts.

Streamflow Regime The treatment proposed in these alternatives would remove biomass through mechanical means or prescribed burning. All of these treatments would positively affect flow regime

Commercial mechanical treatments propose to treat up to 4,935 acres with Alternative 2; 4,723 acres with Alternative 3 and up to 5,190 for Alternative 4. These alternatives would have a positive and similar effect on flow regime by the removal of live vegetation from the landscape and would result in improved flow regimes over Alternative 1.

215 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Riparian Ecosystems, Flood Plains and Wetlands There is no difference between Alternatives 2, 3 or 4, regarding impacts to riparian ecosystems, floodplains or wetlands. These alternatives include commercial and non-commercial vegetation management and prescribed fire. There would not be any commercial activities or new roads within any riparian areas. No wetlands would be affected by mechanical treatments. Prescribed fire within riparian areas and wetlands would be low intensity and therefore, would have little or no impact. Roads are the main concern with floodplains because road fills are usually placed in floodplains to facilitate road crossings of streams. This interrupts flood flows and can change the elevation of flood waters. Timber harvest activities do not affect floodplains because floodplains are not altered during the activity. Prescribed fire does not alter floodplains. No new roads would be built in floodplains as part of this project. Several stream crossings are proposed to facilitate treatments. Temporary bridges or other crossing methods would be designed to not constrict water flow. Therefore, no impacts to floodplains would occur.

Cumulative Effects The spatial boundaries of the cumulative impact analysis are the HUC 7 watershed boundaries and the time frame for all cumulative effects discussion is from year 2000 until 2020. These dates include impacts from recent timber harvesting that occurred under the Needles II and Grizzly II decisions, and extend forward to include the estimated completion of activities proposed in this project. HUC 7 watersheds are being used instead of HUC 6 is because there is generally only a small part of the HUC 6 watersheds in the NWPA, thus not making the analysis very useful. A list documenting known past, present and planned future activities for this area is found in Appendix F.

Water Quality and Stream Health Cumulative impacts from increased sediment could come from large scale, high intensity wildfire. Mountain Pine Beetle activity by itself would not cause cumulative impacts from sediment but it could increase the cumulative impacts from sediment due to a wildfire by making more fuel available, increasing the impacts to the soils, which could lead to higher sediment production. If a wildfire were to occur there would be a large flush of sediment the first year, tapering off to near zero over the next 5 years. Alternative 1 would have the largest risks of cumulative impacts from sediment, followed by Alternative 2 with Alternatives 3 and 4 having the least risk. The alternatives with the most vegetation treatments and prescribed fire would have less indirect impact from sediment because less fuel would be available to burn, thus resulting in less intense wildfire, less exposed soils and therefore less sedimentation.

A positive cumulative impact concerning sediment (decrease) from trail projects would occur in 2010. Six crossings on Iron Creek Trail #15 are slated for repair to reduce stream widening and stop the flow of sediment from the trail to Iron Creek. Two additional crossings on Lost Cabin Trail #2 would be repaired with bridges, one on Palmer Creek and one on Nelson Creek. This would greatly reduce sediment being continually added to the streams.

Cumulative impacts (positive) would come from a planned fencing project on Rabbit Gulch. When the fence is constructed it would reduce cattle access to the stream and improve the bed and bank stability of Rabbit Gulch.

Cumulative impacts could occur from Mountain Pine Beetles and large-scale, high-intensity wildfire. Mountain Pine Beetle kills trees, making more water available for streamflow, thus maintaining or improving water temperature. Large-scale, high-intensity wildfire also kills trees,

216 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 and less trees in the watershed makes more water available for streamflow, again maintaining or improving water temperature.

There would be no direct or indirect effects to water purity or migration barriers for aquatic life. Therefore, no cumulative impacts to water purity or aquatic life are expected.

Streamflow Regime Cumulative impacts to flow regime could occur from Mountain Pine Beetles and large-scale, high-intensity wildfire in any alternative. Mountain Pine Beetle kills trees, having an effect on flow regime by making more water available for streamflow since the trees are no longer using water. Large scale, high intensity wildfire also kills trees, and less trees in the watershed affects flow regime, by making more water available for streamflow.

Riparian Ecosystems, Floodplains and Wetlands Activities within riparian ecosystems, wetlands and floodplains would be implemented to minimize potential impacts. Design criteria and Forest plan direction, including WCPs, would be implemented. Current and future projects would be expected to be implemented with the same resource protection measures. Therefore, no adverse cumulative effects to riparian ecosystems, floodplains or wetlands are expected to occur.

Best Management Practices (BMP) Effectiveness BMPs are developed by the State of SD…to ensure compliance with federal and state water- quality standards (USDA Forest Service 2006a). They provide good guidance but are fairly general.

WCPs are practices to protect soil, aquatic, and riparian systems. USDA Forest Service, Region 2 developed them and they are more specific than design criteria. USDA Forest Service states…“if used properly, they meet or exceed State BMPs” (2006a). BMPs and WCPs are incorporated into the FPS&G and provide more specific direction. Meeting the FPS&Gs when implementing a project, both the WCPs and BMPs are being met.

The Black Hills National Forest completed a Forest Plan BMP Evaluation (USDA Forest Service 2003a). Chapter four (4) cites two (2) studies done on the Black Hills National Forest by the Black Hills Forest Resource Association, 2001 and Wyoming Timber Industry Association, 2001. The conclusion is “These results highlight the consistent application and effectiveness of BMPs in the Black Hills and other National Forests” (USDA Forest Service, 2003a). The evaluation goes on to review other studies or reports and comes to the conclusion that “These studies highlight the effectiveness of BMPs in forests throughout the United States” (USDA Forest Service 2003a). This evaluation shows that BMPs are effective. Since this evaluation has been completed a field audit was completed in 2004 in SD (Black Hills Forest Resource Association 2005). Results showed application of BMPs were 92% in 2004 compared to 82% in 2001 and effectiveness of the BMPs was 95% in 2004 compared to 84% in 2001. This additional information show the continued application and effectiveness of BMPs in SD.

Additional BMP/WCP monitoring was completed on the Hell Canyon Ranger District, for 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. The summary report show that the BMP/WCP are being implemented and are effective and states, “Logging practices on the Hell Canyon Ranger District have not had any negative impact on the watershed and streams and that they do comply with the requirements of the CWA” (USDA Forest Service 2008b).

217 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Scenery

Existing Conditions The Norbeck Wildlife Project Area is centrally located between three communities of Custer, Hill City, and Keystone in the Black Hills National Forest. From a Scenery standpoint, this is some of most significant landscape in the Black Hills National Forest. The following recreational opportunities and destinations occur within or adjacent to the project area: Mount Rushmore National Memorial (MRNM) – a National Park Service facility that receives approx. 3.5 million visitors annually; the Black Elk Wilderness, with numerous hiking trails within it, including the Sylvan Lake to Harney Peak Trail, which is one of the top 5 most heavily used Wilderness trails in the USFS Rocky Mountain Region (South Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, Colorado and Kansas); the majority of the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve; a portion of the Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway, which is a designated ‘National Scenic Byway’; a portion of the Wrinkled Rock Climbing Area which is in the top 10 most-heavily-used climbing areas in the National Park Service System; a portion of the Palmer Gulch KOA campground, which has the highest level of summer use of all KOA Campgrounds in the nation; and the project area is adjacent to portions of the Keystone to Hill City 1880 Historic (Burlington Northern) Railroad, known as the “1880 Train,” which provides a boost to the economy of the area by providing scenic train rides. Other State & Federal developed recreation facilities occur within or adjacent to the area

The area is noted for conifer stands in steep rocky terrain, few meadows, small stands of aspen and other hardwood trees. Forested areas are predominantly populated by ponderosa pine, but spruce is also present along streams and wet areas. Natural water features are limited to narrow, quiet, low-flow intermittent streams. Apparent human alterations in the form of recreation facilities and open roads that provide recreation access to the area, such as the Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway, have generally been accepted over time as positive cultural landscape character attributes.

This area is the largest non-motorized recreation area in the Black Hills National Forest. Closed roads where the road form (cut/fill template) is readily identifiable in the landscape and does not match the natural landform contours, appear ‘out of place’ as a human-made feature in this natural landscape. Recent vegetation management activities exposed some of these old road forms along South Dakota State Highway 244. Recent vegetation treatments have also opened up views of hardwood stands, large rock formations, and views further into the forest.

Mountain Pine Beetle activity has rapidly expanded in the Black Elk Wilderness. Effects are evident from roads, primarily in the western half of the planning area, including the Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway, trails, both inside and outside of the Wilderness, recreation sites, other federal and state lands, and private land.

The portion of the planning area west of Horsethief Lake has a predominantly natural appearance. In some locations, where fuels treatments have occurred, old roads on steep slopes are readily apparent in the immediate foreground of State Highway 244.

Scenic integrity is classified as low, moderate, high or very high. Within the project area, scenic integrity varies depending upon factors such as the importance of the views, the degree of variety within a landscape, and the portion of landscapes visible from travel ways and use areas. The project area has an overall scenic integrity which is higher than the remainder of the Forest.

Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) are management objectives for forest scenic resources.

218 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Within the Norbeck Wildlife Project Planning Area, approx. 51% has a Very High SIO (the Black Elk Wilderness); 31% has a High SIO; 15% a Moderate SIO; and 3% a Low SIO. Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 No Action In Alternative 1, existing conditions and natural processes of trees growing and regenerating would continue. The existing MPB outbreak is impacting scenery and is projected to continue for several years. Locations most affected by MPB caused mortality are areas with a Very High, High or Moderate SIO. Within 10 years most trees fall, creating openings in the forest. The vegetation pattern on the landscape will likely change from dense, closed canopy with few openings, to an open landscape with clumps of scattered trees. In the foreground and middle- ground, the color and texture of the fallen trees would dominate the landscape in the short term. In the background, the forms of these open areas would dominate the landscape. Long-term, as a new forest grows up through the fallen trees, and the fallen trees decay, these areas would blend into the landscape. This is a natural process, and would likely be widespread throughout the project area.

Common to All Action Alternatives Vegetation Treatments result in the removal of all sizes of trees within a stand. How well these treatments blend into the characteristic landscape and meet the Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) is based upon the slope, aspect, and vegetation remaining on the site. Thinning trees to an even spacing can result in a managed, un-natural appearance.

Impacts to the scenery resource would also occur from or be influenced by related actions such as roads, prescribed burning, slash treatment, logging systems, and landing locations. These elements can impact the overall scenery quality by changing the form, color and texture of landscapes as viewed from foreground, middle ground and background views.

Slash and stumps, would be evident throughout the treatment areas. Once all clean-up has occurred, areas that were piled and burned generally meet a Moderate to High SIO.

Lopping and Scattering of tops and limbs meets a Low SIO in the foreground of trails and roadways, and a Low to Moderate SIO in the middleground.

Whole-Tree Yarding results in large decks of tops and limbs. Approximately 2 years after treatment of these decks, the areas appear as open, grassy areas, and generally meet a Moderate to High SIO.

Skidding logs on or across steep slopes can remove vegetation and displace soil leaving trails that can be quite visible. This creates lines and/or unusual color contrasts in the landscape. These skid trails are often evident until clean-up activities are completed (slash treated & seeded areas germinated). On gently rolling terrain, disturbance is generally kept to a minimum; however, it is dependent upon the quantity of logs moved along the skid trails.

Log landings are locations where logs are piled and then loaded onto trucks and removed from the site. The size of landings and amount of disturbance (vegetation removed & soil displaced) would vary by location, depending upon the type of logging system employed (forwarder, etc.)

219 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

and the volume of logs brought to a landing. Once logging is completed, landing sites are cleared of debris and reseeded. The length of time before the site appears as a natural opening is generally 1 to 4 years, depending upon the level of disturbance, remaining debris (slash), and how quickly grasses take over the site.

Prescribed Burning outside of Wilderness - Sending fire across the landscape within a designated boundary, in a controlled manner (to keep the fire from getting into the tree tops) is beneficial to the Scenic resource. Dead plant material and slash is consumed, and hardwood, shrub and herbaceous plant growth is stimulated. This new growth normally increases visual diversity and fall color in the landscape. Once the area is burned, ash and blackened tree bark are clearly evident. Normally these burn marks are no longer visible once new grasses and other vegetation grow up the following spring. However, there is always the potential for the fire to flare up, due to unexpected wind or a microsite of drier material. This can create negative visual impacts. Generally this happens when specific resource goals require hotter temperatures to achieve specific desired results. Prescribed burning can meet a range from High to Low SIO, depending upon burn intensity. It is predicted that the proposed burning would meet a High SIO within 1-2 years.

Thinning and reducing the overall density of ponderosa pine vegetation can lead to an increase in the amount of grasses, forbs, shrubs, and hardwoods in the landscape. This often increases the variety of colors evident now and in the future. In addition, there is a potential for hardwoods to increase in thinned stands, creating a greater amount of fall color across the landscape.

Roads affect the scenery resource by creating a linear feature on the landscape. No new system road construction is proposed in any alternative. Temporary roads are proposed and could impact the scenery resource.

By implementing any of the Action alternatives before the Mountain Pine Beetle completes its projected cycle, the visually-desirable large trees (SS4A), though widely spaced, would likely be maintained over a larger area than under the No Action alternative. The vegetation treatments would enhance the large-tree component and encourage an increase in hardwoods, grasses and shrubs. Overall, the variety of vegetation would be affected positively from a scenery perspective.

Alternative 2 Effects of the Mountain Pine Beetle activity would be similar to that described in the no-action alternative; however, more acres of mature green trees are projected to remain following the MPB outbreak than in Alternative 1.

Proposed management activities would change the appearance of the forest. Views into the forest would increase due to the reduced densities of trees. Previously hidden rock formations in the immediate foreground, foreground, and middleground would be more evident. Private lands and hills (north of US Hwy. 16) would be evident from SD Highway 244 between Willow Creek Campground and Pine Creek Trailhead.

Hardwoods would be more evident across the landscape, providing a contrast in color throughout the year, particularly adjacent to meadows and in drainages. Rock formations would be readily apparent as well. The diversity of vegetation structure, created for wildlife, would be visible in all distance zones.

220 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

If Design Criteria is followed, short-term effects that would be evident in the landscape include displaced soil until vegetation is re-established in seeded areas such as obliterated temporary roads, skid trails, decking areas, and piling areas, fire-blackened tree boles and fire-blackened vegetation from prescribed burning, and open areas along the edges of hardwood stands where pine trees are removed.

Long-Term effects include openings in the forest where whole-tree yarding decks were placed, corridors through the vegetation where temporary roads and skid trails occurred, open vegetation texture and patterns. More color, from hardwoods, would be evident in the landscape.

The Management Area is a corridor, limited in width to the immediate foreground (300’) and only a short distance into the Foreground on each side of the road, for an average total width of 1000 feet. However, the corridor does expand to include the hill side on the west side of Horsethief Lake. Free Selection (FS) treatment would be used in all pine stands in the foreground of the Byway, except the two units noted below. As a result, groups of large trees would be scattered along the Byway, with groups of previously hidden hardwoods among them. Treatments would result in a variety of tree forms (sizes and heights), groups, foliage textures and color (hardwood leaves and pine needles) being more evident.

When design criteria is implemented as stated, SIO would be met, except in the following units:

Unit 061701-7 is a 16-acre unit proposed for clearcutting to increasing the size of the adjacent meadow. The treatment would dominate the view in the Immediate Foreground, and Foreground, view from SD Hwy. 244 for more than 1100 feet along the highway. This treatment would not meet the SIO Guideline of High for this location. Unit 061701-40 (10 acres – High SIO) - Clearcut Treatment directly below overlooks at the picnic area. Treatment will likely open views to vehicles passing below on the highway, as well as increase noise level from those vehicles. The motion of these vehicles will draw the viewer’s eye away from the panoramic view into the Wilderness. The treatment would not meet the SIO. Unit 061701-31 (26 acres - High SIO) and Unit 061701-30 (48 acres – ½ High and ½ Moderate SIO). Note: southern portion that adjoins Unit 061701-31 has a 10-acre strip of vegetation that effectively reduces the size of the Clearcut to 38 acres) - Clearcut Treatments, are next to a recreation facility and along a unauthorized trail (Boy Scouts of America Special Use Permit, as well as others). The openings are out of scale within this area and would dominate the view from each location. The treatment would not meet the SIO.

Summary The effects of vegetation management would be evident; however, the treatments would replicate textural patterns that borrow from natural patterns in other portions of the planning area and the surrounding area. Except where noted above, treatments should meet their assigned SIO and be consistent with the Black Hills National Forest LRMP for Scenic Integrity when design criteria are followed.

Alternative 3 The effects to scenery would be similar to those impacts discussed under Alternative 2, with the following differences:

221 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Unit 061701-7 would have a greater potential to meet the SIO and reduce potential negative visual effects adjacent to SD Highway 244. Deferring treatments in goshawk nest areas would help maintain some dense vegetation patterns in the landscape. However, these stands would continue to be susceptible to MPB impacts. The increase in hardwood and meadow enhancement treatments would increase the variety of vegetation pattern, color and texture across the overall landscape. The large trees kept around hardwood stands would provide strong focal points in contrast to the surrounding hardwoods. This change in the treatment (compared to Alternative 2) would result in higher scenic integrity being achieved. Hardwoods would be more evident across the landscape, providing a contrast in color throughout the year, particularly adjacent to meadows and in drainages. Rock formations would be readily apparent as well. The diversity of vegetation structure, created for wildlife, would be visible in all distance zones.

Prescribed Burning within Wilderness Alternative 3 proposes to prescribe burn approximately 5,291 acres within the Black Elk Wilderness. The BEW has a Very High SIO, as viewed from any part of the area. A Very High SIO landscape should be dominated by ecological changes. Ecological changes from insect activity have changed this landscape. Wildfire is also a part of this ecosystem and prescribed burning would mimic this activity. Due to the quantity of trees killed by insects, and the resulting down trees, there would be areas where prescribed or natural fire would burn very hot, possibly damaging soil structure which then allows pioneer species to re-colonize these sites. Visually there would be a matrix of open green grassy and shrub areas, areas with dead trees (standing and fallen), and isolated areas of surviving green trees. This aspect would follow natural patterns. In areas where very hot prescribed burning were used to reduce these fuels, without avoiding the remaining trees, visuals would likely differ from the natural ecological process. In the natural process, some trees would be expected to survive both insects and natural fire activity. As a result, these prescribed burning treatments may not meet the Very High SIO within the Black Elk Wilderness.

The Forest Plan requires that prescribed burning meet the assigned SIO:

Standard 4104: Visual effects of prescribed fire will comply with the approved scenic integrity objective of the area. Therefore, because the prescribed burning within the BEW may not meet the assigned SIO, this action would require a project specific Forest Plan Amendment.

The short-term effects are expected to be similar to those described in Alternative 2. In the BEW, few green trees would remain, fire-killed trees would be evident, large areas of down and snapped-off dead trees would be blackened by prescribed burning and soil would be exposed by prescribed burning.

Long-Term effects are expected to be similar to Alternative 2; however, more large-tree (SS 4A) characteristics should be evident over a larger area on the landscape than in Alternative 2. In the BEW, green trees would be evident as they grew up through decaying MPB-killed trees. ‘Open’ areas of grasses and shrubs would slowly have trees re-established in areas burned by prescribed fire. Rock formations would be blackened by prescribed fire. Red needles from recently-dead trees (killed by MPB or prescribed fire) would be limited. The predominant color in the landscape would be gray where it is dominated by (and the forest floor covered in) decaying

222 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 trees. In areas where prescribed fire took place, there should be a variety of colors as wildflowers, grasses and shrubs become established. Large areas of down and snapped-off MPB- killed trees would still be evident in the landscape.

Effects of vegetation management would be evident; however, the treatments would replicate textural patterns that borrow from natural patterns in other portions of the planning area and the surrounding area. Except where noted above, treatments should meet their assigned SIO and be consistent with the Black Hills National Forest LRMP for Scenic Integrity when design criteria are followed.

Alternative 4 The effects to scenery of implementing Alternative 4 similar to those described in Alternative 3, with the following exceptions:

Units 061701-31 (26 acres - High SIO) and 061701-30 (48 acres – ½ High and ½ Moderate SIO) – the prescription under this alternative (Variable Density 50 BA & POL) would have a greater potential to meet the SIO, and reduce potential negative visual effects adjacent to Breezy Point Picnic Area & a unauthorized trail. Prescribed Burning Within the Wilderness – This alternative would avoid prescribed burning in the BEW where residual live trees occur, as described in Chapter 2. This alternative would have the greatest potential to reduce fuel loading in the BEW while preserving the remaining live vegetation that would provide some textural diversity in the landscape. This change in design of the proposed prescribed burning would be consistent with Standard 4104. Log Hauling on the Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway – to complete activities in the Palmer portion of the planning area as quickly as possible, this alternative would allow log hauling in the western half of the planning area between Memorial Day & Labor Day (Guideline 4.2B-9102).

Summary Short-term effects would be similar to Alternative 3 except that in the BEW, islands of green trees would remain, fire-killed trees (red needles, etc.) would be less than Alternative 3, large areas of down and snapped-off MPB-killed trees would be blackened by prescribed burning, soil would be exposed by prescribed burning.

Long-Term effects would be similar to Alternative 3; however, more large-tree (SS 4A) characteristics would be evident in the landscape over a larger area than in Alternative 2 or 3. In the BEW, green trees would be evident as they grew up through decaying MPB-killed trees. ‘Open’ areas of grasses and shrubs would slowly have trees re-established in areas burned by prescribed fire. Rock formations would be blackened by prescribed fire. Red needles from recently-dead trees (killed by MPB or prescribed fire) would be limited. The predominant color in the landscape would be gray where it is dominated by (and the forest floor covered in) decaying trees. In areas where prescribed fire took place, there should be a variety of colors as wildflowers, grasses and shrubs become established. Large areas of down and snapped-off MPB- killed trees would still be evident in the landscape.

Effects of vegetation management would be evident; however, the treatments would replicate textural patterns that borrow from natural patterns in other portions of the planning area and the surrounding area. Except where noted above, treatments should meet their assigned SIO and be

223 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

consistent with the Black Hills National Forest LRMP for Scenic Integrity when design criteria are followed.

Cumulative Effects The project area is the cumulative effects boundary. This identified area is the landscape that is evident in the foreground and middle ground from the main travel routes (essentially all areas outside the BEW), with particular attention to recreation facilities and the BEW.

The time boundary for this analysis extends from 1980 (when the start of recent vegetation management activities took place) to 2043 [completion of management activities (2020), followed by 5 years for pine seedlings to become established, and approx. 25 years for trees to grow up and visually ‘fill’ open areas]. This time period includes known management activities, and activities that are planned but have yet to be accomplished. Past, present and future actions considered in this cumulative effects analysis are listed in Appendix F.

Fire suppression over the past century has played a role in the increased density of the vegetation on the forest. Likewise, much of the Forest was pre-commercially thinned by the Civilian Conservation Corp in the 1930’s and 1940s, however we do not know if that effort included any or all of this project area. The construction of the Needles Highway (SD 89) in 1919 and the Iron Mountain Road (US 16A) in 1933, and the designation of the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve, focused the public’s attention on this area for its scenic beauty. Construction of Mount Rushmore National Monument, Bismarck, Horsethief and Lakota dams, further established the area as a recreation destination, for its man-made and natural scenery. The designation of the Black Elk Wilderness (1980) changed the management of this area to follow ecological processes. From 1980 to 2000, commercial vegetation treatments were conducted on 266 acres, and precommercial thinning was conducted on 905 acres. The areas where these treatments occurred do not stand out, but blend in with the surrounding vegetation and most visitors would not be able to identify them.

Larger wildfires that occurred within the planning area and are readily apparent from highways and trails, respectively, are Galena and Lost Cabin. These two fires visually display the range of ecological processes from natural fires (during the heat of the summer when fuel moisture is low).

From 2000 to 2008, commercial vegetation treatments were conducted on 2857 acres, and precommercial thinning was conducted on 1130 acres. Where commercial treatments occurred along the Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway (Grizzly II Timber Sale), they were readily apparent and stood out until slash treatments were completed and landings were cleaned up. Areas where these treatments occurred no longer appear natural due to the lower tree densities and the relatively similar size and spacing of the residual trees. In approx. 5-15 years the establishment of new trees, shrubs and grasses in the understory will help these treated areas appear more natural.

Since the 1874 arrival of the Custer Expedition, this area has been recognized as a scenic wonderland. The purpose of constructing the Needles Highway (South Dakota Highway 87), Iron Mountain Road (US Highway. 16A), and South Dakota Highway 244 was to allow people to view the scenic wonders of this area. The construction of recreation facilities, including man- made lakes, campgrounds and trails, also marked this area as a recreation destination. The national designations of the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve (1920), Black Elk Wilderness (1980 & 2002), and Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway (1991) focused national attention upon the area’s natural scenic qualities. The area is also known for the rock spires that tower above the

224 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 surrounding pine forest. National Park Service officials at Mount Rushmore National Memorial (MRM) report that trail-use numbers indicate that the MRM is in the top ten most-heavily-used rock climbing areas in the National Park Service System. Currently, the State of South Dakota is studying the feasibility of a multi-use non-motorized trail extension from the Rails-To-Trails Mickelson Trail to MRM, which would cross portions of the project area. The high level of non- motorized trail and dispersed recreation use further indicates the importance of the scenic beauty across this area.

Prior to 2000, vegetation management was limited and all wildfires were suppressed as quickly as possible. The resulting landscape is covered in dense, tightly-growing vegetation. This dense forest limits views from highways and trails. Since 2000, fuel treatments removed the understory around recreation facilities, opening views into the surrounding forest. Small trees are lacking in these treatment areas; however, they generally appear natural to most people visiting the area.

Recent vegetation treatments under the Grizzly II & Needles II projects created open forest stands that allow views into the forest. Visually, those open stands appear managed with predominantly one size class of trees. To change this managed appearance would require time to allow the hardwood stands and small pine trees to grow up and partially fill the void. One of the biggest visual detractors from these treatments is the remaining slash (down trees, limbs, & tops) in quantities above natural levels in some locations. The slash is a dominant visual feature in the foreground along the Iron Mountain Road due to its color (red, then gray after ~2 years) and horizontal form. Other effects of logging such as disturbed soil from skidding would require another year to allow grasses to become established before those areas would blend into the landscape.

Other recent vegetation treatment along the Iron Mountain Road included the removal of non- commercial-sized trees to open views to rock formations, hardwood stands, and distant landscapes. This treatment reduced ladder fuels, resulting in increased potential to preserve the visually desirable large trees in this landscape in the event of a wildfire. The Forest has received positive public comments that these treatments have improved the scenic beauty along this highway. The evidence of management (slash piles, burned piles, disturbed soil) should no longer be evident within about 5 years.

Due to the surrounding communities and private land, wildfires have been rapidly extinguished, limiting the effect of fire in this fire-dependent ecosystem. As a result, the diversity of vegetation and stand structure is limited. Diversity, such as large tree character, hardwoods, spring and fall color, visibility of wildlife, and wildflowers contributes to scenic qualities of an area. Although vegetation removal treatments can create textural diversity, in some cases fire is needed in order to stimulate the vegetation variety (color and texture). With the continued suppression of wildfires, only management-ignited fires, under specific conditions, can stimulate these desired results. To date, these fires have been extremely limited, resulting in dense forest stands that suppress tree growth and development of desired large-tree characteristics. Dense stands of trees also choke out many plant species and contribute to the high levels of tree mortality from the Mountain Pine Beetle.

The effect of Mountain Pine Beetle activity (killing mature trees) is spreading in this project area and is readily apparent from roads and trails.

Wilderness principles are based upon natural processes being allowed to take their course, with limited human management. Limiting fires to less than 10 acres (Objective, LRMP II-42) within

225 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

the BEW in order to protect surrounding improvements and private lands changed the ecological patterns that provide the high scenic variety in this landscape. Large wildfires such as Jasper, Battle Creek and Grizzly Gulch, and widespread insect activity (Mountain Pine Beetle) are ecological responses that are re-introducing those patterns into the landscape in many areas of the Black Hills.

Reasonably foreseeable future projects include trail improvements in the Wrinkled Rock Climbing Area and other areas to improve existing trails, increase safety, reduce resource damage that may occur, survey for sensitive plants and ensure (thru education and enforcement) they are being protected. This will improve trail conditions so they have less impact and appear more natural in the landscape.

Alternative 1 No Action Wildland fire is an essential ecological process in this ecosystem, which increases plant and scenic diversity. Fires would continue to be extinguished as quickly as possible. This management would continue to try to limit the natural role of fire in the landscape. As a result, the forest would continue to grow densely, reducing visible open space. Views into the forest would become more limited as the trees grew more densely, reducing visual diversity, including wildflowers, shrubs, hardwoods, and open meadows. Where wildfires would burn into stands of densely-packed trees, smaller trees would act as “ladder fuels,” moving the fire up into the crowns of the trees, resulting in groups of fire-killed trees. If fires spread beyond initial containment, such as in drought or high-wind conditions, and spread into hillsides of densely packed trees, hillsides of fire-killed trees would be expected.

With a high level of Mountain Pine Beetle-killed trees, once the trees come down, they would provide a large quantity of ‘fuel’. If a large fire event occurred, the form of the land would dominate the view. Rock formations that this area is noted for would be more visible. During periods when the ground is snow covered, these areas would be highly visible. Positive vegetation elements that provide color, variety, and texture in the landscape, including large trees, would no longer be present. The scenic quality would be greatly reduced until vegetation patterns were re-established on the landscape.

In areas of no disturbance, the vegetation would grow into a thick, dense forest with competition for light, water, and nutrients. In some areas, the dense conifers would out-compete the hardwoods for these necessary components for plant growth. This dense vegetation provides the greatest potential for disturbance (fire or insect) that could greatly change the visual appearance of the vegetation across the landscape. Dense vegetation may also shade out shrubs, wildflowers and other low growing plants, reducing visual diversity.

Alternative 2 Under this alternative, trees from all size classes would be selected for harvest. The resulting appearance of vegetation treatments would change little for the first 10 years after the treatments were completed. Any treatments would result in fewer trees across the landscape, reducing the risk of mountain pine beetle infestation and reducing fire hazard. The reduction is similar, but varies by alternative, due to the remaining density (basal area) of the trees.

Effects of the insect activity (Mountain Pine Beetle) are currently highly evident due to red needles on the ponderosa pine. These effects will become less evident as the needles fall. As the trees decay and fall, openings would be created. These openings would change the character

226 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 from a uniform appearing landscape ‘carpeted’ with pine trees to a complex matrix of openings, decaying dead trees, residual pine trees, and expanding areas of hardwood trees.

The variety of treatments would produce a natural appearing forest, but one that has fewer trees than currently, as if fire had continued to play its natural roll all along. Due to the insect activity and fuel treatments adjacent to private land, the current view of the forest from these locations would likely change from their current condition. Views of these treatments would be limited from Sensitivity Level 1 or 2 roads outside the project area due to the topography surrounding the project area.

Alternative 3 Under this alternative, cumulative effects are similar to Alternative 2, with the differences as noted below.

This alternative would treat less area alongside SD Hwy 244 and US 16A. The addition of large trees remaining in and around hardwood stands would maintain a positive natural characteristic that would become more visually important with the thinning of the remaining forest stands. Within the Scenic Byway corridor, the cumulative effects would be similar to Alternative 2. Within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve, outside the Scenic Byway corridor, this alternative has the potential to appear more natural than Alternative 2.

Visually, changes in the short-term would continue to be highly visible and wide-ranging within the BEW due to the rapidly expanding Mountain Pine Beetle activity. Prescribed fire treatments within the BEW, under this alternative, would be readily apparent. They would mimic hot- burning, natural fire effects, with this exception: where treatments kill live trees that survived the Mountain Pine Beetle attacks, we would lose the remaining visual focal points in this landscape.

Alternative 3 would also modify the vegetation across the landscape. Management activities, with the exception of the BEW, will be less evident than Alternative 2. Treatments should meet a Moderate to High Scenic Integrity one year after being completed.

Alternative 4 Under this alternative, cumulative effects are similar to Alternative 3, with the differences as noted below.

Within the Scenic Byway corridor, the cumulative effects would be similar to Alternative 2. Within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve, this alternative has the potential to appear more natural than Alternative 2 or 3, due to a greater opportunity of large trees (depending upon insect activity) to be retained in the landscape.

Prescribed fire treatments within the BEW will also be readily apparent and mimic natural fire effects with this exception: treatments would be adjusted to preserve the surviving trees to maintain those visual focal points in this landscape.

Alternative 4 would also modify the vegetation across the landscape. Management activities, with the exception of the BEW, would be less evident than Alternative 2 or Alternative 3. Treatments should meet a Moderate to High Scenic Integrity one year after being completed, and, of the Action Alternatives, would likely have the greatest potential to appear natural.

227 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Recreation

Existing Conditions

Developed Recreation

Campgrounds There are four Forest Service campgrounds within the project area; Iron Creek, Willow Creek, Grizzly Creek and Horsethief Lake. Campground locations are shown on Map 3, Appendix A. All of these campgrounds are operated by a private company under a recreation concessionaire special use permit from mid-May to mid-September annually. The only campground open to the public after mid-September is Willow Creek. It is operated by the Forest Service for a reduced fee and reduced service until mid-October and then it is open free of charge until spring. Iron Creek and Willow Creek campgrounds have overnight horse facilities.

Iron Creek campground is located near the southern boundary of the project area on Iron Creek and has nine fee sites. The Willow Creek campground is located near the northwest boundary of the project area and has a well, vault toilets, and eight campsites. Campers at Iron Creek and Willow Creek trailer their horses to these sites, and day rides are more common than overnight stays. Willow Creek often has occupied campsites from October to May, primarily on weekends when there is no snow, even though no maintenance services are provided.

Grizzly Creek and Horsethief Lake campgrounds are both located in the northeast portion of the project area and are near Mount Rushmore National Memorial. These facilities are designed for semi-primitive family camping and both are closed during the winter months. Grizzly Creek campground is the most historically significant campground on the Forest, it was built by the Civilian Conservation Corps and features stone arch bridges and two stone/log buildings. Campers generally access the Horsethief trailhead from the campground, then proceed onto system trails.

Overall, the two horse campgrounds average a moderate to low occupancy rate from Memorial Day to Labor Day. Horsethief Lake campground runs 75% occupancy rate in the summer season (May 15th through September). These campgrounds are located in the middle of the busiest recreational area on the Forest.

Table 64. Developed Recreation: Campground Site Standards

PAOT Number of Percent Name/ Type Size in Acres ROS Capacity sites Occupancy Iron Creek 60 12 9 RN 25.8% Campground Willow Creek 125 25 8 R 41.5% Campground Grizzly Creek 100 20 15 RN 28.3% Campground Horsethief Lake 180 36 36 R 74.5% Campground ROS = Recreation Opportunity Spectrum, P = Primitive, RN = Roaded Natural, R = Rural, SPNM = Semi Primitive Non- Motorized, U = Urban, PAOT= Persons At One Time

228 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Day Use Areas There are six day use areas in the project area: Lakota Lake picnic ground, Breezy Point picnic ground, Iron Mountain Picnic Ground, Norbeck Overlook Observation Point, Grizzly Creek picnic ground and Horsethief Lake fishing site. All day use areas are operated for the same season as developed campgrounds by the recreation concessionaire. Lakota Lake picnic ground and Horsethief Lake are used primarily for fishing access and picnic opportunities and recreationists enjoy their lakeside atmosphere. Both receive high use year-round as they are also popular ice fishing areas. Grizzly Creek picnic ground and Iron Mountain are located in the eastern portion of Norbeck and are available for use from mid-May thru mid-September. Breezy Point is primarily a picnic site with a vault toilet and paved accessible walking trails to scenic overlooks. It is open and maintained year round and the scenic overlooks are visited often and have been used to hold wedding ceremonies. Norbeck Overlook experiences very high use during the summer season as an observation point viewing the eastern portion of the Norbeck, BEW, Harney Peak and also Mount Rushmore National Memorial. It is one of the most important stopping points for scenic tour bus groups in the Black Hills.

Wrinkled Rock Climbers Parking Area is a primary access to a popular international rock climbing site in the project area. It is located adjacent to the west entrance to Mt. Rushmore National Memorial along Highway 244. Local climbers refer to the area as the “Rushmore Climbing Area”. Climber information, parking, vault toilet and entrance trail to the climbing rocks themselves are located on this two acre primitive FS recreation site. Tent camping pads with no furnishings or fire rings are located near the parking lot where overnight, bivouac-style camping occurs. By regulation this is the only location on the National Forest along Highway 244 where dispersed camping with 300 feet of the road edge is allowed. The climbing rocks themselves are actually located on both National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service administered lands adjacent to the parking area. The Rushmore Climbing Area ranks as the fourth busiest National Park Service area for sport climbing in the United States. According to National Park Service self-registration stations the area averages two hundred climbers daily during the summer months and just as many per week for the months of September and October. Also, according to these records there are a substantial number of climbers who are from foreign countries. Rushmore Climbing Area is typically featured worldwide in climbing periodicals and guidebooks. The Wrinkled Rock Climbers Parking Area also lies along the main conduit for a myriad of user-defined hiking trails entering Mt. Rushmore National Memorial from the north and west directions. Most of these non-system hiking trails are located on old timber haul roads that are closed to motorized traffic.

Table 65. Developed Recreation: Day use Site Standards

PAOT Size in Number of Percent Name/ Type ROS Capacity Acres sites Capacity Lakota Lake Picnic Ground 30 6 6 55.1% RN Breezy Point Picnic 100 25 6 22.6% RN Ground Norbeck Overlook 150 4 0 96.9% RN Grizzly Creek Picnic 100 20 20 15% RN Ground Iron Mountain Picnic 60 12 12 30% RN Ground Horsethief Lake Fishing 60 3 20 85% R Site ROS = Recreation Opportunity Spectrum, P = Primitive, RN = Roaded Natural, R = Rural, SPNM = Semi Primitive Non- Motorized, U = Urban, PAOT= Persons At One Time

229 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Trailheads The following are Forest Service developed trailheads with registration stations within the project area: Palmer Creek trailhead, Willow Creek trailhead, Big Pine trailhead, Horsethief trailhead, Centennial B. trailhead, Iron Creek trailhead, Iron Mountain trailhead, Grizzly Creek trailhead, Centennial trailhead and Norbeck trailhead.

All trailheads except Palmer Creek and Iron Creek have Wilderness registration stations. This is a non-limiting mandatory registration system used to educate users and collect information about their activities in the Norbeck and Black Elk Wilderness. All trailheads provide parking, visitor information and a rules-and-regulations panel about restrictions on activities in Norbeck and the Black Elk Wilderness. In addition, each trailhead is signed with a post designating the allowed use for that trail such as foot travel and /or equestrian use.

Table 66. Developed Recreation: Trailhead Site Standards

Name/ Type PAOT Capacity Size in Acres Number of sites ROS Willow Creek Trailhead 40 2 0 RN Horsethief Lake 15 0.50 0 RN Trailhead Big Pine Trailhead 30 2 0 RN Palmer Creek Trailhead 30 2 0 RN Centennial B Trailhead 15 3 0 RN Iron Creek Trailhead 35 0.25 0 RN Iron Mountain Trailhead 10 0.25 0 RN Grizzly Creek Trailhead 20 0.25 0 RN Centennial Trailhead 25 0.25 0 RN Norbeck Trailhead 15 0.50 0 RN Big Pine Trailhead 30 2 0 RN ROS = Recreation Opportunity Spectrum, P = Primitive, RN = Roaded Natural, R = Rural, SPNM = Semi Primitive Non-Motorized, U = Urban, PAOT= Persons At One Time

Recreation Residences The Forest Service administers private cabins authorized as recreation residence special use permits. These recreation residence special use permits are authorized for successive twenty year periods. There are five Recreation Residence groups in the project area: Sunday Gulch, Lafferty Gulch, Grizzly Creek, Camp Remington and Iron Creek for a total of 38 leased Forest Service lots with private cabins located on them. These are rustic seasonal use recreation cabins and not permanent residences. There is no designated season of use but cabin owners are limited to 180 days of occupancy per year. All of these private cabins and their respective groups qualify as heritage resources and are managed under a myriad of special use permit clauses, inspections, fees, rules and regulations. There is no longer an opportunity for any new leases but nationally, the Forest Service continues to administer existing leases. See Table 67 for further information on effected recreation residences in the project area.

230 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Table 67. Developed Recreation: Residence Tracts

Group Name Average Lot Size (Acres) Cabin Permits Tract Size (Acres) Sunday Gulch 0.30 7 18 Lafferty Gulch 0.28 8 52 Grizzly Creek 0.28 9 46 Camp Remington 0.37 8 28 Iron Creek 0.43 6 20

Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway Driving the Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway for pleasure is the most popular dispersed recreation activity in the project area. Millions of visitors to Mount Rushmore National Monument drive the Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway as the main access. This 70-mile loop is the major travel corridor for this intensively-used recreation area. Most access to developed recreation sites and into the Black Elk Wilderness comes from the Byway.

The Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway is unique for its historically engineered design, rock tunnels, “pig-tail” bridges, views of rock outcroppings, large-diameter trees, and scenic vistas which are easily viewed due to low speed limits. The Byway was named one of the 10 best scenic drives in America by the American Automobile Association in 2007.

Dispersed Recreation Use and Trails

System Trails There are 12 designated trails within the Norbeck project area (see Table 68 for name and length of trails). Hiking and horseback riding are popular dispersed recreation activities within Norbeck. From Wilderness patrols and Wilderness registration forms, approximately 85% of the trail use in the Norbeck is day use. This system of trails connects with trails in Custer State Park and therefore eventually Wind Cave National Park and Mt. Rushmore National Memorial. The Centennial Trail and the Lost Cabin Trail are designated as National Recreation Trails which recognizes their unique values to provide the highest quality hiking experience. Backpacker magazine featured the Lost Cabin Trail as one of America’s ten best hikes in 2006. This system of trails is centered around Harney Peak which at 7,242 feet in elevation makes it the highest point in South Dakota and east of the Rockies in North America. Harney Peak is most famously known for its CCC era constructed stone fire lookout tower which is open to the public although no longer used as a fire lookout. Most visitors to the Black Hills recognize Harney Peak Lookout Tower as it is a most common photographed feature for South Dakota related magazines and brochures. Harney Peak is an important ceremonial and spiritual site to numerous Native American tribes.

231 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 68. Trails in the Norbeck Wildlife Project Area

Trail Number National Recreation Trails Names Trail Length in Miles 2 Lost Cabin 5.0 3 Norbeck 6.3 5 Willow Creek Rushmore 1.9 7 Grizzly Creek 6.3 8 Willow Creek 2.8 9North Harney Peak 4.7 9South Harney Peak 3.8 14 Horsethief Lake 2.7 15 Iron Creek 2.4 16 Iron Mountain 1.4 89 Centennial 8.9 89.B Centennial Bypass 1.7

Hunting and Fishing

Hunting and fishing are also popular dispersed recreation activities. Trout fishermen are frequently observed at Iron Creek, Palmer Creek, Grizzly Creek, Horsethief Lake and Lakota Lake. The eastern part of Iron Creek in the project area is especially popular with fly-fishermen. The Norbeck area is popular with big game and turkey hunters during the spring and fall. They occasionally stay overnight at one of the developed Forest Service campgrounds. The abundance of system trails and access from system roads in the area provides mostly a non-motorized hunting opportunity. Norbeck is classified as semi-primitive non-motorized, therefore OHV use is limited to the main system roads and overall use is very low.

In general, the Norbeck area is heavily used by non-motorized recreationists even though the Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway encompasses the project area. This area is a popular destination for horseback riding. Resource damage in the form of trail cupping from equine use does occur, but not to a large extent. Education of these users about resource damage is a high priority. International and domestic visitors often make use of trail rides provided by outfitter/guides. Much effort and investment has been made in the last five years to “harden” outfitter/guide trails with the heaviest use. Stream crossings have been reconstructed, water bars and steps have been installed, and gravel has been applied to trails.

Recreation Special Uses Camp Remington Organizational Camp is authorized under special use permit located on approximately 1.6 acres of National Forest in the southeast portion of the project area along Iron Creek. It consists of three rustic seasonal cabins, vault toilets, garage and chapel. The camp does not have potable water, electricity, telephone nor sewer services. The permit holder rents the facilities to families, small groups and clergy during the summer months for outdoor retreats. This camp is a historic resource partly because it was the first church camp ever built in the State of South Dakota.

There are three outfitter and guides authorized within Norbeck Wildlife Preserve and the Black Elk Wilderness.

1. Recreation Adventures Company: guided horseback rides in the Black Elk Wilderness, between May 1st and October 1st using roads and trails (Willow Creek

232 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Trail #8, portions of Lost Cabin Trail #2, Harney Peak Trail #9 North and Harney Tower #9 Spur) located in T2S, R5E, Sections 4,9,10, and 21. 2. Rushmore Resort and Campground Incorporated: guided horseback rides between May 1st and November 1st using roads and trails (Iron Creek #15, Iron Mountain Trail #16, Centennial Trail #89, Centennial Trail # 89B, Grizzly Creek Trail #7, Norbeck Trail #3, and Harney Peak Trail #9 South from Trail #3 junction to Harney Peak) within and outside of the Black Elk Wilderness, located in T2S, R5E, and Sections 21-28, 33-36 and T2S, R6E, Sections 19-34. 3. Gunsel Horse Adventures: guided horseback rides and summer pack trips from Wind Cave National Park to Deadwood, SD on the Centennial Trail #89 from May to September. The Boy Scout of America makes an annual pilgrimage hike in the area. This annual event has occurred for more than 70 consecutive years on the second weekend of every September and involves five separate groups totaling approximately 400 scouts hiking to various overnight campgrounds. Permitted trails in the project area include Willow-Rushmore Trail 5, portions of Centennial 89, user defined trails around Wrinkled Rock climbing area and Lakota Lake, Willow Creek Trail 2 and Iron Creek Trail 15. Permitted camping sites in the project area are Willow Creek Campground and Lakota Lake Picnic Ground.

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Introduction The action Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 of the Norbeck Wildlife Project would temporarily impact recreation resources as a result of managing vegetation to benefit game animals and birds. In Alternative 2, none of the treatments would occur within the Black Elk Wilderness, but will impact trails and developed recreation sites in the project area. In Alternatives 3 and 4, prescribed burning within the Wilderness is being proposed and will impact the Wilderness and developed recreation and trail in the project area.

To access treatment areas, currently-closed National Forest System roads and unauthorized road beds would be temporarily re-opened, and some new temporary roads would be constructed. None of these roads would be open to the public for motorized use during vegetation treatment activities. All of these roads would be closed once the habitat improvements were completed. No roads would be re-opened or created within the Black Elk Wilderness. No changes in Travel management or public access within Norbeck Wildlife Preserve are proposed in this project.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would use sections of trails as reconstructed temporary roads to haul timber out of treatment areas. Sections of system trails,Lost Cabin Trail 2, Willow-Rushmore Trail 5, Willow Creek Trail 2, Harney Peak Trail 9 North, and Centennial Trail 89 would be used as a temporary road and returned to trail standard when habitat improvements are completed. Sections of system trail #15, Iron Creek Trail, would be temporarily converted to a system road to facilitate hauling. Once activities were completed, Iron Creek, Trail #15 would be converted back to a system trail.

The following table lists trails and how many miles of each trail could be used as a possible temporary road.

233 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 69. Trail Use Trail NAME Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Miles Number Lost Cabin 2 Possible temp road Possible temp road Possible temp road 0.36 Trail Willow 5 Creek Possible temp road Possible temp road Possible temp road 0.64 Rushmore Willow 8 Possible temp road Possible temp road Possible temp road 0.76 Creek Trail Harney 9N Possible temp road Possible temp road Possible temp road 1.35 Peak Iron Creek Construct/Convert Construct/Convert Construct/Convert 15 1.0 Trail 15 to system road to system road to system road Centennial 89 Possible temp road Possible temp road Possible temp road 1.31 Trail Total> 5.42

Alternative 1: (No Action) If Alternative 1 (no action) were implemented, this alternative would have the following effects on the recreation resource for the following reasons:

Developed Recreation Generally, the effects for Alternative 1 are visual due to the known mountain pine beetle infestation in this project area. This area is experiencing extensive overstory mortality of ponderosa pine. Red (dead) trees are currently visible. These will eventually lose needles and would likely fall to the ground. This would increase the amount of downed timber, which would increase the maintenance needed within developed recreation sites, and may cause temporary closures of developed campgrounds during tree removal. Noise and dust that is prevalent during tree removal would have a short-term effect on the visitors of the specific developed recreation site. The high tree mortality and large number of downed trees would affect fuel conditions within the Norbeck project area. The risk of possible wildfire would likely be increased within the developed recreation sites.

Trails Effects of Alternative 1 on trails would be an increased amount of maintenance required to remove trees along and across system trails in the short term (3-5 years). It is projected that this area would experience extensive overstory mortality. This could make it more difficult to meet the planned trail maintenance schedule for the area. Trails could be physically closed for a short period of time, generally a week or less, for maintenance and tree clearing. It is more probable that a trail could be closed for a longer period of time if there is a high incidence of dead timber across trails as a result of trees falling over in a major wind event. With trail crews spending extra time removing downed trees, less maintenance, such as erosion control and trail tread repair, may be done due to reduced accessibility.

Recreation Special Uses: Outfitter/Guides: The Black Hills National Forest has three permitted outfitter and guides that hold special use permits to use Norbeck and/or the Black Elk Wilderness for guided horseback trail rides. With the implementation of the No Action alternative, the future of recreation special uses would be similar to the trail systems. The more mountain pine beetle mortality, the more

234 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 trees could fall across trails. These permitees use the trails in Norbeck and the Wilderness to offer a service to visitors of the Black Hills National Forest.

Recreation Residences: There are five recreation residence tracts under special use permit with a total of 38 private cabins and one organizational camp. Some of the special use permittees would notice the impact of a No Action alternative. The beetle-caused tree mortality would possibly affect their permitted property.

Common to All Action Alternatives

Developed Recreation Timber harvest operations may increase noise, dust, and traffic from the logging operation and smoke from prescribed burning from August 1st to May 1st. This effect would be considered short-term. Iron Creek trailhead, Palmer trailhead, Big Pine trailhead, Lakota Lake picnic ground, Willow creek trailhead and campground and Wrinkled Rock climbing area would be closed temporarily during harvest operations. The harvest operations would be prohibited from May 15 to September 15 annually, in most areas, which would reduce the impact on the developed recreation sites. All developed recreation site features would be protected.

There would be changes to the landscape during the life of the project. Effects would come from the mountain pine beetle outbreak as well as the timber harvest activities, changing the appearance of the landscape. Proposed post-harvest activities should be implemented in a timely manner to reduce the potential for user-defined trails and to return the area to a more natural appearing condition for visitors.

Trails Proposed activities would directly impact the existing trail system. All alternatives propose to convert part of Iron Creek Trail #15 to a system road for timber hauling, and would use other trails for haul routes. The proposed post-harvest activities include re-contouring and converting these back to trails. Converting back to a trail would take time to re-vegetate, repair drainage structures removed or destroyed, and control soil erosion that occurred related to hauling. Although these effects are only temporary, this could detract from the recreational value of the trails. Trails and trailheads used in the harvest operation for temporary roads, skid trails or landing areas would cause visual and structural effects from the heavy use of log trucks and skidders. These areas would need to be closed and brought back to a trail standard during proposed post-harvest operations.

Centennial Trail # 89 and Lost Cabin Trail #2 are both part of the National Scenic Trails program. This national recognition is reserved for an elite class of trails. The Centennial Trail begins at State Park and ends at Wind Cave National Park. With the predicted trail and trailhead closures, this would mean that there would be no alternative route to complete the Centennial Trail hike. Willow Creek Trailhead serves as the primary north entrance to connect trails to Mt. Rushmore National Monument via Willow Creek Trail #8, Willow-Rushmore Trail # 5 and Centennial Trail #89. It also is the main trailhead to connect Willow Creek Trail #8 to Harney North Trail #9, which leads to Harney Peak. Trail counter data estimates that 6,000 trail users, primarily horse riders, use these trail heads from Memorial Day to Labor Day, and 2,000 hikers use the trail outside of these dates. Harvest activities would affect some winter hikers.

235 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prescribed burning in the Norbeck area would cause adverse effect to trail users. Closing of trailheads, increased noise and dust from harvest operations, and smoke from prescribed burning would cause temporary adverse effects to use of the trail system.

Recreation Special Uses The Norbeck planning area and the Black Elk Wilderness have three permitted outfitter and guide special use permits. These permits allow guided horseback trail rides. Direct effects to these outfitters are similar to the direct effects to the Trail System. Routes these guides use may be temporarily closed due to downed trees from the mountain pine beetle outbreak. All affected trail sections would be open to the outfitters season of operation from mid-May through mid- September.

The activities proposed in the action alternatives would not occur on designated recreation residence lots. Prescribed burning would occur adjacent to some recreation residence lots, and noise and dust, logging traffic and smoke from prescribed burns or burning of slash piles would occur, but only during implementation of the activity. Evidence of mechanical treatments, such as skid trails, slash piles, temporary haul roads and landings would be visible from some lots; however, these impacts would decrease over time as disturbed ground is revegetated and slash piles are burned and revegetated. Design criteria would include protection of all improvements associated with recreation residences.

The proposal to perform deferred maintenance on Forest Service Road 345 bridges in order to haul timber will of a benefit to recreation residence permit holders in Iron Creek and Camp Remington Recreation Residence Tracts as this road is the only access to these recreation residences. There would be increased harvest equipment and vehicles on Forest Road 345 which is also the access route to Iron Creek and Camp Remington Recreation Residence Tracts. Design criteria include restricting logging truck traffic on this road from May 15 to September 15 annually as well as 15 MPH speed limits, use of dust palliatives as needed and safety signing.

Alternative 2 Proposed Action Alternative 2 is designed to manage vegetation to benefit game animals and birds identified by the Norbeck focus species list. There are mechanical treatments proposed on approximately 4,935 acres and prescribed burning proposed on approximately 2,158 acres. No treatment would occur within the Black Elk Wilderness. The effects described under common to all alternatives, fully describe the impacts of Alternative 2 to the recreation resource.

Alternative 3 The main difference to the recreation resource would be the impacts from proposed prescribed burning within the Black Elk Wilderness. This burning would occur around the perimeter of the Wilderness in order to reduce the likelihood of a fire escaping the Wilderness. This would protect values outside of the Wilderness. The impacts of noise, visual changes and smoke would be evident to the recreation user. These impacts would be short term and would dissipate over time.

Alternative 4 This alternative was developed to respond to internal concern regarding effects of the Mountain Pine Beetle on wildlife habitats.

Alternative 4 would have similar impacts to recreation as described in the other alternatives. It would include: prescribed burning in the Black Elk Wilderness around the perimeter to protect

236 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 values outside of the Wilderness; additional protection of large trees; no treatment in Goshawk nest areas; additional acres of mechanical treatments.

Timber harvest operations may increase noise, dust, and traffic from the logging operation and smoke from prescribed burning from August 1st to May 1st as described in common to all alternatives. However, Alternative 4 would also allow for year round operations to occur in the Palmer Gulch area. This effect would be considered short-term. Iron Creek trailhead, Palmer trailhead, Big Pine trailhead, Lakota Lake picnic ground, Willow creek trailhead and campground and Wrinkled Rock climbing area would be closed temporarily during harvest operations. The harvest operations would be prohibited from mid-May until mid-September in areas all developed recreation sites, which would reduce the impact on the developed recreation sites.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative impact area for this analysis is the Norbeck Wildlife Project area. The time boundary for the cumulative effects analysis is estimated from 2000 to 2020. Needles II and Grizzly II timber sales occurred during this period and increased system roads. The project is expected to be completed in 2020. Past, present and future activities within the Norbeck Project Area boundary include timber thinning and other harvest, grazing, temporary road construction, road maintenance, noxious weed control, wildlife habitat improvement projects and dispersed recreation use on both public and private lands. A list documenting known past, present and foreseeable future activities for this area is included in Appendix F

Any past, present or foreseeable future activity that causes soil disturbance has the potential to cause erosion control problems for the trail system, which could cause short-term cumulative effects. Erosion causes trail maintenance to increase. Use of system trails as temporary roads for hauling or skidding timber would negatively impact use of those system trails due to the length of time necessary to reconstruct them back to a system trail. Temporary roads and skid trails may encourage the public to use unauthorized areas for various recreational activities.

Although the project would take several years to complete, there would be no adverse long-term cumulative effects to the recreation resource as a result of implementing any of the alternatives, including no action. Range, Noxious Weeds and Botany

Existing Condition

Introduction The Norbeck Wildlife Project is located within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve which was established by Congress as the Custer State Park Game Sanctuary in 1920 “for the protection of game animals and birds, and be recognized as a breeding place therefore.” The name Custer State Park Game Sanctuary was later changed to Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. The project area lies approximately four miles northeast of Custer, South Dakota and includes the Black Elk Wilderness Area, and the Upper Pine Creek Research Natural Area. The gross acreage of the project area is 33,553 with 26,727 of those acres administered by the Forest Service.

Much of the Norbeck Wildlife Project is covered with ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) forest, with white spruce (Picea glauca), aspen (Populus tremuloides), and paper birch (Betula

237 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

papyrifera) locally abundant. However, the analysis area also includes some of the most mesic vegetation types found in the Black Hills. Community types present include Beaked Willow (Salix bebbiana) Scrub, Black Hills Streamside Vegetation, Black Hills Granite/Metamorphic Rock Outcrop, Ponderosa pine/Bearberry (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Woodland, Ponderosa Pine/Rough-leaf Ricegrass (Oryzopsis asperifolia) Woodland, Ponderosa Pine/Common Juniper (Juniperus communis) Woodland, and White Spruce/Twinflower (Linnaea borealis) Forest (Marriott and Faber-Langendoen 2000). The Black Elk Wilderness is one of eight sites identified as exemplary in the Black Hills Community Inventory (Marriott et al. 1999). Exemplary sites are those that have outstanding size, landscape context, a diverse or unusual set of community types present and high quality occurrence ranks for those types.

Range Range condition, trend and inventory for the analysis area were measured on the various allotments in 1984, 1986, 1989, 1990 and 2008.

The Norbeck Wildlife Project includes portions of the North Custer and Palmer Gulch grazing allotments and the entire Spokane grazing allotment (see Figure 16). The Spokane allotment has been designated as unsuitable for livestock grazing (Forest Plan Standard 5.4A-2504). This allotment has not had authorized livestock grazing since 1991. The North Custer allotment has recently had improvements constructed that limit cattle access to the portion of that allotment which is within the Norbeck Wildlife Project boundary. Therefore, the only part of the project area that has livestock grazing authorized on it is a small portion of the Palmer Gulch allotment.

There are currently a total of four grazing permits, (1 private land permit, and 3 term permits) within the analysis area. Table 70 that follows shows historical grazing use by allotment.

Figure 16. Grazing Allotments in the project area

238 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Table 70. Historical Grazing Use by Allotment

Historical Grazing Use by Allotment in the Norbeck Project Area The earliest available records of the management on the North Custer allotment are from the 1950’s. At that time the allotment incorporated lands to the north and west between highways 385 and 89. In 1969 an Allotment Management Plan was approved for the allotment providing for a deferred rotation system on three separate North Custer grazing areas. By 1986 range analysis indicated that 52 percent of the accessible Grazing Allotment primary range was in unsatisfactory condition with a downward trend. By 1997 the permitted numbers were reduced by 32 percent and plans were made to construct improvements which would reduce livestock numbers in the Norbeck portion of the allotment by 60% The Spokane allotment has a history of heavy use. Until 1947, milk cows and ranch horses were allowed under free use permits. The use from 1947 until 1991 was primarily from cattle. From 1940 to 1965 average use was 930 AUMs. By 1986 the Spokane Grazing average use was reduced to 387 AUMs. Use was season long although a 1965 plan Allotment called for a rest rotation system. In 1985 it was determined that 35% of the suitable range was in a downward trend. In 1986 a rest rotation system was again proposed which continued until 1991. 1991 was the last year the allotment was grazed by authorized livestock. Permitted livestock use reached a high on the Palmer Gulch allotment in 1944, that year 428 head of cattle and horses were permitted. Since 1944 the number of animals permitted to graze the allotment has been steadily reduced. Historically Palmer Gulch grazing use was season-long, in 1988 2 six-unit rest rotation systems were Grazing Allotment proposed. Those grazing systems have since become a 4-unit rest rotation system, and a 7-unit deferred rotation system grazed by 74 cow/calf pairs and 67 cow/calf pairs respectively.

Noxious Weeds An inventory of the noxious weeds within the Black Elk Wilderness was conducted in 2005. The remaining portions of Norbeck were surveyed in 2006 and 2007. In addition, noxious weeds located near sensitive plant occurrences are noted during yearly monitoring.

As with the rest of the Black Hills, noxious weeds generally occur near wet areas and along streams within the Norbeck Wildlife Project. Most of the noxious weed species found on the Hell Canyon Ranger District are present within the analysis area, including the following:

· Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) · Hound’s tongue (Cynoglossum officinale) · Musk thistle (Carduus nutans) · Common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare) · Common mullein (Verbascum thapsus) · Yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris) · Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) · Spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) · St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum) · Noxious weeds were recently treated in the area using the chemicals 2, 4-D and Milestone. Milestone is a fairly new chemical and is considered to be “light on the land”. It has a short half- life and is safe to use under broad-leafed trees and next to streams. Application within the Black Elk Wilderness was by horseback, while ATV’s were used where appropriate throughout the rest

239 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

of the analysis area. The district weed specialist would like to continue to treat the area, however, at the current time there is not any funding identified for weed treatment within the Black Elk Wilderness.

Botany/Rare Plants Botanical surveys were conducted on portions of the analysis area in 1993, 1995, 1996, 2003 and 2006. Hillshade, a GIS model which estimates high probability sensitive plant habitat based on the amount of shade, and therefore moisture, was used to determine survey areas within the analysis area. The mesic/wet drainage bottoms, large rock outcrops dissected by vegetated gullies, and northerly slopes at high elevation or in narrow drainages within the analysis area have high species diversity along with highly probable habitat for rare plant species. The upland ponderosa pine sites provide habitat for fewer plant species, but cover a much larger area. During surveys, information was collected related to plant communities to assess sensitive species habitat and to identify locations of target plant species (i.e. - sensitive species, state-listed species and Black Hills plant species of local concern). Additional field checking was done in 2008 and 2009, to ensure the survey findings reflected the current plant lists. Many areas within the project area have known occurrences of rare plants and are monitored yearly for Forest Plan monitoring.

In 2001, a floristic inventory of the Black Elk Wilderness was conducted. Survey routes for the inventory were chosen intuitively to sample across the study area in all types of habitat. Areas known to have higher plant diversity, including drainage bottoms, north-facing slopes and rock outcrops, were given more emphasis. Unique areas (considered to be unusual habitat or have high plant diversity) were visited several times during the field season.

Most rare plants in the Black Hills are northern or montane species that are widely disjunct from their main ranges in the boreal zone to the north and the Rocky Mountains to the west. These plants find suitable habitat in cool moist sites, which are abundant in the project area. The Black Elk Wilderness, which is entirely within Norbeck, is considered to be one of two areas in the Black Hills with large concentrations of rare plant species (Marriott 2001). Rare plants known to occur include the R2 sensitive species large round-leaf orchid (Platanthera orbiculata) and great-spurred violet (Viola selkirkii); and the following Black Hills species of local concern: southwestern showy sedge (Carex bella), mountain sorrel (Oxyria digyna), and arrowleaf sweet coltsfoot (Petasites sagittatus). There are also numerous state-listed species (tracked by the state of South Dakota) in the analysis area.

R2 sensitive species that have not been found in the project area, yet may have suitable habitat in the area include: Iowa grapefern (Botrychium campestre), narrowleaf grapefern (Botrychium lineare), yellow lady’s slipper (Cypripedium parviflorum), trailing clubmoss (Lycopodium complanatum), sphagnum (Sphagnum angustifloium) and highbush cranberry (Viburnum opulus var. americanum). Black Hills species of local concern that may have suitable habitat in the area but have not been found in the project area include: pleated gentian (Gentiana affinis), broadlipped twayblade (Listera convallarioides), stiff clubmoss (Lycopodium annotinum), and shining willow (Salix lucida spp. caudata). Region 2 sensitive species and Black Hills plant species of local concern that have habitat preferences other than those found in the project area are not included in this analysis. Appendix C describes known habitat preferences for all Black Hills species of local concern and R2 sensitive species known to occur on the Black Hills National Forest.

Leathery grapefern (Botrychium multifidum) was recently removed from the R2 sensitive species list and will be added to the Black Hills species of local concern list. In this analysis it will be

240 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 treated as a Black Hills species of local concern species. There are known occurrences of this species in the project area.

Due to the complex system of plant habitat within the analysis area, new botanical discoveries will likely continue to be made.

Environmental Consequences

Range and Weeds Impacts to the range resource are mainly centered on changes in forage amount and quality resulting from timber removal and the introduction and spread of noxious weed species. The total amount of herbaceous and shrub production in the area varies as a result of the basal area and overstory density after timber and fuels management treatments are applied. Management activities that reduce the tree density of the forested stand would increase the amount of available forage. When there is an increase in forage in an area, there may be a reduction of impacts from grazing in other areas as grazing pressure is reduced on those areas. However, the disturbance created by timber removal creates a seedbed for noxious weeds that has the potential to out-compete native vegetation.

Botany/Rare Plants Impacts to the sensitive plant species/plant species of local concern may be direct impacts, i.e. trampling, exposure to grazing, mechanical damage, etc., or the impacts may be more indirect such as a change in the microclimate, which may result in a loss of habitat.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Range No changes are proposed for the number of animal months (AMs) or permitted livestock use in any alternative. Grazing is expected to continue as authorized, which is on about 8% of the USFS acres in the project area (Palmer Gulch allotment only).

All of the action alternatives propose prescribed burning within the active grazing allotment in the project area. Forest Plan Guideline 1407 calls for deferment of livestock grazing from burned areas for a portion or all of the following growing season to ensure regrowth of forage species. Meeting this guideline would require yearly coordination between the fuels planner and the grazing permit administrator to ensure grazing rotations occur in a manner to meet both grazing and fuels reduction objectives.

The action alternatives are all expected to help reduce the risk of large-scale wildfire. Reducing the risk of wildfire would help protect structural range improvements.

Noxious Weeds Any kind of major soil disturbance (such as timber removal, road construction, and large-scale wildfires) increases the likelihood of exotic plants being introduced, and the scale of current noxious weed infestations. The action alternatives are all expected to help reduce the risk of large-scale wildfire. Conversely they all propose soil disturbance which increases the risk of noxious weed infestation.

241 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Botany/Rare Plants All three action alternatives propose spruce enhancement treatment in the Sunday Gulch area. This is a known great-spurred violet (R2 sensitive species) site. Design criteria have been developed for this area that includes a 100-foot “no equipment” buffer along the stream. This does not preclude felling of small diameter pine that may be hinged to provide shade and protection for the sensitive plants. No trees greater than 16” DBH would be cut within the 100’ stream buffer. Reducing the ponderosa pine around the spruce site would enhance the sensitive species habitat while reducing the risk of stand-replacing wildfire. The district botanist would coordinate with the timber sale administrator to ensure the sensitive species habitat (and individual plants) would be protected during the spruce enhancement treatment.

There are stand diversity treatments proposed in all action alternatives for an area that has been identified as a “habitat of interest” meaning it has unique qualities that makes it excellent habitat for many rare plant species. This area may be habitat for the R2 sensitive species, sphagnum. This wet area would be identified on the treatment maps as a sensitive area to be avoided. In addition, application of the watershed design criteria “All applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) and R2 Watershed Conservation Practices (WCPs) would be implemented” would offer additional protection to the area.

There are two seeps identified in areas proposed for hardwood restoration in all action alternatives. These areas may be possible fens/wetlands and therefore habitat for the R2 sensitive species sphagnum. As with the “habitat of interest” these are unique wet areas that would be protected with the above-mentioned watershed design criteria and by being identified as sensitive areas on the treatment maps.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action -

Range Generally, on the Hell Canyon Ranger District, the no action alternative would eventually result in a decrease of grassland communities in the area as forested stands become denser and ponderosa pine continues to encroach upon meadow areas. However, there is a known mountain pine beetle infestation in this project area. It’s projected (see Silviculture Report) that in this area, many of the densely stocked areas of ponderosa pine (structural stages 3B, 3C, 4B, 4C and 5) would experience extensive overstory mortality converting these sites to either structural stage 2 or 1. This has the potential of increasing the amount of forage produced, yet it would likely be inaccessible to livestock due to large amounts of downed timber. Despite the mountain pine beetle-caused mortality, meadow sites in the project area would continue to experience encroachment from ponderosa pine. The ponderosa pine encroaching on the meadows is either not large enough or dense enough to experience heavy mountain pine beetle-caused mortality (see Silviculture Report). This would make it more difficult to meet the Forest Plan guideline 25059 with the current grazing permits. Having less area available to grazing animals would increase the grazing pressure on some areas, resulting in a possible decrease in the condition of those rangelands. A decrease in condition of the rangelands diminishes the amount and quality of forage available.

9 Forest Plan guideline 2505 states that livestock and wild herbivore allowable forage use ranges from 40 to 60%, depending on the grazing system and range condition.

242 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Noxious weeds Noxious weed populations would be limited to current infestations unless disturbance occurs from natural events such as large-scale fire. The extensive mountain pine beetle-caused mortality projected would result in a fuel-load that could lead to a large-scale fire. Noxious weed infestations are known to increase after large fire events.

Roads are a known major conduit for noxious weeds. Under the no action alternative closed roads in the project area would remain closed and no new construction would occur. By maintaining the current non-use of roads in the project area, noxious weed infestations would be less likely to increase.

Botany/Rare Plants Rare plant habitat in the project area can be generalized as moist forested sites (hardwood stands and white spruce stands), riparian areas, high-elevation granite outcrops, and possible fens/wetlands.

Hardwood stands in the project area are expected to benefit from the projected mountain pine beetle-caused mortality (see Silviculture Report), as competition for sunlight and nutrients becomes reduced. However, the smaller-diameter ponderosa pine within the hardwood stands would mature and eventually shade out the hardwoods. The loss of these hardwood stands could alter the micro-climate in the area and result in a loss of rare plant habitat. In addition, the potential for large-scale fire would increase with mountain pine beetle-caused mortality of the ponderosa pine. These large-scale fires have the potential of being stand-replacing events in the hardwood communities, which could have a detrimental impact on the preferred habitat of rare plants.

While it is projected that the white spruce stands in the project area would increase with mountain pine beetle-caused mortality (see Silviculture Report), it is known (Allen 2009) that the mountain pine beetles are also killing large spruce trees in the project area. Although there are smaller spruce trees in these stands that would likely escape the mountain pine beetles, the large trees provide the shade required by rare plants. The loss of these trees could alter the micro-climate in the area and result in a loss of rare plant habitat. In addition, the potential for large-scale fire would increase with mountain pine beetle-caused mortality in the surrounding ponderosa pine. These large-scale fires have the potential of being stand-replacing events in the white spruce communities, which may have a detrimental impact on the preferred habitat of rare plants.

Riparian areas are also known rare plant habitat. With the projected mountain pine beetle caused- mortality, the riparian areas are expected to benefit (see Silviculture Report) with the removal of the overstory. However, as discussed above, the loss of large, shade-providing trees may alter the micro-climate of the area and result in loss of habitat for rare plants.

Alternative 2 Alternative 2 (the proposed action) is designed to manage vegetation to benefit the game animals and birds identified by the Norbeck focus species list (Griebel et al. 2007). There are mechanical treatments proposed on approximately 4,935 acres and prescribed burning proposed on approximately 2,158 acres. No treatments would occur within the Black Elk Wilderness.

The following anticipated effects are in addition to those identified above as common to all action alternatives.

243 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Range If implemented, Alternative 2 would increase the amount of available forage by decreasing the ponderosa pine density. Increasing the amount of forage available would reduce the pressure on primary range, which would aid in maintaining or improving the desired condition. There may be some short-term loss of grazing access during timber removal, thinning activities and/or prescribed burning, but in the long-term, grazing distribution would improve as more areas became accessible.

Alternative 2 would help restore the grassland communities with meadow enhancement treatments to remove encroaching ponderosa pine on 276 acres (includes both mechanical treatment and prescribed burning).

Noxious weeds Under Alternative 2, 4,935 acres have the potential for being disturbed as trees are dropped and skidded to landing decks and understory fuels are treated. Thus skid trails, landings, burn piles and areas where machinery is working would create a seedbed for noxious weeds. Past experience indicates that populations of plants with pappiferous fruit, such as Canada thistle, have the potential to spread 30 percent a year with disturbance. The amount of disturbance is dependent on the type of equipment used and the time of year the disturbance occurs.

It is critical that the proposed post harvest activity of using herbicides for noxious weed control be implemented to mitigate the spread of invasive plant species. In addition, biological controls may be used in areas that are difficult to access, and in those riparian areas where herbicide treatment would not be feasible. Monitoring of the effectiveness of treatment, and retreatment as needed, is essential.

Botany/Rare Plants The majority of the rare plants in the project area are found within the Black Elk Wilderness. As none of the treatments proposed in Alternative 2 are located within the Wilderness, these plants and their habitat would not be directly impacted by the proposed action. Implementation of Alternative 2 would reduce the hazard from a large-scale fire, and this could be considered a positive indirect effect to these plants and their habitats.

Effects to rare plants which may have suitable habitat – no known occurrences – Alternative 2 There are five R2 sensitive species and six Black Hills plant species of local concern which have not been found, but may have suitable habitat in the project area outside of the Black Elk Wilderness: sphagnum, yellow lady’s slipper, trailing clubmoss, large round-leaf orchid, highbush cranberry, southwestern showy sedge, pleated gentian, broadlipped twayblade, stiff clubmoss, alpine mountain sorrel, and shining willow. The R2 sensitive species Iowa moonwort and narrowleaf grapefern will be discussed later in this document because of their ambiguous habitat.

There is a detailed description of distribution, habitat preferences, life history and potential risks for these species, with the exception of sphagnum, in the Botany Biological Evaluation and the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Black Hills National Forest LRMP Phase II Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2005 and USDA Forest Service 2005d). That information is incorporated here by reference. Sphagnum has only recently been confirmed to be present on the Black Hills National Forest; therefore it was not included in the above-mentioned Biological

244 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Evaluation. Additional information for this species can be found in the Biological Evaluation for the Norbeck Wildlife Project, in the project file.

For species for which there may be habitat and yet individuals have not been found in the project area, analysis will be by habitat. Habitat preferences can be generalized as follows:

Table 70. Habitat preferences of four R2 Sensitive and six Black Hills SOLC plants

Habitat Preferences Species Not Found in the white spruce or riparian granite fens/ Project Area meadows paper birch sites areas outcrops wetlands yellow lady’s slipper X X large round-leaf orchid X highbush cranberry X X trailing clubmoss X X southwestern showy sedge X pleated gentian X X broadlipped twayblade X stiff clubmoss X alpine mountainsorrel X narrowleaf sweet coltsfoot X sphagnum X

Alternative 2 proposes 78 acres of spruce enhancement and 4 acres of paper birch enhancement. These treatments reduce the overstory density by removing some or all of the competing ponderosa pine, which would encourage another age-class of white spruce and/or paper birch. While these treatments have the potential to impact any unknown individual plants that may occur in the site, overall the habitat would be enhanced for rare plants which prefer this habitat. Untreated white spruce and paper birch sites in the project area would likely benefit from the projected mountain pine beetle-caused mortality.

The 276 acres of proposed meadow enhancement in Alternative 2 would likely enhance habitat for pleated gentian as conifer encroachment is expected to present a risk to this species (USDA Forest Service 2005d). As discussed above, there is the potential for treatments to impact any unknown individual plants, but overall the habitat would be enhanced for species which prefer open conditions. Untreated meadows in the project area would continue to be encroached upon by the ponderosa pine, as these young trees are not expected to experience heavy mountain pine beetle-caused mortality (see Silviculture Report)

Riparian areas would receive protection with application of the watershed design criteria “All applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) and R2 Watershed Conservation Practices (WCPs) will be implemented”. Overall, riparian vegetation would be expected to benefit from the removal of ponderosa pine on adjacent sites.

Rare plant habitat in granite outcrops would be expected to benefit indirectly from the treatments proposed in Alternative 2 due to the reduction in potential for large-scale fire. It is unlikely there would be direct effects to habitat located in granite outcrops.

Rare plant habitats in fens/wetlands are also expected to benefit indirectly from the treatments proposed in Alternative 2 due to the reduction in potential for large-scale fire. Although these areas are unlikely to burn on years of average precipitation, during dry years the surface can by

245 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

dry enough to support fire (Sullivan 1994). These areas, like the riparian areas would receive protection with application of the watershed design criteria “All applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) and R2 Watershed Conservation Practices (WCPs) will be implemented”. As with the riparian areas, fens/wetlands are expected to benefit from the removal of ponderosa pine on adjacent sites.

An indirect effect to all the habitats discussed above is the potential for the introduction of noxious weeds which occurs with any major soil disturbance. Noxious weeds can out-compete rare plants for nutrients and the treatment of noxious weed infestations with herbicides could be detrimental to individual plants.

Please see the Botany Biological Evaluation for the Norbeck Wildlife Project for determination of effects to sensitive species. The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined the Black Hills plant species of local concern discussed above are likely to persist on the forest (USDA Forest Service 2005). This project is consistent with the Forest Plan for these species and/or their habitat.

Effects to rare plants known to occur in the project area – Alternative 2 There are three rare plants with known occurrences in the project area, outside of the Wilderness: leathery grapefern and arrowleaf sweet coltsfoot, both Black Hills plant species of local concern; and great-spurred violet, a R2 sensitive species.

There are detailed descriptions of distribution, habitat preferences, life history and potential risks for these species in the Botany Biological Evaluation and the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Black Hills National Forest LRMP Phase II Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2005, and USDA Forest Service 2005d). That information is incorporated here by reference.

The known occurrence of leathery grapefern is in an area that has been proposed to be deferred from treatment; therefore no direct impacts are expected in Alternative 2. Indirect effects are expected to be the same as those for the white spruce habitat discussed above. There is the potential for additional undiscovered occurrences of leathery grapefern in the project area. While proposed treatments may impact these unknown individuals, overall effects to the species from this alternative would be as discussed above in the effects to white spruce habitat.

The known occurrence of arrowleaf sweet coltsfoot is in an area that has been proposed to be deferred from treatment; therefore no direct impacts are expected in Alternative 2. Indirect effects are expected to be the same as those for the riparian habitat discussed above. There is the potential for additional undiscovered occurrences of arrowleaf sweet coltsfoot in the project area. While proposed treatments may impact these unknown individuals, overall effects to the species from this alternative would be as discussed above in the effects to riparian habitat.

The known occurrence of great-spurred violet is located in an area proposed for spruce enhancement as described above under the Effects Common to All Action Alternatives discussion. In addition to the effects as discussed as common to all action alternatives, there is the potential for additional undiscovered occurrences of great-spurred violet in the project area. While proposed treatments may impact undiscovered individuals, overall effects to the species from this alternative would be as discussed above in the effects to white spruce habitat and in the effects to habitat in granite outcrops.

The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined leathery grapefern and arrowleaf sweet coltsfoot are likely to persist on the forest (USDA Forest Service 2005). This project is consistent

246 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 with the Forest Plan for this species and its habitat. Please see the Botany Biological Evaluation for the Norbeck Wildlife Project for determination of effects to great-spurred violet.

Effects to Iowa moonwort (Botrychium campestre) and narrowleaf grapefern (Botrychium lineare) – Alternative 2 These two R2 sensitive species have not been found in the project area, but too much is unknown about their habitat preferences to say they do not have habitat in the project area. Because of the ambiguity of their habitat preferences they will be discussed separately from the species about which more is known. What is known about them on the Black Hills National Forest is that they often occur together, so the effects for each will be analyzed simultaneously.

Any kind of major soil disturbance increases the likelihood of exotic plants being introduced. Invasion by noxious weeds and other exotic plants can be detrimental to sensitive plant species as invasive species have the ability to out-compete desired plants. Consequently, an indirect effect of Alternative 2 could be increased competition by exotic species and noxious weeds within habitats preferred by Botrychium campestre and Botrychium lineare. Herbicide treatment, to control noxious weeds, could have a negative direct effect on individuals. If the herbicide is applied during the period before leaves emerge, or after the leaves have withered, it is expected to have little to no direct effect on an occurrence. However, if herbicide spraying should occur at an undiscovered occurrence site at the time aboveground portions could react to the herbicide (mostly likely June based on the information from known occurrences on the Black Hills National Forest), then a negative effect to those individuals would likely be realized (USDA Forest Service 2005d). Farrar (Pers. Comm. 2004) indicated that if that happened, there would likely be enough belowground spores, gametes, juveniles, etc such that not all of any one occurrence would be affected by herbicide treatment.

The 276 acres of meadow enhancement proposed in Alternative 2 pine encroachment have the potential positive indirect effect of maintaining the open conditions these Botrychium species seem to prefer while having the possibility of a negative direct impact if an undiscovered plant occurs in the area to be treated. Despite the fact that aboveground stems may be negatively affected, beneficial short- and long-term effects may be realized by the prescribed burning in the project area. Dr. Farrar (Pers. Comm. 2004) indicated that when an occurrence has aboveground growth, a fast moving fire may not negatively impact it. The fire may remove aboveground stem portions, but would not be expected to affect belowground individuals or parts. Dr. Farrar shared that an area reviewed after a fire had an increase in the number of Botrychium spp. stems. Dr. Farrar indicated that burning may release more nutrients to the soil that may immediately benefit the mycorrhizae and Botrychium species. He said this would be consistent with observations of other fungi that “flush” after fires.

However, although it is not known with certainty, it is believed that an intense fire (from wildfires or a high intensity prescribed burn) with high severity effects, such as deep soil heating, could potentially negatively affect both the belowground and aboveground portions of Botrychium individuals. As stated above, treatments proposed would reduce the chance of a large-scale fire in the project area.

Botrychium have persisted after disturbances in other areas of their range and have been documented a number of times to colonize disturbed areas (Farrar, Pers. Comm. 2004). Hence, while the initial disturbance associated with the treatments proposed in Alternative 2 may have direct impacts on any unknown occurrences, it may also create conditions suitable for colonization by Iowa moonwort and narrowleaf grapefern.

247 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Although specific data is lacking on the Black Hills National Forest, the earlier successional conditions that occur with opening the overstory canopy could produce conditions that would be beneficial to site colonization by wind-dispersed, spore-producing Botrychium species if the associated mycorrhizal species and other microsite conditions are present (Farrar, Pers. Comm. 2004). See the Biological Evaluation for the Norbeck Wildlife Project for determination of effects to these sensitive species.

Effects related to prescribed burning and roads, common to all rare plants and habitat – Alternative 2 There are 2,158 acres of prescribed burning proposed in Alternative 2. There are no known occurrences of rare plants in the areas proposed for prescribed burning. The areas identified as suitable habitat for rare plants do not occur in the areas proposed for prescribed burning, except for a portion of location 03210 sites 59 and 18. These areas have hardwood enhancement treatments proposed. While treatments to enhance the hardwood sites may directly impact any unknown plant individuals in these sites, overall the rare plant habitat would be enhanced with the proposed treatments.

In Alternative 2 it is proposed that 11.4 miles of closed system roads be temporarily reopened, 22 miles of unauthorized road beds be temporarily reopened, and 1.7 miles of new temporary roads be constructed. None of the proposed new temporary road construction goes through known rare plant occurrences, or known suitable habitat. None of the unauthorized roads proposed for opening go through known occurrences of rare plants. They may however, go through suitable habitat. Four of the system roads go through known suitable habitat, three of these roads (351, 345.3, and 355.1b) are currently open, and using them for temporary haul roads is not likely to impact the rare plant habitat. The one that is currently closed (356.1c) goes through an area that is considered to be good rare plant habitat. Use of currently closed roads, and any redesign of existing roads that go through suitable habitat have the potential to negatively affect rare plant habitat. The district botanist will coordinate with the engineer to ensure the work done on these roads has the least impact possible.

Alternative 3 Alternative 3 was developed to address significant issues raised during scoping and includes prescribed burning within the Black Elk Wilderness

If implemented, Alternative 3 would have the same effects on the rangeland resources, noxious weeds and rare plants as Alternative 2 except as follows:

§ Alternative 3 proposes 21 more acres of meadow enhancement which would result in a small increase in the benefit to grassland communities. § There are 7,502 additional acres of prescribed burning proposed. Approximately 5,291 of those acres of within the Black Elk Wilderness. Expected effects of prescribed burning in the Wilderness are discussed below. § There is an additional 0.7 mile of currently closed road proposed to be reopened. This 0.7 mile does not go through any known rare plant occurrences, or known suitable habitat, so no additional effects are expected. § There is a reduction of 0.2 mile of new temporary road construction proposed. This would not result in a change in effects. § Under Alternative 3, 4,723 acres have the potential for being disturbed as trees are dropped and skidded to landing decks and understory fuels are treated. This is a reduction of 212

248 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

acres which could have had the potential to become infested with noxious weeds due to disturbance.

Effects to noxious weeds from prescribed burning within the Wilderness There are infestations of noxious weeds that have been identified within the Black Elk Wilderness. It is known that noxious weed infestations are likely to increase following a fire as the exotic plants are able to out-compete native plants for water and nutrients. However, the prescribed burn is expected to reduce the risk of a large-scale wildfire. The likelihood of weed infestations from a fire that burns under controlled conditions is less than from a wildfire that would likely be of much greater magnitude.

Effects to rare plants from prescribed burning within the Wilderness There are known occurrences of five rare plant species within the area proposed for prescribed burning in the Black Elk Wilderness: large round-leaf orchid (Platanthera orbiculata) and great- spurred violet, both of which are R2 sensitive species; and the Black Hills plant species of local concern leathery grapefern, southwestern showy sedge, and alpine mountainsorrel.

Effects common to all: It is believed that applying prescribed fire to the area within the Wilderness would help prevent a high intensity wildfire that may occur due to the large amount of mountain pine beetle-caused mortality of ponderosa pine. While effects of prescribed burning is not well known for these rare plants (USDA Forest Service 2005d) it is presumed that a large- scale wildfire would be more detrimental to individuals and their habitat than fire used under specific prescription. There is always a possibility of noxious weed infestation when an area burns, but effects are considered to be reduced when an area is burned under prescription rather than by wildfire. Design criteria would require the involvement of the district botanist in developing burn plans so that the habitat requirements of rare plants in the area would be considered. This may include excluding small areas (under 10 acres) with known plant occurrences.

Effects specific to individual species: Large round-leaf orchid occurs on the edge the area proposed for prescribed burning. As stated above, the effects on individuals is not well known, however Hornbeck et al. (2003) suggest that management that includes prescribed burning would help maintain a mosaic of seral stages, increase available moisture and decrease the potential for widespread crown fires. See the accompanying Botany Biological Evaluation for the Norbeck Wildlife Project for determination of effects to large round-leaf orchid for Alternative 3.

Great-spurred violet occurrences in the area are located along waterways and in areas sheltered by large rock formations. These areas are not likely to burn readily under prescription. See the accompanying Botany Biological Evaluation for the Norbeck Wildlife Project for determination of effects to great-spurred violet for Alternative 3.

The leathery grapefern occurrences in the proposed burn areas are found in white spruce riparian areas, areas unlikely to burn readily under prescription. Like many rare plants, effects of fire on leathery grapefern is not well known, although range-wide it is often found associated with fire- adapted species (Anderson 2005). Anderson also notes that disturbance (such as fire) may play a role in the reproductive biology of leathery grapefern. The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined leathery grapefern is likely to persist on the forest (USDA Forest Service 2005). This project is consistent with the Forest Plan for this species and its habitat.

249 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

There is one known occurrence of southwestern showy sedge within the proposed burn area. Southwestern showy sedge is reported to be fire tolerant (Glisson 2003) and in the project area it is found in a moist habitat that would not burn readily under prescription. It is uncertain if the shaded conditions at known sites are a habitat requirement, however, if it is, the species may be affected by a large-scale wildfire by loss of shade-providing white spruce (USDA Forest Service 2005d). The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined southwestern showy sedge is likely to persist on the forest (USDA Forest Service 2005). This project is consistent with the Forest Plan for this species and its habitat.

The known occurrence of alpine mountainsorrel is located in an area sheltered by a large rock formation which is unlikely to burn under prescription. In addition, due to the small size of the occurrence and the location, the habitat could be excluded from the burn during the burn plan development. However, due to the dense conifer stands nearby, large-scale wildfire may present a risk to the occurrence as effects of fire on this species are not well understood. The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined alpine mountain sorrel is likely to persist on the forest (USDA Forest Service 2005). This project is consistent with the Forest Plan for this species and its habitat.

Alternative 4 Alternative 4 modifies Alternative 3 to address effects of the mountain pine beetle infestation on wildlife habitat.

If implemented, Alternative 4 would have the same effects on the rangeland resources, noxious weeds and rare plants as Alternative 3 except as follows:

§ There is an additional 1 mile of closed road proposed to be reopened. This mile does not go through any known rare plant occurrences, or known suitable habitat, so no additional effects are expected. § Under Alternative 4, 5,190 acres have the potential for being disturbed as trees are dropped and skidded to landing decks and understory fuels are treated. This is an increase of 467 acres which have the potential to become infested with noxious weeds due to disturbance.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative impact area for this analysis is the Norbeck Wildlife Project area; activities beyond the project area have a diminished effect on the rangeland vegetation, noxious weeds and rare plant habitat within the project area. The timing limit for the cumulative effects analysis is estimated at 20 years, ten years prior to present and ten years into the future, which allows for an adequate length of time to record vegetation changes.

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities within the Norbeck Wildlife project area include timber harvest, timber thinning, wildfire, grazing, temporary road construction and maintenance, noxious weed control, wildlife habitat improvement projects, and dispersed recreational use on both the public land and private land in the area. A list documenting known past, present, and planned future activities for this area is included in Appendix F.

There has been very little timber harvest/thinning in the area in the past. This has resulted in dense, mature ponderosa pine stands with little understory vegetation. Timber harvest/thinning may create transitory range in the area. Transitory range is an area that temporarily produces an increase in rangeland vegetation due to the removal of the tree overstory. Thus, the amount of available forage is expected to increase, temporarily, with timber harvest. Increasing the amount

250 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 of forage available can lower the level of livestock utilization, which can lead to maintaining or improving the satisfactory condition of the rangeland vegetation. Removing timber and thinning existing stands of ponderosa pine would likely reduce the chance of large-scale fires that may threaten rare plant habitat. It may also enhance rare plant habitat by allowing white spruce and hardwood stands to expand.

Any past, present or foreseeable future activity that causes soil disturbance has the potential to introduce and increase the rate of spread of noxious weeds and other exotic plants. This can be detrimental to rare plants and native rangeland vegetation, as invasive species have the ability to out-compete desired native plants. The herbicides used in noxious weed control can also be detrimental to rare plants if the individuals are inadvertently exposed to the herbicides.

When properly managed, livestock grazing can improve rangeland vegetation. The grazing in the Norbeck Wildlife project area would continue as identified in the Allotment Management Plan for the Palmer Gulch Allotments. This plan is currently under review, so grazing management in the project area may change in the near future, however, no increase in livestock numbers would occur, consistent with Forest Plan standard 5.4A-2501. In the Norbeck Wildlife project area, the known occurrences of rare plants are not in areas were grazing is authorized.

Aside from the direct impact on the vegetation (i.e. removal of vegetation, soil compaction and introduction of invasive species), road construction has the indirect impact of making formerly inaccessible areas available to both humans and grazing animals. Opening a new area to grazing can have a positive impact, by helping to distribute grazing animals. It can also have a negative impact by allowing access to areas that may be rare plant habitat. The likelihood of gates being left open (which increases the chance of livestock being in unauthorized areas) increases as the number of roads increase.

In the Norbeck Wildlife project area, the primary impacts from recreational use to the rangeland vegetation and rare plant habitat are the negative direct impacts to the vegetation (i.e. removal of vegetation, soil compaction, introduction of invasive species) that may result from recreational use. Recreational use in an area increases the likelihood of plant collecting, which can have an impact on rare plant populations. All of the above uses are limited in intensity and duration and therefore when combined with the alternatives analyzed, including the no action alternative, do not result in adverse cumulative impacts to the rangeland vegetation, or to the rare plant habitat. Heritage Resources

Existing Conditions Prehistoric Context: The Black Hills are part of the greater culture area of the Northwestern Plains (Sundstrom 1989). Human occupation of this area has been divided into five broad cultural periods (Frison 1991):

Paleo-Indian 11,500 B.P. to 7,000 B.P.

Early Archaic 7,000 B.P. to 5,000 B.P.

Middle Archaic 5,000 B.P. to 3,000 B.P.

Late Archaic 3,000 B.P. to 1,500 B.P.

251 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Late Prehistoric 1,500 B.P. to 500 B.P.

The Black Hills National Forest Cultural Resources Overview identifies cultural sites that represent all of the above prehistoric phases of occupation in the Black Hills (Rom et.al. eds 1996). Identifiable tribal groups living within the Black Hills area during the Protohistoric period include the , Crow, , , and Sioux.

Certain Native American tribes consider the Black Hills to be sacred land. Their belief system links specific locations in and around the Black Hills to star constellations (Rom, et.al. eds. 1996). These spiritually significant locations include but are not limited to: Devil’s Tower, Old Baldy Mountain, Hot Springs, Buffalo Gap, Reynolds Prairie, the Paha Sapa limestone “race track” that surrounds the Black Hills, and Harney Peak (Goodman 1992). Ceremonies are performed at these locations during specific periods on the celestial calendar, such as the vernal equinox (March 20), autumnal equinox (September 22), summer solstice (June 21), and the winter solstice (December 21); and also during weather events, such as the first thunderstorm of the year (Goodman 1992: 12).

Historic Context: Historical chronological stages appropriate for the entire Black Hills are as follows:

Protohistoric A.D.1600-1851

Military Exploration 1851-1874

Euro-American Settlement 1874-1920

Depression/New Deal 1920-1941

World War II 1941-1945

Modern 1946 to present

Sporadic use of the Black Hills by Euro-Americans began in the early 1800’s and consisted mainly of fur trappers and traders (Sundstrom 1989). The western half of South Dakota, including the Black Hills, portions of southern North Dakota, and nearly the entire area of the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana was recognized as unceded Indian Territory by the 1868 treaty between the United States and the Sioux and Arapaho. More intense Euro- American occupation in the Black Hills began shortly after gold was discovered in the Black Hills in 1874. It was this discovery that brought a full scale influx of Euro-American prospectors and miners to the Black Hills. (Rom et. al. 1996: 4a)

In addition to gold, several other minerals began to be extracted from the Black Hills in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. These minerals were largely contained in the pegmatite dikes exposed throughout the Black Hills. These pegmatite dikes typically form resistant ridges and were mined from the surface. Typically, the rock was blasted from the pegmatite dikes using dynamite placed in either hand or machine drilled holes. The blasted rock was then sorted by hand and transferred to other locations for processing. After mining was complete the extraction of rock typically left small open pits or cuts where the pegmatite dikes were once present. (Rom et. al. 1996: 4a)

252 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Historic settlement in the Black Hills by Euro-Americans is generally auxiliary to this history of the mining industry. Homestead patents are common from the late 1800’s through the 1920’s. Industries such as the ranching and logging industry became common in the early 1900’s. However, much of the land was not patented and remains public land. (Rom et. al. 1996: 4a)

Field Surveys Level I and Level III cultural resource inventories were conducted in the Norbeck project area between 2007 and 2009. Tracts of private property within the analysis area were not inventoried. Forest Service administered lands inventoried during previous projects were also exempt from field inventory.

A Level I inventory of previous projects and previously recorded sites within the project area was conducted prior to any potential fieldwork. The project area consists of 26,727 acres of lands managed by the Forest Service. A total of 11,604 acres within the analysis area are proposed for wildlife and fuels treatments. These 11,604 constitute the Area of Potential Effects (APE). The records search indicated that 5,724 acres within the APE had received prior adequate survey, and that sixty three (63) previous adequate Level III cultural resource surveys were conducted within the project area. Adequate Level III surveys are defined as 100 percent survey requiring a visual inspection of the project APE (Area of Potential Effect), with pedestrian transects no more than 30 meters (100 feet) apart [Guidelines for Cultural Resource Surveys and Survey Reports in South Dakota (For Review and Compliance), 2005: 9]. The State of South Dakota guidelines (Ibid 2005:9) also state that the survey report must explain survey methodology and rationale for their use to be considered adequate. Furthermore, the South Dakota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) “has determined that archaeological data, surveys, and reports completed within the last twenty years are valid and may not require a new survey” (Ibid 2005: 9). Based on these criteria, a Level III inventory was conducted for the remaining 5,880 acres within the APE. Level III surveys were conducted in June-August in 2007, and June-July in 2009. The 2007 survey portion covered approximately 1,600 acres and the 2009 survey portion covered nearly 4,300 acres. Twenty-seven (27) cultural resources were located during the level III survey, two (2) of which are recommended as eligible, nineteen (19) are recommended as not eligible, and six (6) were not evaluated for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

Overall, there are 134 cultural resources which occur within the project area. In total, five (5) sites are considered eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). An additional thirteen (13) sites in the project area remain unevaluated. These unevaluated sites will be treated as eligible sites. The remaining 116 sites are considered not eligible. All identified eligible and unevaluated cultural resources will be protected by following the heritage resource compliance process mandated by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the recommendations outlined in the heritage resource report. The regulations governing Section 106 review are contained in 36 CFR Part 800, which describes the compliance process. All timber harvests, fuels treatments, maintenance and re-construction of roads are designed to protect eligible and unevaluated sites by avoidance or other site-specific mitigations identified by the District Archeologist. During implementation, the District Archeologist will be consulted on site locations, avoidance, and mitigation measures as required to protect heritage resources.

Section 106 Project Concurrence: The Hell Canyon Ranger District determined that the Norbeck Wildlife Project will result in No Adverse Effect and recommended that the project proceed as planned. Results of the field inventory, literature search and determination were reported to the South Dakota SHPO and affiliated Native American Tribes for comment and concurrence on August 3, 2009. On August

253 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

20, 2009, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe concurred with the findings. The South Dakota SHPO concurred with the findings of this report on August 31st, 2009 (SHPO Concurrence #090805008F).

The Norbeck Wildlife Project was discussed in a Formal Government-to-Government tribal consultation meeting on September 17, 2009. Tribal attendees included representatives from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and the Kickapoo Tribe. The Tribes had no objections to the Norbeck Wildlife Project at that time. Meeting notes were also disseminated to Tribes that were not in attendance. The Forest Service has not received objections or concerns regarding the project from the Tribes during consultation. No Tribal comments were received during the NEPA comment period for the Norbeck Wildlife Project; however, the Black Hills National Forest did receive multiple concerns regarding the continuation of spiritual use of the Black Elk Wilderness from other interested parties. These comments led to an expansion of the design criteria to assure that the project complies with the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978).

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 No Action If there is no federal action, then there is no undertaking, as defined in 36 CFR Part 800.16(y), for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f). However, no action may result in the destruction of cultural resources due to the increased fuel loading and tree mortality from overgrowth--both of which increase the risk of fire and subsequent ground disturbance and erosion. Many of the eligible sites in the Norbeck analysis area are eligible for listing on the NRHP due to the presence of intact subsurface cultural deposits or standing architectural features. As such, any processes that disturb the soil/sediment matrices of an archaeological site (including erosion) or increase the intensity and probability of catastrophic wildfire, adversely impact the site’s eligibility.

Alternative 2 Proposed Action Under Alternative 2, there are 6 sites in areas where mechanical treatments are proposed. These sites will require avoidance by all project activities as described in Appendix B, Design Criteria.

In addition to the mechanical treatments proposed under Alternative 2, prescribed fire would also be used to meet the purpose and need. Under this alternative, there are 3 sites within the area of potential effects for prescribed fire activities. These sites, and the design criteria needed to protect these sites from impacts related to prescribed burning, are found in Appendix B, Design Criteria.

Alternative 3 Under Alternative 3, there are 3 sites in areas where mechanical treatments are proposed. These sites will require avoidance by all project activities as described in Appendix B.

In addition to the mechanical treatments proposed under Alternative 3, prescribed fire would also be used to meet the purpose and need. Under this alternative, there are 13 sites within the area of potential effects for prescribed fire activities. Prescribed burning in Alternative 3 includes burning within the BEW. Harney Peak, located within the BEW is an especially spiritually

254 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 significant place to Native Americans (Goodman 1992). Ceremonies are performed there during specific periods on the celestial calendar, such as the vernal equinox (March 20), autumnal equinox (September 22), summer solstice (June 21), and the winter solstice (December 21); and also during weather events, such as the first thunderstorm of the year (Goodman 1992: 12). Ceremonies can be expected to be performed on the day of and also on the weekend prior to and after such events. Timing restrictions are included in Appendix B to avoid project activities during these events.

Alternative 4 Under Alternative 4, there are 7 sites in areas where mechanical treatments are proposed. These sites will require avoidance by all project activities as described in Appendix B.

In addition to the mechanical treatments proposed under Alternative 4, prescribed fire will also be used to meet the purpose and need. Under this alternative, there are 13 sites within the area of potential effects for prescribed fire activities. Prescribed burning in Alternative 3 includes burning within the BEW. Harney Peak, located within the BEW is an especially spiritually significant place to Native Americans (Goodman 1992). Ceremonies are performed there during specific periods on the celestial calendar, such as the vernal equinox (March 20), autumnal equinox (September 22), summer solstice (June 21), and the winter solstice (December 21); and also during weather events, such as the first thunderstorm of the year (Goodman 1992: 12). Ceremonies can be expected to be performed on the day of and also on the weekend prior to and after such events. Timing restrictions are included in Appendix B to avoid project activities during these events.

Cumulative Effects Archaeological resources are non-renewable. Due to both natural and human processes, the loss of archaeological resources has happened in the past and will happen in the future. One cumulative effect is that over time fewer archaeological resources will be available to learn about past human life-ways, to study changes in human behavior through time, and to interpret the past to the public. Recording and archiving basic information about archaeological sites in the proposed project area serves to partially mitigate potential cumulative effects to cultural resources.

No adverse cumulative effects are expected to occur as a result of any alternative provided that the site-specific recommendations are implemented. Transportation

Existing Condition The primary road to access the Norbeck Wildlife Project area from the west side is State Highway 244, which connects to U.S. Highway 16/385. Access from the south is via U.S. Highway 16A, which connects to U.S. Highway 16/385 (west) and State Highway 36 (east). Playhouse Road (Custer County Road 753) connects to U.S. Highway 16A in the southern portion of the area. Palmer Gulch Road (Pennington County Road T357) connects State Highways 244 and 87 in the northern portion of the area. The Palmer Gulch KOA campground and Palmer Lodge access State Highway 244 in the center of the northern portion. Camp Remington Road (NFSR 345) connects to State Highway 87. The Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway consists of Highways 244, 16A and 87, and is maintained by the South Dakota Department of Transportation.

255 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Other National Forest System roads (NFSRs) within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve are closed year-round except those providing access to picnic grounds, campgrounds, trail heads, summer home groups, and private property. NFSRs on the north connect directly to State Highway 244, and those on the south connect to U.S. Highway 16A. Many of the historic travel corridors for either mining or logging have been effectively closed.

Table 71. Road jurisdiction for all roads in the Norbeck project area

Road Jurisdiction – All roads Miles Us Highway and County Roads 41.5 National Forest System Roads (NFSRs) 42.3 Unauthorized Roads* 37.9 Private Roads 5.4 Total = 127.1 Special Use/Easement Miles (out of the total) 8.4 * Unauthorized roads are not part of the Forest transportation system and are not open to motorized recreation.

Table 72. National Forest System roads in the Norbeck project area

National Forest System Roads Miles Open 13.9 Administrative Closure - yearlong 26.3 Seasonal Closure 2.1

Total = 42.3 *Open Road Density – Summer (5/15 - 12/15) 1.3 miles/square mile (13.9+ 2.1+ 37.9)/41.9 Without unauthorized roads – 0.38 miles/square mile (13.9+2.1)/41.9

*Open Road Density – Winter (12/15 - 5/15) 1.2 miles/square mile (13.9+ 37.9)/41.9 Without unauthorized roads – 0.33 miles/square mile (13.9)/41.9

*Road Density – all Forest Roads (open and closed) (42.3+ 1.9 miles/square mile 37.9)/41.9 Without unauthorized roads – 1.0 miles/square mile (42.3)/41.9 * The average road density for the entire Black Hills National Forest, including system and unauthorized road miles, is 4.4 miles per square mile as shown in the Forest Plan, (USDA Forest Service 2006). Therefore, the Norbeck project area has roughly half the density of roads, compared with the remainder of the Forest. The density shown in this table does not include highway or private road miles.

When designing access for resource management, soil and water resources, public safety, economics of access, wildlife, visual aesthetics and other resource needs are taken into consideration.

The existing transportation system would be utilized for this project. Proposals for road use include road reconstruction, which may include betterments, restoration or realignment.

256 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Unauthorized roads that are used as temporary roads for timber operations would be closed after use.

Use of the transportation system would vary somewhat between the action alternatives. Reconstruction activity would bring road standards up to the minimum necessary to accommodate commercial timber hauling, while protecting soil and water resources. Temporary road construction may be needed to access presently inaccessible commercial treatment areas in Alternatives 2, 3 and 4. Temporary roads would be closed following completion of project activities.

Table 73. Road Management - System Roads – Miles for the Norbeck project area

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 System Roads Existing Proposed Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Condition Action System Open Roads 13.9 13.9 13.9 13.9 Seasonally Closed Roads 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 Administrative Closure Roads 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3

Table 74. Road Management Closed Motorized and Unauthorized Roads – Miles for the Norbeck project area

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Closed Motorized and Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Unauthorized Roads Existing Proposed Condition Action *Roads Closed Yearlong 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 Needed for haul 10.2 10.9 11.9 Seasonally Closed Roads 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 Needed for Haul 1.2 1.2 1.2 **Unauthorized Roads 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 Needed for Haul 22.0 22.0 22.0 *Roads physically closed yearlong or gated/posted for Administrative use or Special Use only. ** Unauthorized Roads may be used for temporary access and will be closed after use, as part of the logging operations.

Maintenance on Forest Service roads used for timber harvest is the responsibility of the Purchaser/Contractor for the life of the Timber Sale Contract. Maintenance includes removing silt from sediment collection ponds and depositing material in upland locations. Keeping silt fence upright and functioning by cleaning out any sediment collected by the silt fence and depositing it in an upland location. Keeping all drainage structures and ditches clear and functional, eliminating erosion of cut and fill slopes and roadway soils, removing roadway vegetation and blading road surfaces.

Maintenance of the roads after the proposed activity is the responsibility of the Forest Service and would be performed when needed or with grid maintenance every five years, whichever comes first.

257 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 75. Trail Management – System trail miles that may be used for hauling

ID NAME Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Miles M5 Lost Cabin Trail Possible Temp Possible Temp Possible Temp 0.36 M6 Willow Creek Trail Possible Temp Possible Temp Possible Temp 0.17 M7 Willow Creek Trail Possible Temp Possible Temp Possible Temp 0.59 M8 Harney Peak Possible Temp Possible Temp Possible Temp 0.33 Willow Creek M9 Possible Temp Possible Temp Possible Temp 0.12 Rushmore M1 Willow Creek Possible Temp Possible Temp Possible Temp 0.52 0 Rushmore M1 Centennial Trail Possible Temp Possible Temp Possible Temp 1.31 3 M1 Harney Peak Possible Temp Possible Temp Possible Temp 0.16 7 M2 Harney Peak Possible Temp Possible Temp Possible Temp 0.86 9 M4 Iron Creek Trail 15 Construct/Convert Construct/Convert Construct/Convert 0.99

If a Contractor uses a system trail as a temporary road, the trail would need to be converted back to its original (trail) condition post-use.

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1: No Action There would be no change in the transportation system or in travel management. Scheduled annual and grid maintenance would continue as it has in the past. Road densities would remain the same.

The beneficial effects of taking no action are: There would be no construction of temporary roads that would cause ground disturbance.

The No Action Alternative would forego the opportunity to provide additional maintenance and reconstruction associated with and funded by timber harvesting. Annual maintenance would continue on 9.4 miles and five-year-rotation grid maintenance would continue on 32.9 miles of system roads. With budgets continuing to decline, fewer miles of roads within the area may be maintained in the future to the current standard. Since the system roads within the Norbeck project area are on different grid maintenance schedules, some of the roads would not receive grid maintenance for up to five years.

Action Alternatives The action alternatives propose additional maintenance, reconstruction and new construction of temporary roads. Direct effects from these proposed activities are short-term vegetation loss, soil disturbance and compaction. Indirect effects may include an increase of mixed traffic and traffic delays during project implementation. Short-term increases of noise and dust could occur. All road work would comply with Best Management Practices and road design criteria in Appendix B.

258 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Unauthorized roads not needed for the proposed action but used as temporary roads would be closed. This would provide a more efficient transportation system. Forest System Road densities would increase temporarily with the temporary conversion of system trail to system road. At the completion of the project, implementation open road density would not change from current open road density. All disturbed areas would be seeded after construction.

Once road improvements are completed, long-term maintenance and deferred maintenance costs would decrease. As vegetation is reestablished, the effects on soil erosion would be reduced. The vegetation would aid in stabilizing the roadway and the cut and fill slopes.

Roads utilized under the action alternatives would be reconstructed and maintained in accordance with the Engineering Design Guidelines and Best Management Practices Compliance. Existing roads with soil and water problems would be designed using the proposed corrective action. The potential of sediment contribution would diminish as these actions are taken.

In all action alternatives converting .99 miles of Trail #15 (Iron Mountain) to a system road: this road would be returned to system Trail #15 at completion of the project. Stream crossings would be necessary.

Alternative 2 The proposal for the transportation system under Alternative 2 is to maintain 8.65 miles, reconstruct 6.03 miles, and temporarily convert .99 miles of Trail # 15 to National Forest System Road (NFSR). This road would be returned to system Trail #15 at completion of the project (see Table 9).

Table 76. Alternative 2 Miles

Related Work Alternative 2 Miles Spot Reconstruction 1.22 Maintenance 8.65 Convert/Construct .99 Reconstruction 6.03 Possible New Temp Roads 1.7

Alternative 2 proposes new construction of temporary roads and additional maintenance and reconstruction of system roads. This alternative proposes the largest amount of new temporary road construction (1.7 miles). No new system road construction would occur. Direct effects from these proposed activities are short-term vegetation loss, soil disturbance and compaction. Indirect effects may include an increase of mixed traffic and traffic delays during project implementation. Short-term increases of noise and dust could occur. All road work would comply with Best Management Practices and road design criteria.

Unauthorized roads used as temporary roads would be closed after use. Closing these temporarily-used unauthorized roads would make the future transportation system more manageable.

Alternative 3 The proposal for the transportation system under Alternative 3 is to maintain 8.58 miles, reconstruct 6.5 miles, and temporarily convert .99 miles of Trail # 15 to National Forest System

259 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Road (NFSR). This road would be returned to system Trail #15 at completion of the project. See table 77.

Table 77. Alternative 3 Miles

Related Work Alternative 2 Miles Alternative 3 Miles Spot Reconstruction 1.22 1.22 Maintenance 8.65 8.58 Convert/Construct .99 .99 Reconstruction 6.03 6.51 Possible New Temp Roads 1.7 1.5

Alternative 3 proposes slightly more reconstruction (approximately .5 mile) and slightly less maintenance (.1 mile) than Alternative 2. Miles of temporary road would be slightly less (0.2 miles) than Alternative 2. Direct and indirect effects would be very similar to Alternative 2: short-term vegetation loss, soil disturbance and compaction, an increase of mixed traffic, and traffic delays during project implementation. Short-term increases of noise and dust could occur. All road work would comply with Best Management Practices and road design criteria.

Alternative 4 The proposal for the transportation system under Alternative 4 is to maintain 9.7 miles, reconstruct 6.5 miles, and temporarily convert .99 miles of Trail # 15 to National Forest System Road (NFSR). This road would be returned to system Trail #15 at completion of the project (see table 78).

Table 78. Alternative 4 Miles

Related Work Alternative 2/Miles Alternative 3/Miles Alternative 4/Miles Spot Reconstruction 1.22 1.22 1.22 Maintenance 8.65 8.58 9.72 Convert/Construct .99 .99 .99 Reconstruction 6.03 6.51 6.51 Possible New Temp Roads 1.7 1.5 1.5

Alternative 4 proposes more miles of maintenance than in Alternatives 2 and 3. It also proposes approximately one (1) mile of additional closed road to be temporarily opened and used for hauling compared with Alternatives 2 and 3. Temporary road construction is the same as Alternative 3. In addition, this alternative proposes to utilize portions of the Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway for up to 1 full year to accomplish objectives. Direct and indirect effects from these proposed activities are short-term vegetation loss, soil disturbance and compaction, an increase of mixed traffic and traffic delays during project implementation. Short-term increases of noise and dust could occur. All road work would comply with Best Management Practices and road design criteria.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative impact area for this analysis is the Norbeck Wildlife Project area. Activities beyond the project area would not affect the transportation system within the project area. The time limit for the cumulative effects analysis is from 2000 to 2020. Needles 2 and Grizzly 2 timber sales occurred during this period and increased the system roads. The Norbeck Wildlife Project is expected to be completed in 2020.

260 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

Past, present and future activities within the Norbeck Wildlife Project area boundary include dispersed recreation use on both private and public land, timber harvest, wildlife habitat improvement projects, timber thinning, grazing, temporary road construction, road maintenance , and noxious weed control. A list documenting known past, present and foreseeable future activities for this area is included in Appendix F.

Alternative 1 No direct or indirect effects to the Transportations System or Travel management would occur from implementation of Alternative 1, therefore there would be no cumulative effects to the transportation system.

Action Alternatives The action alternatives would not increase the open road density for the project area. Therefore, no cumulative effects to open road density would occur.

Noise and dust from temporary road construction, use of skid trails and landings, and smoke from prescribed burning could cause short-term effects to use of the transportation system.

Unauthorized roads used as temporary roads would be closed after use. Closing these temporarily-used unauthorized roads would make the future transportation system more manageable.

The Forest-Level Travel Management Plan for the Black Hills National Forest proposes no changes for the project area and therefore would not contribute to cumulative effects to the transportation system. Economics The economic analysis for this project was generated using QUICKSILVER, a Forest Service economic analysis program customized for the Rocky Mountain Region. The economic analysis only includes direct costs and revenues to the Forest Service that would occur over the next 15 years. The complete analysis resides in the Norbeck Wildlife Project file on the Hell Canyon Ranger District.

The objective of the analysis is to provide a relative comparison of the costs and revenues, from the perspective of the Forest Service, associated with implementing the alternatives being analyzed. There are benefits associated with activities occurring in the Norbeck Wildlife project area that are not included in this analysis because their monetary benefit is not readily available. This financial analysis does not include the benefit of improving wildlife habitat for game animals and birds because these values are not readily available to quantify and compare. These benefits are discussed in detail in Chapter 3 and are summarized in Table 8, Chapter 2. This financial analysis focuses only on the benefit of revenues generated from the volume of timber and Products Other than Logs (POL) harvested in each action alternative. Therefore, this financial analysis does not fully indicate overall values of this project, but rather, is one means to evaluate and compare alternatives.

The effects of the proposed project on economics were not raised as a significant issue during the scoping process. Economic concerns are important considerations of National Forest management and a general discussion has been included.

261 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Financial Efficiency Financial efficiency is analyzed in this section. Financial efficiency examines revenue and cost implications for each alternative. It could also be said that this is the perspective of the taxpayer. Only those revenues and costs that are recorded in financial records are included in this analysis.

Some outcomes or effects, such as habitat improvement for game animals and birds or reducing the risks and consequences of a fire escaping from the BEW, have no monetary benefit that have been established by USDA Forest Service. While some research studies have explored the development of such values, it is reasonable to handle these items in a non-monetary fashion. For instance, the benefits to game animals and birds and the impact to reducing risks of a fire escaping the BEW are discussed in Chapter 3 and summarized in Table 8 of Chapter 2.

The main criterion used in assessing financial efficiency is present net value (PNV), which is defined as the value of discounted benefits (or revenues) minus discounted costs. The efficiency analysis completed here estimates the net financial returns of each alternative. Table 79 displays the financial efficiency analysis for each alternative. All monetary values are expressed in constant dollars with no allowance for inflation. A four percent discount rate was used over a 17- year period (2010-2027). This timeframe includes the time needed to complete monitoring. Revenues are not reduced for payments made to states and counties. The reduction of PNV in any alternative as compared to the most financially efficient solution is the economic trade-off, or opportunity cost, of achieving that alternative.

The only benefits that have been quantified are the commercial value of timber. This value is based on periodic local bids received on the Black Hills National Forest. The timber value benefit used in this analysis is $10/ccf. Other benefits, such as improving habitat for game animals and birds, or reducing the risk and consequences of fire escaping from the BEW, are not quantified, as discussed earlier.

Costs associated with implementing alternatives, after the NEPA process is completed, are included in this analysis. Therefore, the cost of planning is not included because this is considered a ‘sunk’ cost, one which would occur regardless of the alternative selected. Road costs, preparation costs, contract administration, contracting costs, prescribed burning, slash treatment, design features, and monitoring costs are all included. These costs include district administration and overhead. The cost per acre, cost per volume measure or cost per mile, is based on local Forest cost guides and local engineering estimates.

All three action alternatives show negative PNV figures because the costs of the project outweigh the financial benefits that were enumerated in this analysis. The No Action alternative has a PNV of zero because there would be no costs or benefits associated with this alternative to measure in a financial analysis. A majority of the benefits from this project would be long-term and are difficult to value in terms of dollars. Benefits associated with improved habitat for game animals and birds, reduced fire hazard and mountain pine beetle susceptibility, are not included in the PNV analysis, but are discussed in Chapter 3, as well as in Table 8, Chapter 2.

There are three action and one no action alternatives being analyzed for management of the Norbeck Wildlife Project area. Though costs could be distributed in different ways over the analysis period, the important aspect is to keep assumptions consistent across alternatives to facilitate meaningful comparisons. In this analysis, the most important economic information is the relative differences between alternatives. It is estimated that all project activities would be complete by year 2020.

262 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

All cost and benefit values were entered into the QuickSilver program. This program analyzes the costs and benefits for a variety of investments or operations in order to compare the economic performance (costs and revenues) associated with each alternative. The results of the analysis are displayed in the table below. The values shown are intended to show relative efficiency of each alternative and serve as a means of comparing alternatives. The values would fluctuate with changes in costs and stumpage values, and do not reflect actual costs and revenues. NOTE: The values presented here differ from what was presented in the Draft EIS due to lower timber values and an error in the way costs were input into the Quick-Silver model.

Table 79. Financial Analysis Results by Alternative in Millions of Dollars Financial Alternative 1 – Alternative 2 – Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Measure No Action Proposed Action Present Value 0 -4.9 -9.7 -9.9 Costs Present Value 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 Benefits Present Net Value 0 -4.4 -9.2 -9.3 (PNV) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0 0.1 0.05 0.05 Source: Quicksilver6. Figures may not add due to discounting and rounding.

Given these parameters, Table 79 shows that Alternative 2 would generate the most timber revenue of all alternatives, and the least cost, resulting in the highest overall financial benefit. However, Alternatives 3 and 4 include activities which most support the non-monetary benefits of wildlife habitat improvement and reducing risks of a wildfire escaping from the Wilderness. The drastically higher costs associated with Alternatives 3 and 4 are the costs of the proposed prescribed burning within the Black Elk Wilderness.

All action alternatives display a negative PNV. These negative values are the result of several factors. First, the main influence to the low PNV is a very low current timber value benefit ($10/ccf) which was used in this analysis. This is due to recent economic conditions which have influenced local timber values. As a result, the overall financial benefit included in this analysis is relatively low. All costs contribute to the negative PNV, however, some costs contribute more than others. For example, in all action alternatives there are 6 stream crossings on Iron Creek trail #15 to access approximately 180 acres of stand diversity and hardwood enhancement treatments. These crossings would be accomplished with the use of temporary bridges to minimize impacts to the stream. The costs of bridges and associated roadwork, as well as the costs to convert this trail to a system road, then back to a trail, would be substantial. To display the opportunity cost of these treatments, a separate Quick-Silver analysis was run which removes the costs and benefits of treating these sites, leaving all other costs and benefits the same. The results are displayed in Table 80.

263 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 80. Financial Analysis Results by Alternative – Without the Proposed Habitat Enhancement Treatments Along Iron Creek Trail #15; Results in Millions of Dollars. Financial Alternative 1 – Alternative 2 – Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Measure No Action Proposed Action Present Value 0 -4.6 -9.4 -9.6 Costs Present Value 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 Benefits Present Net Value 0 -4.1 -8.9 -9.0 (PNV) Benefit/Cost Ratio 0 0.1 0.05 0.05 Source: Quicksilver6. Figures may not add due to discounting and rounding.

Another example would be prescribed burning within the BEW in Alternatives 3 and 4, only. The cost of prescribed burning within the BEW does not result in a corresponding financial benefit, for the reasons discussed previously. Therefore this cost is not counter balanced by any financial benefit. A third QuickSilver analysis was run which removes the cost of prescribed burning within the BEW. Table 81 displays the results of this analysis for Alternatives 3 and 4, only.

Table 81. Financial Analysis Results by Alternative – Without the Proposed Prescribed Burning within the Black Elk Wilderness; Results in Millions of Dollars. Financial Measure Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Present Value Costs -4.5 -4.7 Present Value Benefits 0.5 0.5 Present Net Value (PNV) -4.0 -4.1 Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.1 0.1 Source: Quicksilver6. Figures may not add due to discounting and rounding.

Based upon this analysis, the opportunity cost to prescribe burn within the BEW is approximately $5 million. Again, this is a measure of only the cost to implement, it does not consider the non-monetary benefits of reducing risk of fire escaping from the Wilderness to the Forest Service, or any monetary or non-monetary benefit to non-Forest Service property or businesses. The non-monetary benefits are discussed in Chapter 3 and summarized in Table 8 of Chapter 2. Short Term Uses and Long Term Productivity NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). As declared by the Congress, this includes using all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans (NEPA, Section 101).

Please refer to the Silviculture and Soils sections in this chapter for discussions related to short- term uses and long-term productivity. The proposed actions in this project include design criteria to protect soil productivity. These short-term actions would generally not damage or diminish long-term resource productivity.

264 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

The vegetation treatments proposed in the action alternatives are designed to either enhance wildlife habitat or reduce the likelihood of a naturally-ignited fire from affecting values outside of the Wilderness boundary. In the short-term, these activities would alter the structure of vegetation within the forested sites, therefore changing the habitat to something different than is currently present. This would have a long-term benefit of providing various habitats for those animals on the Focus Species list.

In the short-term, the application of prescribed fire within the Wilderness would visually change the experience for the Wilderness user. Prescribed fire would create patches of burned trees and perhaps short-term signs of man’s presence. Many years of fire suppression created an environment of dense stands of pine and reduced biodiversity. In the long-term, the Wilderness would likely benefit from the application of fire, which would move the area toward a more naturally-functioning ecosystem which evolved with frequent fire. This scenario has the potential to improve the Wilderness user’s experience in the future by fostering a resilient ecosystem. Unavoidable Adverse Effects The following is a description of adverse effects that are unavoidable with implementation of the action alternatives. Project design criteria is included (see Appendix B) which would reduce these effects. For further discussion of the effects on resources, see the respective resource topics.

Soils: It is possible that limited soil erosion or compaction could occur in localized areas. Travel: During project implementation, there would be increased traffic on project area roads. Short-term increases in noise and dust levels could occur. Recreation: Short-term displacement of users of trails and other dispersed recreation would occur during implementation. Visual Quality: Visual qualities would be adversely affected for some observers by the various levels of vegetation treatment and other actions planned. Heritage Resources: Resources could be disturbed or destroyed where human or natural activities take place. Fire/Fuels Hazard: Hazards would be increased during the short-term in some areas as a result of slash created from vegetation treatment. After slash disposal treatment, this hazard would be reduced. Alternative 1 (No Action) would have a higher long-term potential for large-scale, high-intensity wildfire than the Action Alternatives. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of a species or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a period of time such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept clear for use as a power line right-of-way or a road. For further discussion of the effects on resources, see the respective resource topics.

Irreversible Commitments: There are no irreversible commitments of resources under any alternative. Irretrievable Commitments: There are no irretrievable commitments of resources under any alternative.

265 Chapter 3 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are addressed by topic in the Environmental Consequences sections earlier in this Chapter. Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 directs Federal agencies to focus attention on human health and environmental conditions in minority communities and low-income communities. The purpose of the executive order is to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and low-income populations.

In the Phase II FEIS, Tables 3-59 and 3-60 highlight the demographic statistics for identifying potential communities of concern (USDA Forest Service 2005). None of the counties in the study area contain low-income or minority populations as defined by Executive Order 12898. No additional outreach or analysis has been performed, as there would be no disproportionate negative effect on such communities under any of the alternatives.

Additional evaluations of minority and low-income population data (USDA Forest Service 2009c) show no evidence to suggest that the proposed action would have a disproportionate adverse effect on low-income populations. Evaluations also show that minority populations for the counties in the study area are unlikely to meet the Environmental Justice criterion for a minority population and would be unlikely to experience disproportionate adverse effects from implementation of any alternative. Other Required Disclosures NEPA at 40 CFR1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with …other environmental review laws and executive orders.”

The project does not involve impounding or diverting water, or adverse impacts to threatened or endangered species, therefore, formal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act is not required.

No ground-disturbing actions would occur in known eligible historical places. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act has been conducted as required and the State Historic Preservation Officer has concurred with a finding of no impact to eligible historic or prehistoric sites.

The mission of the USDA Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. The agency recognizes that climate change is an important emerging issue. To help guide agency actions in addressing this challenge, the Forest Service has developed the Strategic Framework for Responding to Climate Change (USDA Forest Service 2008c). One of the stated goals in this framework is to Promote the management of forests and grasslands to reduce the buildup of greenhouse gasses, while sustaining the multiple benefits and services of these ecosystems. This project contributes toward meeting the agency’s goal of mitigating the buildup of greenhouse gasses by managing the forested landscape within the project area so that it is more resilient to deforestation or catastrophic loss. Thereby maintaining or increasing its ability to sequester carbon.

266 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4

Chapter 4. List of Preparers and Distribution of the DEIS Preparers The following individuals were part of the Norbeck Wildlife Project Environmental Impact Statement Interdisciplinary Team.

Lynn Kolund District Ranger – Bachelor of Science, Forest Biology, Colorado State University, 1978. Thirty-one years of Forest Service experience in timber, silviculture, recreation, wilderness, fire and lands. Worked on seven districts and two Supervisor’s offices on six National Forests in Wyoming, Colorado, Alaska and South Dakota.

Kelly Honors District Planning Staff – Bachelor of Science, Forestry, State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, 1985. Bachelor of Science, Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse University, 1985. Twenty three years of Forest Service experience at the District level in timber and planning; twenty of those years on the Black Hills National Forest. Twenty years experience in writing NEPA documents.

Alice Allen Environmental Coordinator - Bachelor of Science, Biology, State University of New York (SUNY) at Albany, 1973. Master of Science, Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, 1991. Nineteen years of Forest Service experience with project planning. Fourteen years experience preparing NEPA analyses. Eight years experience with TEAMS Enterprise working on a wide variety of natural resource projects all across the western U.S. and Alaska.

Michael Reichenberg Silviculturist/GIS – Bachelor of Science, Forestry, University of Montana, 1999. Certified Forest Service Silviculturist since 2008. Ten years of Forest Service experience at the district level in the forest inventory, timber and silviculture at the North Central Research Station, Superior National Forest, and Black Hills National Forest.

Jamie Wheeler Wildlife Biologist – Bachelor of Science, Biology, St. Norbert College, DePere, WI, 1999. MS, Wildlife and Fisheries Science, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD, 2007. Worked from 2005 to 2007 at Wind Cave National Park as a wildlife SCEP student. Two years of Forest Service experience at the district level as wildlife biologist.

Shelly Deisch Wildlife Biologist and FS Liaison - SDGF&P Cooperator. Bachelor and Masters in Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Minor in Range Science, SD State University. Twenty years of wildlife research and habitat

267 Chapter 4 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

management with private consultant, State University, State wildlife agency and FS Research Station. Worked in the Adirondacks, Montana, South Dakota and on Catalina Island. Currently review federal NEPA documents and provide state agency comments. Degree in Paralegal Studies, Denver Paralegal Institute with 6 years experience in preparing legal briefs, conducting legal research and filing court documents.

Kurt Allen Entomologist – USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Protection – Bachelor of Science, Biology, University of Northern Iowa, 1988. Master of Science, Forestry and Entomology, Iowa State University, 1992. Service Center leader and entomologist since 1995. Entomologist, Forest Health Protection for the Northeastern Area, Durham, NH, from 1992-1995. Currently conduct applied research and use developing technologies to find answers to forest management/forest insect issues. Supervise Forest Health Management staff.

Gwen Lipp Fuels Planner - Bachelor of Science, Environmental Engineering, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, 2004. Ten years of Forest Service experience at the district and national level in fire operations, fuels, timber, prescribed fire and planning. Current qualifications include: Incident Commander Type 4, Dozer Boss, Engine Boss, Prescribed Fire Effects Monitor, Prescribed Fire Ignition Specialist, Resource Unit Leader, Situation Unit Leader, Task Force Leader trainee, Burn Boss Type 2 trainee and Planning Section Chief trainee.

David Pickford Recreation Specialist - Bachelor of Arts in Outdoor Recreation from Eastern Washington University. Twenty years of Forest Service experience at the District level in timber, firefighting, trails, recreation and wilderness on the Ottawa and Black Hills National Forests. USFS, NPS and USFWS field experience in Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, UP Michigan as well as NH State Parks. Former USAF Survival Specialist and USAF (civilian) Outdoor Adventure Program Staff.

Scott (Gus) Malon Wilderness Specialist – Bachelor of Science in Outdoor Education from Black Hills State University, 1989. Bachelor of Science in Education from Black Hills State University, 1997. Graduate credits in Recreation Resources and Wilderness Management from University of Montana, 2007. Eleven years federal service in land management agencies in South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming and Colorado.

Leslie (Les) Gonyer Hydrologist – Bachelor of Science, Forestry minor in Hydrology, University of Minnesota, 1977. Thirty three years of Forest Service experience at the District and Forest levels in Utah, New Mexico, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, California, and South Dakota in watershed, timber, special uses, minerals, fire, engineering and environmental analysis. Red-carded firefighter, FFT2. BAER (Burned Area Emergency Response) Team Leader and RAT (Rapid Assessment Team) team experience.

268 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4

Cynthia Englebert Rangeland Management Specialist – BS in Range Science from SD State University, 1985; Qualified for OPM 430 series (Botany) in 2003; Thirteen years of Forest Service experience as a Rangeland Management Specialist on the Nebraska, Toiyabe and Black Hills National Forests; Five years experience conducting plant surveys and sensitive plant surveys on the Black Hills National Forest

Anthony King Archaeologist—Master of Arts, Anthropology, University of Denver, 2006; Bachelor of Arts, Anthropology, Colorado College, 2004; Associate of Arts, English, Pikes Peak Community College, 2002. Six years of Forest Service Experience as an Archaeologist at the District and Regional Levels, and as part of an enterprise team in Colorado, California, Nebraska, New Mexico, Kansas, Wyoming, and South Dakota.

Matthew Padilla Archaeologist -- Master of Arts in Anthropology and Minor in GIS from New Mexico State University, 2006. Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology from Kansas State University, 2003. Three field seasons as an Archaeological Technician for the Black Hills National Forest (2002, 2004, 2005). Four years of Forest Service experience as an Archaeologist at the district level, and five years as a fire archaeologist for the Forest Service. USFS experience in California and South Dakota.

Gail Mayer Civil Engineering Technician- Bachelor of Arts in Outdoor Recreation From Chadron State College, Chadron NE 1992. Seven years of experience with the National Forest Service in Surveying, GPS, road design and package layout. Two years experience with Federal Highway Administration in road construction inspection, and materials testing. One year experience with the Wyoming Department of Transportation in surveying and materials testing.

Stephen Keegan Landscape Architect - Bachelor of Science, Landscape Architecture & Environmental Studies, State University of New York (SUNY) - College of Environmental Science and Forestry (ESF), 1980; Bachelor of Science, (dual degree with ESF), Syracuse University 1980; Associates of Arts, Humanities, SUNY - Onondaga Community College, 1978. Twenty-eight years with the US Forest Service in: A) Engineering/ Surveying/ Road Design/ Contract Administration: Helena NF - MT (1980), Clearwater NF - ID (four seasons), Malheur NF - OR (five years). B) Scenic Resource Assessments for vegetation and fuels management, watersheds, recreation construction, wild & scenic rivers, scenic byways, and burned area rehabilitation: Malheur NF - OR (three years) Landscape Architect and (seven years) Forest Landscape Architect, Black Hills NF (ten years) Forest Landscape Architect and Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway Coordinator.

Edward Fischer Environmental Coordinator – Bachelor of Science Forest Management from Michigan State University, 1975. Thirty-one years with the US Forest Service on the following: White River NF in Colorado; Tongass NF in Alaska, Supervisor’s Office and Thorne Bay Ranger District; Targhee NF in Idaho, Supervisor’s Office and Ashton Ranger District in silviculture,

269 Chapter 4 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

timber sale preparation and as Forest Environmental Coordinator; Black Hills NF (ten years) Supervisor’s Office as Natural Resources Law Specialist and Environmental Coordinator.

Distribution of this FEIS Hard copies or CD of this FEIS were sent or otherwise delivered to the following local, state and federal agencies, tribes, organizations, groups, businesses and individuals. This list includes those recipients required by federal regulations and those who expressed interest during the scoping period or who specifically requested to receive a hard copy or CD of the FEIS.

Additional notifications were made to individuals, groups and agencies who requested a copy of the document online. The document can be accessed from the Black Hills website: http://www.fs.usda.gov/blackhills

Tribes Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma Crow Creek Sioux Tribe Eastern Shoshone Tribe Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe Grey Eagle Society Kiowa Ethnographic Endeavor for Preservation Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Mandan, Hidatsa & Nation Northern Arapaho Tribe Northern Cheyenne Tribe Oglala Sioux Tribe Rosebud Sioux Tribe Santee Sioux Nation Sicangu Lakota Treaty Council Office Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Yankton Sioux Tribe

Local, State and Federal Custer County Custer City – The Honorable Harold Stickney, Mayor Hill City Keystone City Pennington County South Dakota State Department of Game, Fish and Parks Ø Jeffrey Vonk Ø Shelly Deisch Ø Dick Miller Ø Gary Brundige

270 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4

The Honorable Stephanie Herseth, House of Representatives The Honorable Tim Johnson, United States Senate Governor Mike Rounds, South Dakota Governor's Office The Honorable John Thune, United States Senate

United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Library

United States Department of the Interior Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance Mt. Rushmore National Memorial – Gerard Baker

United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Federal Activities, EIS Filing Section Region 8, EIS Review Coordinator

Organizations, Groups and Businesses Ark Initiative Black Hills Chapter, Sierra Club Ø Karen Olson Ø James Margadant Ø Sam Clauson Black Hills Forest Resource Assn Black Hills Mountain Lion Foundation Black Hills Parks and Forests Association Black Hills Sportsmen Club Biodiversity Conservation Alliance Custer Trail Riders Defenders of the Black Hills Forest Recreation Management Friends of the Norbeck Native Ecosystems Council National Wild Turkey Federation Neiman Timber Company The Norbeck Society Palmer Gulch Lodge, Mount Rushmore KOA Prairie Hills Audubon Society Rushmore Ranch Resort & Campground Rushmore Resort The Wilderness Society Wyss and Associates

Individuals Donna and Roy Alexander Vic Alexander Dick Artley Robyn Bailey Steve Baldwin

271 Chapter 4 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Brian Brademeyer Jack Bradt Dave Brenneisen Patrick Brondos Bill Coburn John Coyle Sandra Cutshall D.J. Duerr Adrian Forette Coe Foss Ricky GoodVoiceFlute Susan Gronwell Tom and Kay Guggisberg Jackson Hayes Wayne C. Herreman Nancy Hilding Chris Holbeck Tom Huhnerkoch Jim and Erica Husted Bob and Vicki Irvine Ryan Jennings Jim Jennings Tom and Carlyn Jervis Alan P. and Theresa J. Karpel DeLaine Katus Hayes Jean Katus Tom Katus Eve Koevenig Bart Kohler Ralph Kopp Bill Loffer Brock Martin Dave Miller Brad Mohrmann Katherine Montague Gene Norman Marilyn Oakes Jeff Olson Paul Pierson Christine Redden Wendy Roth Jim Scherrer Sharon Seneczko Janet Serino Jessica Smith David Trask Gregg Trask, et al. John Twiss Josh Van Vlack Charmaine White Face Robert Farland

272 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

Chapter 5. Literature Cited, Glossary, Index Literature Cited Allen, K.K. and D.F. Long. 2008. Evaluation of mountain pine beetle activity in the Norbeck Area, Black Hills National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Forest Health Evaluation RCSC-08-03.2008. Available online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/blackhills

Allen, K. February 2009. Memo to Black Hills National Forest Supervisor regarding consequences of the No Action Alternative and effects of treatments in the Norbeck area. Rocky Mountain Region Forest Health Management, Rapid City, South Dakota

Anderson, D.G. November 2005. Botrychium multifidum (Gmel.) Rupr. (leathery grapefern): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/botrychiummultifidum.pdf

Anderson, T. 2002. Conservation assessment for the American dipper in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. Available online at: http://www.fs. usda.gov/blackhills

Anderson, T. 2003. Conservation assessment of woodpeckers in the Black Hills National Forest. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota. 176 pp. Available online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/blackhills

Anderson, T. 2004. Callused vertigo (Vertigo authuri): A technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/callusedvertigo.pdf.

Backlund. D. 2003. Results of spring 2003 nesting survey. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. Available online at: http://www.sdgfp.info/Wildlife/Diversity/dipper/Spring2003.htm.

Backlund, D. 2008. The American dipper, Cinclus mexicanus, in the Black Hills of South Dakota: Past and Present. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. Available online at: http://www.sdgfp.info/Wildlife/Diversity/dipper (Accessed 5/7/09).

Bartos, D.L. 2000. Landscape dynamics of aspen and conifer forests. W.D. Sheppard, D. Binkley, D. Bartos, T.J. Stohlgren and L.G. Eskew (compilers). In: Sustaining aspen in western landscapes: Symposium proceedings; June 13-15, 2000. Grand Junciton, Colorado. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 460 pp.

Beason, J., K. Hutton, A. Panjabi, R. Sparks, and D. Hanni. 2006. Monitoring the birds of the Black Hills: 2005 Field Season Report. Tech. Rep. M-MBBH05-01. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO, 113 pp.

273 Chapter 5 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Beauvais, G.P. 2001. Preble’s jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) in Wyoming: Status report, July 2001. Unpublished report prepared by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming. Laramie, Wyoming.

Beecham, J.J. Jr., C.P. Collins, and T.D. Reynolds. February 12, 2007. Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis): A technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/rockymountainbighornsheep.pdf. Belica, L.T. and N.P. Nibbelink. August 23, 2006. Mountain Sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/mountainsucker.pdf

Benzon, T.A., and L.A. Rice. 1987. Rocky mountain goat population status in the Black Hills, South Dakota, 1983-1987. South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks. Completion report. Study # 7527. 100 p.

Bildstein, K.L., and K. Meyer. 2000. Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus). No. 482, In: The Birds of North America, A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Black Hills Forest Resource Association & South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2005. 2004 Field Audit Report: Implementation monitoring and evaluation of South Dakota Forestry Best Management Practices. Rapid City & Pierre, SD.

Blakesley, J.A., G. Giroir, and C. White. 2008. Population densities and trend detection of avian species on the Black Hills National Forest. Tech. Rep. M-MBBH07-02. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO, 45pp.

Bolen, E.G., and W.L. Robinson. 2003. Wildlife ecology and management. 5th edition. Prentice Hall, Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. 634 p.

Bonnot, T. 2004. Association of black-backed woodpeckers with mountain pine beetle infestation in the Black Hills, South Dakota. Interim Progress Report. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station and University of Missouri-Columbia. December, 2004. 8pp.

Bonnot, T.W., M.A. Rumble, and J.J. Millspaugh. 2008. Nest success of black-backed woodpeckers in forests with mountain pine beetle outbreaks in the Black Hills, South Dakota. The Condor 110: 450-457. Bosakowski, T., and D.G. Smith. 2002. Raptors of the Pacific Northwest. Frank Amato Publications, Inc. Portland, Oregon.

Brown, P.M., C.H. Sieg. 1996. Fire history in the interior ponderosa pine communities of the Black Hills, South Dakota, USA, Int. J. Wildland Fire 6(3): 97-105.

Brown, P.M., and C.H. Sieg. 1999. Historical variability in fire at the ponderosa pine-northern Great Plains prairie ecotone, southeastern Black Hills, South Dakota. Ecoscience 6: in press.

274 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

Brown, P.M., M.Ryan, G. Andrews, G. Thomas, 2000. Historical surface fire frequency in ponderosa pine stands in Research Natural Areas, Central Rocky Mountains and Black Hills, USA, Natural Areas Journal 20: 133-139.

Brown, P.M., and B. Cook. 2006. Early settlement forest structure in Black Hills ponderosa pine forests. Forest Ecology and Management.

Buskirk, S.W. 2002. Conservation assessment for the American marten in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota. 51 pp.

Cannings, R.J. 1993. Northern saw-whet owl (Aegolius acadicus). In: The Birds of North America, No. 42. A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia.

Clark, T.W., and M.R. Stromberg. 1987. Mammals in Wyoming. Museum of Natural History. University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. 314 pp.

Cotton, C.L., and K.L. Parker. 2000. Winter habitat and nest trees used by northern flying squirrels in subboreal forests. Journal of Mammalogy. 81(4):1071-1086.

Cryan, P., M. Bogan, and G. Yanega. 2001. Roosting habits of four bat species in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Acta Chiropterologica 3:43-52.

Cryan, P., and L.E. Ellison. 2005. Distributional survey of the meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius) in the Northern Great Plains: trapping report, summer 2005. Progress Report, compiled for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Denver, Colorado. September, 2005.

DeGraaf, R.M., V.E. Scott, R.H. Hamre, L. Ernst and S.H. Anderson. 1991. Forest and rangeland birds of the United States, natural history and habitat use. USDA Forest Service- Agriculture Handbook 688. 625 pp.

DePerno, C.S., J.A. Jenks, S.L. Griffin, and L.A. Rice and K.F. Higgens. 2002. White-tailed deer habitats in the central Black Hills. Journal of Range Management 55:242-252.

Dixon, R.D. and V. A. Saab. 2000. Black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus). Pages 1-19 in Poole A., and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America, No. 509. The Birds of North American, Inc. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 19 pp.

Duckwitz, J.J. 2001. Small mammal survey of Wind Cave National Park. Masters thesis, South Dakota State University, Brookings. 95 p.

Fauna West Wildlife Consultants. 2003. 2003 Survey results for small forest owls, the northern goshawk and other raptors of interest in the Black Hills, South Dakota. Report prepared for South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, South Dakota.

FEMA Flood Plain Coverage GIS Layer. 1996. fsfiles/ref/library/gis/forest/blkh/pysical /q3flood.Fisher, R.F., M.J. Jenkins, and W.F. Fisher. 1987. Fire and the prairie-forest mosaic of Devil’s Tower National monument. American Midland Naturalist.

275 Chapter 5 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Flake, L.D., C.P. Lehman, A.P. Leif, M.A. Rumble, and D.J. Thompson. 2006. The wild turkey in South Dakota. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, and South Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station, Brookings. SDAES B747.

Ford, R.C. 1988. Black Hills stream inventory and classification 1984 and 1985. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. Report No. 88-1.

Frest, T. J. and E. J. Johannes. 2002. Land snail survey of the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming, Summary Report, 1991-2001. Final Rep. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota. 127 pp.

Frison, G.C., 1991 Prehistoric hunters of the High Plains. Academic Press, New York.

Ghalambor, C. 2003. Conservation assessment of the pygmy nuthatch in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. Available online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/blackhills

Giroir, G., C. White, and R. Sparks. 2007. Monitoring the birds of the Black Hills, 2007 field season report. Tech. Rep M-MBBH07-01. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO, 81 pp.

Glisson, B.T. May 2003. Conservation assessment of the southwestern showy sedge in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. Custer, South Dakota: USDA Forest Service.

Goodman, R. 1992. Lakota star knowledge: studies in Lakota stellar theology. Second ed. Sinte Gleska University, Mission, South Dakota.

Graham, R.T., S. McCaffrey, T.B. Jain. 2004. Science basis for changing forest structure to modify wildfire behavior and severity. Gen Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-120. Fort Collins, CO. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Graves, H.S. 1899. The Black Hills reserve. Nineteenth annual report of the survey, 1897-1898. Part V. Forest Reverves. U.S.Geological Survey. Griebel, R., K. Burns and S. Deisch. May 2007. Focus species Norbeck Wildlife Preserve Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota: USDA Forest Service. Available on-line at http://www.fs.usda.gov/blackhills

Griffin, S.L., L.A. Rice, C.S. DePerno, and J.A. Jenks. 1999. Seasonal movements and home ranges of white-tailed deer in the central Black Hills, South Dakota and Wyoming, 1993- 97. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Pittman-Robertson Game Rep., W-75-R-34, Pierre, South Dakota.

Hair, D; Sampson, R.N.; Hamilton, T. 1996. Summary: forest management opportunities for increasing carbon storage. In: Sampson, R.N.; and Hair, D., eds. Forests and Global Change, Vol. 2: Forest Management Opportunities. American Forests, Washington, D.C.: 237-253.

276 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

Hann, W., D. Havlina, A. Shlisky, et al. 2003. Interagency and The Nature Conservancy fire regime condition class website. USDA Forest Service, US Department of the Interior, The Nature Conservancy, and Systems for Environmental Management [frcc.gov].

Hansen, C., J. Millspaugh, M.A. Rumble. 2008. Factors affecting the probability of detecting ruffed grouse in the Black Hills National Forest. Progress Report 1. January 14, 2008.

Hejl, S.J., K.R. Newton, M.E. McFadzen, J.S. Young, and C.K. Ghalambor. 2002. Brown creeper (Certhia americana). In: The Birds of North America, No. 669. A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Higgins, K.F., E.D. Stukel, J.M. Goulet, and D.C. Backlund. 2000. Wild mammals of South Dakota. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, South Dakota. 278 pp.

Hornbeck, H.J., C.H. Sieg, D.J. Reyher, and D.J. Bacon. May 2003. Conservation assessment for the large round-leaved orchid in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. Custer, South Dakota: USDA Forest Service.

Hough, M.J. 2008. Research techniques, habitat use, and ecology of northern flying squirrels, and research techniques and distribution of red squirrels in the Black Hills National Forest and northeastern South Dakota. Thesis, masters of Science, Biological sciences, South Dakota State University. 128p.

Hough M., and C. Dieter. 2006. Habitat use and ecology of the northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) and habitat use of the red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) in the Black Hills and northeastern, South Dakota. Progress report. South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota. 2 pp.

Hutton, K., J. Beason, G. Giroir, A. Panjabi, R. Sparks, and D. Hanni. 2007. Monitoring the birds of the Black Hills: 2006 field season report. Technical Report M-MBBH06-01. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO, 71 pp.

Huxoll, C. 2006. Big game harvest projections. 2005 Annual Report. South Dakota game report, no. 2006-04. South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, South Dakota.68 p. Available online at: http://www.sdgfp.info/Wildlife/hunting/Harvest/2005BGSummary.pdf.

Huxoll, C. 2008. Big game harvest projections. 2007 Annual Report. South Dakota game report, no. 2008-02. South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, South Dakota. 68 p. Available online at: http://www.sdgfp.info/Wildlife/hunting/Harvest/2007BGSummary.pdf.

Huxoll, C. 2009. Big game harvest projections. 2008 Annual Report. South Dakota game report, no. 2009-03. South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, South Dakota.79 p. Available online at: http://www.sdgfp.info/Wildlife/hunting/Harvest/2008BGsummary.pdf.

Isaak, D.J., W.A. Hubert, and C.R. Berry, Jr. 2003. Conservation assessment for lake chub, mountain sucker, and finescale dace in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota. 64 pp. http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/chub_sucker_dace.pdf.

277 Chapter 5 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Johnsgard, P.A. 1990. Hawks, eagles and falcons of North America. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington D. C. 403 pp.

Johnson, A.S., and S.H. Anderson. 2003. Conservation assessment for the northern saw-whet owl in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. 27pp. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/northern_saw_whet_ow l.pdf.

Joy, S.M. 1990. Feeding ecology of sharp-shinned hawks and nest-site characteristics of accipiters in Colorado. Masters thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins.

Joyce, Linda A.; Birdsey, Richard, technical editors. 2000. The impact of climate change on America’s forests: A technical document supporting the 2000 USDA Forest Service RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-59. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 133 p. On the web at: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr059.pdf

Kennedy, P.L. 2003. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentiles atricapillus): A technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/Region 2/projects/scp/assessments/northerngoshawk.pdf

Keinath, D.A. 2004. Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes): A technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, Colorado. 63 pp.

Kingery, H.E. 1996. American dipper. In: The Birds of North America, No. 229. A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Kingery, H.E., and C.K. Ghalambor. 2001. Pygmy nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea). In: The Birds of North America, No. 567. A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Kota, A. and D. Bartos. 2005. Protecting aspen regeneration from ungulate utilization in the Black Hills. Masters Thesis. Logan, Utah: Utah State University

Kricher, J. C. 1995. Black-and-white warbler (Mniotilta varia). In: The Birds of North America, No. 540. A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Langowski, Paul. 2006. Mountain pine beetle and fuels profiles interactions. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, SPF- Fire and Aviation Management Briefing Paper.

Lehman, C.P. 2005. Ecology of Merriam’s turkeys in the southern Black Hills, South Dakota. Ph.D. dissertation, South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota.

Lentile, L.B., F.W. Smith, and W.D. Shepperd. 2005. Not in press. Patch structure, fire-scar formation and tree regeneration in a large mixed-severity fire in the South Dakota Black Hills, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. Accepted September 9, 2005.

278 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

Luce, B., A. Cerovski, B. Oakleaf, J. Priday, and L.Van Fleet. 1999. Atlas of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians in Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Wildlife Division, Biological Services Section, Lander, Wyoming.

Lyon, L.J., and A.G. Christensen. 2002. Elk and land management. Pages 556-581 in D.E. Toweill, J.W. Thomas, and R.E. McCabe, editors. North American elk: ecology and management. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington D.C. 962 p.

Marriot, H., D. Faber-Langendoen, A. McAdams, D. Stutzman, and B. Burkhart. Dec. 1999. The Black Hills Community Inventory, Final Report. The Nature Conservancy, Midwest Conservation Science Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 175pp.

Marriott, H.J., and D. Faber-Langendoen. December 2000. The Black Hills Community Inventory, Volume 2: Plant Community Descriptions. Minneapolis, Minnesota: The Nature Conservancy and Association for Biodiversity Information. 326 p.

Marriott, H. February 2001. Floristic inventory of the Black Elk Wilderness, Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota. Prepared for SD Dept of Game, Fish & Parks, Wildlife Division and Black Hills national Forest, Hell Canyon Ranger District.

Marrone, G.M. 2002. Field guide to butterflies of South Dakota. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, South Dakota. 478 pp.

Marrone, G.M. 2006. A butterfly survey of the southern Black Hills and adjacent areas with emphasis on species monitored by the South Dakota Natural Heritage Program. Report submitted to: South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre,South Dakota. 36 p

McCallum, D.A. 1994. Review of technical knowledge: flammulated owl. Pages 14-46 in Hayward G. D. and J. Verner technical editors. Flammulated, boreal, and great gray owls in the United States: A technical conservation assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-253. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 214 pp.

Mohren, S.R. 2002. Habitat evaluation and density estimates for the black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) and northern three-toed woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus) in the Black Hills National Forest. Masters thesis. University of Wyoming. Laramie.

Mehl, S.M. 1992. Growth descriptions for the major cover types in the Rocky Mountain Region. In: USDA FS GTR-RM-213 Old-growth forests in the Southwest & Rocky Mountain regions, Proceedings of a workshop.

NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available online at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: May, 11, 2009).

Nekola, J.C. 2003. Large-scale terrestrial gastropod community composition patterns in the Great Lakes region of North America. Diversity and Distributions 9: 55-71.

.

279 Chapter 5 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Panjabi, A. 2001. Monitoring birds of the Black Hills: Year 1. Final Report. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Fort Collins, Colorado. 96 pp.

Panjabi, A. 2003. Monitoring birds of the Black Hills: Year 2. Final Report.Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory. Fort Collins, Colorado. 125 pp.

Panjabi, A. 2004. Monitoring the birds of the Black Hills: Year 3. Annual Report submitted to Black Hills National Forest. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, Colorado. 58 pp.

Panjabi, A. 2005. Monitoring the birds of the Black Hills: Year 4. Annual Report submitted to Black Hills National Forest. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, Colorado. 67 pp.

Parrish, J.B., D.J. Herman, D.J. Reyher, and Black Hills National Forest. 1996. A century of change in Black Hills forest and riparian ecosystems. U.S. Forest Service Agricultural Experiment Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, South Dakota State University. 20 pp.

Payne, N.F. 1981. Accuracy of aerial censusing for beaver colonies in Newfoundland. Journal of Wildlife Management 45(4): 1014-1016.

Peterson, R.A. 1995. The South Dakota breeding bird atlas. South Dakota Ornithologists’ Union. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center home page. Jamestown, North Dakota. Available online at: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/sdatlas/index.htm .

Platt, J.B. 1976. Sharp-shinned hawk nesting and nest site selection in Utah. Condor. 78:102- 103.

Powder River Eagle Studies. 2000. Northern Black Hills broad-winged hawk occurrence and distribution study. Phase Two Conclusion: Nest Search & Summary of Nest Site Characteristics. Submitted to: Wharf Resources Partnership, HC 37, Box 811, Lead, South Dakota.

Rabe, M., T. Morrell, H. Green, J. Devos Jr., and C. Miller. 1998. Characteristics of ponderosa- pine snag roosts used by reproductive bats in northern Arizona. Journal of Wildlife Management 62(2):612-621.

Reiser, J.M., and S.M. Spomer. 2005. Survey for additional colonies of the endemic Black Hills Atlantis fritillary butterfly, Speyeria atlantis pahasapa. Report to the South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks, Wildlife Diversity Small Grants Program, Pierre, South Dakota. 15pp.

Reynolds, E., C. Meslow, and H.M. Wight. 1982. Nesting habitat of coexisting accipiter in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management. 46:124-138.

Reynolds, R.T. 1983. Management of western coniferous forest habitat for nesting accipiter hawks. General Technical Report RM-102. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce Jr., G. Goodwin, R. Smith, and E.L. Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the

280 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-217. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 90 pp.

Richardson, A.H. 1971. The Rocky Mountain goat in the Black Hills. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Bulletin Number 2. 24 pp.

Rom, L., T. Church and M. Church. Black Hills National Forest cultural resources overview. Ms. on file at the Black Hills National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Custer, South Dakota.

Rosenfeld, R.N. and J. Bielefeldt. 1993. Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii). In: The Birds of North America, No. 75. A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The Birds of North America, Inc. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Royer, R.A., and G.M. Marrone. 1992. Conservation status of the regal fritillary (Speyeria idalia) in North and South Dakota. Rep. to the U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 44 pp.

Rumble, M.A. 1992. Roosting habitat of Merriam’s turkeys in the Black Hills, South Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:750-759.

Rumble, M.A., and S.H. Anderson. 1993. Macrohabitat associations of Merriam’s turkeys in the Black Hills, South Dakota. Northwest Science 67:238-245.

Rumble, M.A., and S.H. Anderson. 1996. Feeding ecology of Merriam’s turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo merriami) in the Black Hills, South Dakota. American Midland Naturalist 136:157-171.

Rumble, M.A. 2002. Evaluation of mountain pine beetle epidemics as habitat for cavity nesting birds. Preliminary findings for ISA 203-02-020. Report to the Black Hills National Forest from the Rocky Mountain Research Station, Rapid City, SD. September 23, 2002.

Rumble, M.A., B.F. Wakeling, and L.D. Flake. 2003. Factors affecting survival and recruitment in female Merriam’s turkeys. Intermountain Journal of Science 9(1):26-37.

Rumble, M.A., L. Benkobi and R.S. Gamo. 2005. Elk responses to humans in a densely roaded area. Intermountain Journal of Sciences. Vol. 11, No.102:10-24.

Rusch, D.H., S. Destefano, M.C. Reynolds and D. Lauten. 2000. Ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/515; doi:10.2173/bna.515

Saab, V., L. Bate, J. Lehmkuhl, B. Dickson, S. Story, S. Jentsch, and W. Block. 2006. Changes in downed wood and forest structure after prescribed fire in ponderosa pine forests. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-41. Salafsky, S.R., R.T. Reynolds, and B.R. Noon. 2005. Patterns of temporal variation in goshawk reproduction and prey resources. Journal of Raptor Research 39: 237- 246.

281 Chapter 5 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

SAIC. 2003. Memorandum. A framework for revising deer and elk strategic management direction on the Black Hills National Forest. Science Application International Corporation. SAIC project number 01-0209-04-4456-106.

Sauer, J.R., and J. E. Hines. 2008. The North American breeding bird survey, results and analysis 1966-2007. Version 0.0.2007. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Available online at: http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html.

Schmid, J.M., S.A. Mata, and W.C. Schaupp,Jr. 2009. Mountain pine beetle-killed trees as snags in Black Hills ponderosa pine stands. Unpublished Research Note. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins, CO.

Schmidt, C.A. 2003a. Conservation assessment for the northern myotis in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/northern_myotis.pdf

Schmidt, C.A. 2003b. Conservation assessment for the small-footed myotis in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/small_footed_b at.pdf. Schmidt, C.A. 2003c. Conservation assessment for the long-eared myotis in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/long_ear_bat.pdf.

Schmidt, C.A. 2003d. Conservation assessment for the long-legged myotis in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/long_legged_bat.pdf

Scott, J.H., R.E. Burgan. 2005. Standard fire behavior fuel models: A comprehensive set for use with Rothermel’s surface fire spread model. US Department of Agriculture-Forest Service. Fort Collins, CO. June 2005. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr153.pdf

Shepperd, W.D. and M.A. Battaglia. 2002. Ecology, silviculture, and management of Black Hills ponderosa pine. Gen. Tech Rep. RMRS-GTR-97. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 112 p.

Shearer, J. 2006. E-mail message dated May 25, 2006 from Jeff Shearer, Coldwater Fisheries Biologist, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Rapid City, SD to Steve Hirtzel, Forest Fisheries Biologist, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, SD regarding the spawning period for mountain suckers in the Black Hills.

Shinneman, D.J. and W.L. Baker. 1997. Nonequilibrium dynamics between catastrophic disturbances and old growth forests in ponderosa pine landscapes in the Black Hills. Conservation Biology 11(6):1276-1288.

Slater, G.L. October 7, 2004. Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum): A technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.

282 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/grasshoppersparrow.pdf (Accessed April 12, 2005).

Smith, B.E. 2003. Conservation assessment of the northern leopard frog in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota. 78 pp.

Smith, B.E. and N.T. Stephans. 2003. A conservation assessment for the redbelly snake in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota. 18 pp.

Smith, K.G., J.H. Withgott and P.G. Rodewald. 2000. Red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/518

South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources (SD DENR). 2008. The 2008 SD Integrated Report for Surface Water Quality Assessment. Steven M Pirner, Secretary. Pierre, SD.

South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks (SDGFP). 2009. Black Hills Stream Fisheries Database. May 11, 2009.

South Dakota Natural Heritage Program (SDNHP). 2007. Rare, threatened or endangered animals tracked by the South Dakota Natural Heritage Program. South Dakota Natural Heritage Program. http://www.sdgfp.info/Wildlife/Diversity/RareAnimal.htm#BIRDS.

South Dakota Ornithologists’ Union (SDOU). 1991. The birds of South Dakota, first revised edition and second edition. The South Dakota Ornithologists’ Union. Northern State University Press. Aberdeen, South Dakota. 411 pp.

Stavins, Robert N.; Richards, Kenneth R. 2005. The Cost of U.S. Forest-based Carbon Sequestration. Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. On the web at: http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Sequest_Final.pdf

Stefanich, M.R. 1995. Movements and habitat use of whitetail deer in the northwestern Black Hills of Wyoming and South Dakota. Masters thesis. University of Wyoming Laramie.

Stefanich, M.R. 2001. Draft conservation assessment for the tawny crescent in the Black Hills National Forest of South Dakota and Wyoming. Black Hills National Forest. March 2001.

Stephens, R.M. and S.H. Anderson. 2002. Conservation assessment for the Cooper’s hawk and sharp-shinned hawk in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/assessments/coopers_ss_hawk.pdf.

Stephens, R. M. and S. H. Anderson. 2003. Conservation assessment for the broad- winged hawk in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota.

283 Chapter 5 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/broad_winged_hawk.pd f.

Stewart, R.K. and C.A. Thilenius. 1964. Stream and lake inventory and classification in the Black Hills of South Dakota, 1964. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. 101 pp.

Stubblefield, C.H., K.T. Vierling, and M.A. Rumble. 2006. Landscape-scale attributes of elk centers of activity in the central Black Hills of South Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 70(4):1060-1069.

Sullivan, J. 1994. Conifer bog. In: Fire effects information system. [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ (Accessed March 1, 2010).

Sundstrom, L. 1989. Culture history of the Black Hills with reference to adjacent areas of the Northern Great Plains. J & L Reprint Company, Lincoln, NE.

Tallman, D.A., D.L. Swanson, and J.S. Palmer. 2002. Birds of South Dakota. Third Edition. Midstates/Quality Quick Print, Aberdeen, South Dakota. 441 pp.

Turner, R.W. 1974. Mammals of the Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming. University of Kansas. Museum of Natural History. Miscellaneous Publication 60:1-178.

Uresk, D.W., and K.E. Severson. 1998. Response of understory species to changes in ponderosa pine stocking levels in the Black Hills. Great Basin Naturalist 58:312-327.

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Norbeck Wildlife Preserve-Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota.

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Photo Series for Quantifying Forest Residues in the: Black Hills – Ponderosa Pine Type and Spruce Type. A-89-1-90. Rocky Mountain Research Station, US Department of Agriculture – Forest Service. Fort Collins, CO.

USDA Forest Service. 1996. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Black Hills National Forest. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. December, 1996. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/index.shtml

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Expert interview summary for the Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment. Unpublished Rep. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota. Available online at: http://www.fs..usda.gov/blackhills.

USDA Forest Service. 200a. Jasper Fire Rapid Assessment. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. July 2008. Available online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/blackhills

284 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Black Hills National Forest monitoring and evaluation report for FY 2000 (October 1999 through September 2000). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota.

USDA Forest Service. 2003a. Black Hills National Forest, Forest Plan Best Management Practices Evaluation. Custer, SD.

USDA Forest Service. 2003b. Effects of fire exclusion in Rocky Mountain ecosystems. RMR Science. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/main/rmrs_reports/rmrscience_03_03.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Black Hills National Forest 2002 monitoring and five-year evaluation report. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Phase II Amendment to the 1997 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Black Hills National Forest. US Department of Agriculture-Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. October, 2005. Available on-line at http://www.fs.usda.gov/blackhills

USDA Forest Service. 2005a. Record of Decision for the Phase II Amendment to the 1997 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Black Hills National Forest. US Department of Agriculture-Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. October, 2005. Available on-line at http://www.fs.usda.gov/blackhills

USDA Forest Service. 2005b. FY2004 Monitoring and Evaluation Report. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota.

USDA Forest Service. 2005c. Forest Service Manual, Black Hills National Forest. FSM 2600 – wildife, fish and sensitive plant habitat management. Chapter 20 – habitat planning and evaluation. Supplement number: r2_bh_2600-2005-7. Available online at: http://fsweb/directives/fsm/2600/bh_supp_2600-2005-1.doc.

USDA Forest Service. 2005d. Black Hills National Forest Phase II Amendment Environmental Impact Statement; Appendix C Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation. Custer, South Dakota: USDA Forest Service.

USDA Forest Service. 2006. 1997 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Black Hills National Forest, As Amended by the Phase II Amendment. US Department of Agriculture-Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. March, 2006. Available online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/blackhills

USDA Forest Service. 2006a. FSH 2509.25 – Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook. Rocky Mountain Region (R-2), Denver, CO. 58 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2006b. FY2005 monitoring and evaluation report. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Black Hills National Forest FY2006 monitoring and evaluation report. US Dept. pf Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. May 2007. Available online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/blackhills

285 Chapter 5 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Black Hills National Forest FY2007 Monitoring and Evaluation Report. USDA Forest Service, Custer, South Dakota. 148pp.

USDA Forest Service, 2008a. Black Elk Wilderness prescribed fire assessment. US Department of Agriculture-Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. July, 2008. Available online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/blackhills

USDA Forest Service. 2008b. Best Management Practices and Watershed Conservation Practice, Summary Report 2002-2007. Black Hills National Forest, Hell Canyon Ranger District.

USDA Forest Service. 2008c. Forest Service Strategic Framework for Responding to Climate Change. Version 1.0. 2008. http://www.fs.fed.us/climatechange/documents/strategic- framework-climate-change-1-0.pdf

USDA Forest Service, et al. 2008. Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning and Implementation Guide. Available online at: http://www.nwcg.gov/branches/ppm/fpc/archives/fire_policy/rx/rxfireguide.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Forest Service Manual 2600 - Wildlife , fish, and sensitive plant habitat management. Chapter 2670 – Threatened, endangered and sensitive plants and animals. Region 2 Supplement No. 2600-2009-1. Denver, Colorado. Effective June 9, 2009.

USDA Forest Service. 2009a. Black Hills National Forest FY2008 Monitoring and Evaluation Report. USDA Forest Service, Custer, South Dakota. 130pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2009c. Supplementary Specialist Report – Social and Economics Effects: Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan. Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota.

USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2008. Agricultural Statistics 2008. US Government Printing Office, 2008. On the web at: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Ag_Statistics/2008/Chap12.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. March 1, 2009. Public Review Draft.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of conservation concern 2008. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp. [Online version available at ]

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008d. Species Account – Bald Eagle. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Dakota Ecological Services Field Office Home Page, http://southdakotafieldoffice.fws.gov/EAGLE.HTM.

USGS Surface Water for USA: Peak Streamflow. 2007a. Peak Streamflow for the Nation. USGS 06402995 French Creek above Stockade Lake near Custer, SD. http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/peak?site_no=06402995&agency_cd=USGS&form at=html. 2/10/2007

286 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

USGS Surface Water for USA: Peak Streamflow. 2007b. Peak Streamflow for the Nation. USGS 06403810 Battle Cr above Keystone, SD. http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/peak?site_no=06403810&agency_cd=USGS&form at=html. 2/10/2007

USGS Surface Water for USA: Peak Streamflow. 2007c. Peak Streamflow for the Nation. USGS 06403850 Grizzly Bear Creek near Keystone, SD. http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/peak?site_no=06403850&agency_cd=USGS&form at=html. 2/10/2007

USGS Surface Water for USA: Peak Streamflow. 2007d. Peak Streamflow for the Nation. USGS 06406740 Sunday Gulch BL Johnson Canyon NR Hill City, SD. http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/peak?site_no=06406740&agency_cd=USGS&form at=html. 2/10/2007

USGS Surface Water for USA: Peak Streamflow. 2007e. Peak Streamflow for the Nation. USGS 06406750 Sunday Gulch near Hill City, SD. http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/peak?site_no=06406750&agency_cd=USGS&form at=html. 2/10/2007

Vierling, K. 2005. Report on woodpecker breeding in the Jasper fire. Submitted to the Game, Fish and Parks Department, May 18, 2008. South Dakota School of Mines and Technology (Rapid City)/ University of Idaho (Moscow). 10 p. Vonhof, M.J., and R.M. Barclay. 1997. Use of tree stumps as roosts by the western long- eared bat. Journal of Wildlife Management. 61(3):674-684.

Wienk, C.L. 2001. Restoring ponderosa pine forests in the Black Hills, South Dakota. A thesis submitted to the faculty of the School of Renewable natural Resources, University of Arizona.

Weink, C.L., C.H. Sieg, and G. McPherson. 2004. Restoring ponderosa pine forests in the northern Black Hills, South Dakota. Forest Ecology and Management.

Wells-Gosling, N., and L.R. Heaney. 1984. Glaucomys sabrinus. Mammalian species no. 229, The American Society of Mammalogists.

Whitaker, J.O., Jr. 1972. Zapus hudsonius. Mammalian species no. 11. The American Society of Mammalogists.

White, C. and G. Giroir. 2009. Monitoring of the Black Hills, 2008 Field Season Report. Tech. Rep. M-MBBH-USFS08, SDDGF08. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO, 57 pp.

Wiggins, D. July 1, 2004. American three-toed woodpecker (Picoides dorsalis): A technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/americanthreetoedwoodpecker.pdf.

Wiggins, D.A. 2005. Brown creeper (Certhia americana): A technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/browncreeper.pdf.

287 Chapter 5 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Wiggins, D. 2006. Mountain bluebird (Sialia currucoides): A technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/mountainbluebird.pdf [date of access].

Woodbridge, B. and C.D. Hargis. 2006. Northern goshawk inventory and monitoring technical guide. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-71. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 80p.

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD). June 2002. Species abstracts, element occurrence records and township/range list. Species of Special Concern, Black Hills National Forest. Glossary Activity Fuels Fuels resulting from or altered by mechanical treatments, such as timber harvest or thinning, as opposed to naturally created fuels.

Age Class Groups of trees approximately the same age.

Allotment A designated are of land available for livestock grazing upon which a specified number and kind of livestock may be grazed under a range allotment management plan. It is the basic land unit used to facilitate management of the range resource on National Forest lands.

Area of Potential Effects The geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist.

Arterial Road Provides service to large land areas and usually connects with public highways or other Forest arterial roads to form an integrated network of primary travel routes. The location and standard are often determined by a demand for maximum mobility and travel efficiency rather that specific resource management service. It is usually developed and operated for long- term land and resource management purposes and constant service.

At-Risk Community An area (A) that is comprised of —(i) an interface community as defined in the notice entitled “Wildland Urban Interface Communities Within the Vicinity of Federal Lands That Are At High Risk From Wildfire” issued by the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with Title IV of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (114 Stat. 1009) (updated 66 Fed. Reg. 43384, August 17, 2001); or (ii) a group of homes and other structures with basic infrastructure and services (such as utilities and collectively maintained transportation routes) within or adjacent to Federal land; (B) in which conditions are conducive to a large-scale wildland fire disturbance event; and (C) for which a significant threat to human life or property exists as a result of a wildland fire disturbance event.”

Available Canopy Fuel The mass of canopy fuel per unit area consumed in a crown fire. There is no post-frontal combustion in canopy fuels, so only fine canopy fuels are consumed. It is assumed that only the foliage and a small fraction of the branchwood is available.

Available Fuel The total mass of ground, surface and canopy fuel per unit area consumed by a fire, including fuels consumed in postfrontal combustion of duff, organic soils, and large woody fuels.

288 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

Basal Area The cross-sectional area of a stand of trees measured at 4 feet 6 inches from the ground. The area is expressed in square feet per acre.

Best Management Practices (BMPs) Land management methods, measures, or practices intended to minimize or reduce water pollution. Usually BMPs are applied as a system of practices rather than a single practice. BMPs are selected on the basis of site-specific conditions that reflect natural background conditions and political, social, economic, and technical feasibility.

Big Game Certain wildlife hunted for sport under state laws and regulations. In the Black Hills, these animals include deer, elk, turkey, mountain goats, and bighorn sheep.

Biological Control Methods Use of natural organisms such as insects, diseases, parasites, and predators to reduce pest populations of insects, diseases, or weeds. Methods may include importation and release; conservation of native natural-enemy species; and augmentation (supplementation through rearing and release or genetic improvement) of biological control agents.

Biological Evaluations As defined by FSM 2670.5, a biological evaluation is a documented Forest Service review of Forest Service programs or activities in sufficient detail to determine how an action or proposed action may affect any threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive species.

BMPs (See "Best Management Practices.")

Board Foot A unit of timber measurement equaling the amount of wood contained in a board one-inch thick, 12-inches long, and 12-inches wide.

Broadcast Burning A management ignited fire, allowed to burn under specific conditions (prescriptions) and within established boundaries to achieve some land-management objective.

Browse Twigs, leaves and young shoots of trees and shrubs on which animals feed.

Canopy The cover by vegetation and/or branches. Often but not always restricted to the tree layer or greater than six feet tall.

Canopy Closure/Cover The percentage of the ground and/or sky covered by vegetation and/or branches. These are perceived from a human point of view perpendicular to flat ground.

Canopy Fuels The live and dead foliage, live and dead branches, and lichen of trees and tall shrubs that lie above the surface fuels. (See also Available Canopy Fuel)

Clearcut The harvesting (removal) in one cut of all trees in an area. The area harvested may be a patch (zero-to-ten acres), stand (not more than 40 acre), or strip.

Collector Road: Serves smaller land areas than a Forest arterial road and is usually connected to a Forest arterial or public highway. Collects traffic from Forest local roads and/or terminal facilities. The location and standard are influenced by both long-term multi-resource service needs, as well as travel efficiency. May be operated for either constant or intermittent service depending on land use and resource management objectives for the area served by the facility.

CMAI (See "Culmination Mean Annual Increment.”)

289 Chapter 5 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Compaction The packing together of soil particles by forces exerted at the soil surface, resulting in increased soil density.

Conifer A group of cone-bearing trees, mostly evergreen, such as the pine and spruce.

Cooperating Agency Cooperating agency means any Federal agency other than a lead agency which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved in a proposal (or a reasonable alternative) for legislation or other major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The selection and responsibilities of a cooperating agency are described in Sec. 1501.6. A State or local agency of similar qualifications or, when the effects are on a reservation, an Indian Tribe, may by agreement with the lead agency become a cooperating agency. South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks is a Cooperating agency for the Norbeck Wildlife project.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) An advisory council to the President established by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969.

Cover Type The vegetative species that dominates a site. Cover types are named for one plant species or non-vegetated condition presently (not potentially) dominant, using canopy or foliage cover as the measure of dominance.

Crown The upper part of a tree or other woody plant carrying the main branch system and foliage and surmounting at the crown base a more or less clean stem.

Crown Fire Any fire that burns in canopy fuels.

Crown Fire Hazard A physical situation (fuels, weather, and topography) with potential for causing harm or damage as a result of crown fire.

Crown Height For a standing tree, crown height is the vertical distance from ground level to the base of the crown, measured either to the lowest live branch-whorl or to the lowest live branch, excluding shoots arising spontaneously from buds on the stem of a woody plant or to a point halfway between.

Cubic Foot A unit of measure usually referring to wood volume (1-foot wide by 1-foot long by 1-foot thick).

Culmination Mean Annual Increment (CMAI) The point at which a tree or stand achieves its greatest average growth, based on expected growth, according to the management systems and utilization standards assumed in the Forest Plan.

Cultural Resources (See "Heritage Resources.”)

Cumulative Effects Collective results of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of which agency or person undertakes the actions.

DBH (See "Diameter at Breast Height.”)

Dead Fuels Fuels with no living tissue within which moisture content is governed almost entirely by solar radiation.

Decision Documents Documents that provide the criteria and information used in the formulation and evaluation of alternatives and the preferred alternative.

290 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

Design Criteria Management measures included in the design of a project to avoid or minimize potential resource impacts.

Desired Landscape Character Appearance of the landscape to be retained or created over time, recognizing that a landscape is a dynamic and constantly changing community of plants and animals. It is a combination of landscape design attributes and opportunities as well as biological opportunities and constraints.

Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) The diameter of a standing tree at a point 4 feet, 6 inches from ground level.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) The statement of environmental effects required for major federal actions under Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and released to the public and other agencies for comment and review.

Ecosystem A community of living plants and animals interacting with each other and with their physical environment. A geographic area where it is meaningful to address the interrelationships with human social systems, sources of energy, and the ecological processes that shape change over time.

Eligible (Heritage Resources) Indicates a specific heritage resource qualifies for or is already listed in the National Register of Historic Places.

Endangered Species Any species of animal or plant in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and so designated by the Secretary of Interior in accordance with the 1973 Endangered Species Act.

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) A document prepared by a federal agency in which anticipated environmental effects of a planned course of action or development are evaluated. A federal statute requires that such statements be prepared. It is prepared first in draft or review form and then in a final form. An impact statement includes the following points: the environmental impact of the proposed action; any adverse impacts that cannot be avoided by the action; the alternative courses of actions; the relationships between local short-term use of the human environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; and a description of the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources that would occur if the action were accomplished.

Ephemeral Streams A stream or portion of a stream that flows briefly in direct response to precipitation in the immediate vicinity and whose channel is at all times above the water table.

Erosion The wearing away of land surface by running water, wind, ice, gravity, or other geological activities.

Erosion Hazard Rating The probability of soil loss resulting from complete removal of vegetation and litter. It is an interpretation based on potential soil loss.

Even-aged Management The application of a combination of actions that result in the creation of stands in which trees of essentially the same age grow together. Managed even-aged forests are characterized by a distribution of stands of varying ages (and therefore, tree sizes) throughout the forest area.

291 Chapter 5 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Fire Hazard A fuel complex, defined by volume, type, condition, arrangement and location that determines the ease of ignition and the resistance to control.

Fire Incidence The average number of fires in a specified area during a specified time period.

Fire Occurrence Number of fires per unit time in a specified area (synonym for fire frequency).

Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) is a tool developed to evaluate current against natural landscape characteristics with respect to vegetation-fuel composition and structure, fire frequency, fire severity, and other disturbances. It characterizes the degree of departure from natural fire, vegetation, and fuel regimes.

Fire Regime Condition Class I - Fire regimes are within natural range, and risk of losing key ecosystem components is low. Vegetation attributes (species composition and structure) are intact and functioning within historical range.

Fire Regime Condition Class II - Fire regimes have been moderately altered from their natural range. The risk of losing key ecosystem components is moderate. Fire frequencies have departed from natural frequencies by one or more return intervals. Vegetation attributes have been moderately altered.

Fire Regime Condition Class III - Fire regimes have been significantly altered from their natural range. The risk of losing key ecosystem components is high. Fire frequencies have departed from natural frequencies by several return intervals. Vegetation attributes have been significantly altered.

Fire Risk The chance of a fire starting, as affected by the nature and incidence of causative agents, including lightning, people, and industry. Three risk scales are used: high, moderate, and low. High-risk areas include locations where lightning, people, or industry have commonly caused fire in the past; moderate-risk areas include locations where lightning, people, or industry have periodically caused fire in the past; and low-risk areas include locations where lightning, people, or industry have infrequently caused fire in the past.

Fire Suppression All the work and activities connected with fire-extinguishing operations beginning with discovery and continuing until the fire is completely extinguished.

Fire Suppression Objective To suppress wildfires at minimum costs consistent with land and resource management objectives and fire-management direction as determined by National Fire Management Analysis System (NFMAS). This includes all work and activities associated with fire-extinguishing operations beginning with discovery and continuing until the fire is completely extinguished.

Fireline Intensity The rate of heat energy released per unit time per unit length of a fire front. Numerically, it is the product of the heat combustion, quality of fuel consumed per unit area in the fire front, and the rate of spread of a fire as measured in BTUs per second per foot of the fire front.

Focus Species A selected list of species that was developed in cooperation with the South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks (SDGFP) to guide management activities in Norbeck Wildlife Preserve in accordance with the original spirit and intent of the Norbeck Organic Act, which established the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve in 1920 for the “protection of game animals and birds and to be recognized as a breeding place therefore”. The focus species represent habitat needs for

292 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5 a range of game animals and birds. Focus species selected for the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve (not including Section 2) are mountain goat, bighorn sheep, Rocky Mountain elk, white-tailed deer, Merriam’s turkey, mountain bluebird, Golden-crowned kinglet, Brown creeper, ruffed grouse, song sparrow, Northern Goshawk, and black-backed woodpecker.

Forage Vegetation used for food by wildlife, particularly ungulate wildlife and domestic livestock.

Forbs Any herbaceous plant other than those in the grass, sedge, and rush families. For example, any non-grass-like plant that has little or no woody material.

Forest Supervisor Official responsible for administering the Black Hills National Forest. The Forest Supervisor reports to the Regional Forester.

Forest System Roads Roads that are part of the Forest Development Transportation System that includes all existing and planned roads as well as other special and terminal facilities designated as part of the Forest Development Transportation System.

Fragmentation Habitat fragmentation is a process that occurs wherever a large, contiguous habitat is transformed into smaller patches isolated from each other by a landscape matrix unlike the original. This matrix can differ from the original habitat in either composition or structure. The crucial point is that fragmentation functions as either a partial or total barrier to dispersal for species associated with the original habitat. A clear threat to population viability occurs when the process of fragmentation isolates populations.

Free Selection A vegetative treatment that maintains and enhances uneven-aged structure by interspersing dense groups of large trees with openings, hardwoods and thinned areas, and reduces overall density of the site to 60 sqft/ac.

FSH Forest Service Handbook.

FSM Forest Service Manual.

Fuel Breaks Generally wide strips of land 100-300 feet in width on which native vegetation has been modified so that fires burning into them can be more readily controlled. Some fuel breaks contain fire lines such as roads or hand lines that can be widened.

Fuel Complex The combination of ground, surface, and canopy fuel strata.

Fuel Loading The volume of the available or burnable fuels in a specified area, usually expressed in tons per acre.

Fuel Model A set of surface fuel bed characteristics (load and surface-area-to-volume-ratio by size class, heat content, and depth) organized for input to a fire model. Standard fuel models (Anderson 1982) have been stylized to represent specific fuel conditions.

Fuel Treatment Any manipulation or removal of fuels to reduce the likelihood of ignition and/or to lessen potential damage and resistance to control, including lopping, chipping, crushing, piling, and burning (synonym for fuel modification).

Fuels The organic materials that will support the start and spread of a fire such as: duff, litter, grass, weeds, forbs, brush, trees, and dead woody materials.

293 Chapter 5 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Goal Broad, general statement that encompasses the desired future conditions that the U.S. Forest Service seeks to attain.

Grass/Forb, Grass/Forb Stage (Structural Stage 1) (See Structural Stages - Structural Stage 1)

Group Retention A vegetative treatment that reduces the density of ponderosa pine to 20 ft2/acre of basal area across the entire site. This treatment achieves 20 ft2/acre of basal area by mixing small clumps of dense (up to 120 ft2/acre of basal area) ponderosa pine with large openings. This treatment provides forage and browse production while retaining a small amount of vertical structure in the site.

Group Selection A silvicultural system in which the canopy is opened by group cuttings so as to create fairly evenly distributed gaps that are enlarged by subsequent cuttings as the groups of regeneration develop; regeneration is mainly natural though young seedlings may be planted and the resultant crop is more or less uneven-aged.

Guideline Preferred or advisable courses of action; deviations from guidelines are permissible, but the responsible official must document the reasons for the deviation.

Habitat Objective Habitat objectives are proposed within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve to enhance or create habitat for the identified Focus Species. Forest Plan direction for the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve is to emphasize habitat for game animals and birds. Habitat objectives for the Norbeck Wildlife project include vegetation treatments to enhance forage, late succession, hardwoods, white spruce, large trees, meadows, shrubs, and stand diversity. Focus species are tied to one or several of these habitat objectives.

Hard Snags A dead or partially dead tree composed primarily of sound wood, particularly sound sapwood.

Hardwood Pertains to broadleaf trees.

Herbicide A chemical substance used for killing or suppressing plants.

Heritage Resources The physical remains (including but not limited to artifacts, structures, landscape modifications, rock art, trails, or roads) and conceptual content or context (as a setting for legendary, historic, or prehistoric events, such as a sacred area for native peoples) of an area.

Ignition (Fire Management) The initiation of combustion.

Infrastructure The facilities, utilities, and transportation systems needed to meet public and administrative needs.

Intensity (Fire Management) How hot a fire is. Specifically, a measure (in BTUs per foot per second) of the energy released per unit of time in an area of actively burning fire. The amount of heat released per foot of fire front per second.

Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) A group of individuals with different specialized training assembled to solve a problem or perform a task. The team is assembled out of recognition that no one discipline is sufficiently broad to adequately solve the problem. Through interaction, participants bring different points of view and a broader range of expertise to bear on the problem.

294 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

Intermittent Stream A stream that flows only at certain times of the year, as when it receives water from springs or from a surface source, such as melting snow.

Landscape Character Particular attributes, qualities, and traits of a landscape that give it an image and make it identifiable or unique. Valued landscape character creates a "sense of place" and describes the image of an area. The landscape character provides a reference for defining the inherent scenic attractiveness classes.

Late Succession Ecosystems distinguished by old trees and related structural features (Mehl 1992). This term encompasses the later stages of stand development that typically differ from earlier stages in structure, composition, function, and other attributes.

There are two types of late-successional ponderosa pine defined for the Black Hills. The first type, open-canopy late-successional ponderosa pine, occurs where periodic, low-intensity fires have been part of the ecosystem. These late-successional stands would consist of clumps or groups of trees with grasses in the openings between the clumps. They would contain large old trees with open branches, irregular, and flattened crowns. The clumps or groups of trees would contain little down dead material and few small trees. The second type, closed-canopy late- successional ponderosa pine occurs where periodic, low intensity high-frequency fires have not been a significant part of the ecosystem. These stands would contain large old trees with open branches and irregular crowns. The stands would have multiple canopy layers made up of various-aged trees. They would be well stocked with trees and contain standing dead and down trees.

Location-Site Location is a term used to describe an area, often a watershed, for the purposes of tracking site specific data. Locations are further divided into “Sites” which are delineated at the stand level.

Lopped, Lopping Cutting off one or more branches of a tree, whether standing, dead, or fallen.

Lopping and Scattering Lopping logging debris and spreading it more or less evenly on the ground.

Management Indicators Species Plant or animal species selected in a planning process that are used to monitor the effects of planned management activities on populations of wildlife and fish, including those that are socially or economically important.

Meadow An area of perennial, herbaceous vegetation, usually grass or grass-like. A natural opening in a forest, generally at higher elevations, that produces exceptional levels of herbaceous plants.

Mechanical (treatment, activity) Vegetation management activities that are implemented with the use of mechanized equipment (i.e., chainsaws, etc.).

Memorandum of understanding (MOU) A document describing an agreement between parties. It expresses a convergence of will between the parties, indicating an intended common line of action. The Black Hills National Forest and the South Dakota Game Fish and Parks have an MOU in place for management of the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve.

Mitigation Actions implemented to reduce the level of impact resulting from management activities.

295 Chapter 5 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Monitoring The sample collection and analysis of information regarding Forest Plan and project level management practices to determine how well objectives have been met as well as the effects of those management activities on the land and environment.

Multi-storied Stands (Vegetation) Plant communities having two or more recognizable canopy layers or height levels.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) An act declaring a national policy to encourage productive harmony between people and their environment; to promote efforts that will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and the biosphere and simulate the health and welfare of people; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality.

National Fire Management Analysis System (NFMAS) A broad umbrella process to help fire managers identify the most efficient fire program meeting the direction in the Forest Plan. This includes information for the planning record on program composition, annual programmed costs, emergency firefighting costs, expected resource impacts, and net value change.

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) A law passed in 1976 amending the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act that requires the preparation of Regional and Forest Plans and the preparation of regulations to guide that development.

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) A list of heritage resources that have local, state, or national significance. The list is maintained by the Secretary of the Interior.

Natural Regeneration The renewal of a tree crop by natural means without artificial seeding or planting. The new crop is grown from self-sown seed or by vegetative means, such as root suckers.

Non-motorized Activities Activities that do not incorporate the use of a motor, engine, or other non-living power source. Non-motorized activities exclude such machines as aircraft, hovercraft, motorboats, automobiles, motor bikes, snowmobiles, bulldozers, chainsaws, rock drills, and generators.

Norbeck Wildlife Preserve The Norbeck Organic Act of June 5, 1920 authorized the establishment of the Custer State Park Game Sanctuary “for the protection of game animals and birds and to be recognized as a breeding place therefore.” The sanctuary was officially established by proclamation on October 9, 1920 by President Woodrow Wilson. The name Custer State Park Game Sanctuary was changed to Norbeck Wildlife Preserve on October 6, 1949 (16 USC 675, 1998).

Norbeck Organic Act (NOA) See Norbeck Wildlife Preserve.

Noxious Weeds Those plant species designated as weeds by federal or state laws. Noxious weeds generally possess one or more of the following characteristics: aggressive and difficult to manage; poisonous; toxic; parasitic; a carrier or host for serious insects or diseases; and generally non-native.

Objective Concise statement of desired measurable results intended to promote achievement of specific goals. Attainment of objectives is limited by the application of standards and guidelines.

296 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

Outbreak – High population levels of insect pests that cause substantial injury to plant or animal hosts. Used synonymously with “epidemic”.

Overstory The portion of vegetation in a forest forming the uppermost foliage layer.

Piling and Burning Piling slash resulting from logging and subsequently burning individual piles.

Plant Communities Assemblage of plant species living in an area. It is an organized unit to the extent that it has characteristics in addition to the individuals and populations and functions as a unit.

Products Other than Logs (POL) Products such as posts, poles, and fiber from trees or parts of trees less than sawlog size. POL usually includes trees greater than 5 inches diameter breast height (DBH) (4.5 feet from ground level) and less than 7.9 inches diameter breast (DBH), with tops of trees greater than 4 inches to less than 6 inches in diameter.

Preparation Cut (Silviculture) A timber harvest method that removes trees near the end of a rotation so as to open the canopy and enlarge the crowns of seed bearers to improve conditions for seed production and natural regeneration, as typically in a shelterwood method.

Prescribed Burning Controlled application of fire to wildland fuels in either their natural or modified state under specified environmental conditions that allows the fire to be confined to a predetermined area and at the same time produce the fireline intensity and rate of spread required to attain planned resource management objectives (synonym for controlled burning).

Prescribed Fire A fire burning within prescription resulting from planned or unplanned ignition.

Prescription (Fire Management) A written statement defining objectives to be attained, as well as temperature; humidity; wind direction and wind speed; fuel-moisture content; and soil moisture, under which the fire will be allowed to burn, generally expressed as acceptable ranges of the various indices, and the limit of the geographic area to be covered.

Present Net Value (PNV) The difference between the discounted value (benefits) of all outputs to which monetary values or established market prices are assigned and the total discounted costs of managing the planning area.

Ranger District Administrative subdivisions of the Forest supervised by a District Ranger who reports to the Forest Supervisor.

Raptor Nests Any nest of eagles, hawks, falcons, or owls.

Regeneration (Silviculture) The renewal of vegetation whether by natural or artificial means. Also refers to the new growth itself.

Responsible Official The Forest Service employee who has the delegated authority to make a specific decision.

Riparian Area (See "Riparian Ecosystem.”)

Riparian Communities Repeating, classified, defined, and recognizable assemblages of plant or animal communities associated with riparian areas.

297 Chapter 5 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Riparian Ecosystem The moist transition zone between the aquatic ecosystem and the relatively drier, more upland, terrestrial ecosystem(s). This transition zone can extend both laterally and longitudinally away from aquatic ecosystems, sometimes into headwater swales that have no defined stream channel. The riparian ecosystem is the area whose soil is relatively moister than the adjacent upland and whose vegetation growth reflects the greater accumulation of available water.

Roads A general term denoting a way with at least two-wheel tracks for purposes of travel by vehicles greater than 50 inches in width.

· System Roads are roads primarily maintained by the Forest Service. As defined in the Title 23 Section 101 of the United States Code (23 U.S.C. 101), any road wholly or partly within, adjacent to, and serving the National Forest System and which is necessary for the protection, administration, and utilization of the National Forest System and the use and development of its resources. These roads are planned to be utilized for this and/or future management entries into the area. They meet the transportation needs identified at the time that they were constructed. However, prior to being heavily utilized for future entries these roads may require pre-use maintenance to reestablish drainage or to improve the driving surface. They may require reconstruction to add drainage, improve road width, or make minor alignment changes.

· Unauthorized Roads are roads on National Forest System lands that are not managed as part of the forest transportation system, such as unplanned roads, abandoned travel ways, and off-road vehicle tracks that have not been designated and managed as a trail. They have not previously been identified as being necessary to meet the transportation needs of the area. These roads may be added to the NFSR system if analysis now shows that they are a necessary part of the transportation system. They may also be designated as motorized or non-motorized trails or decommissioned if they are not necessary to the needs of the area.

Sawtimber Trees suitable in size and quality for producing logs that can be processed into lumber. For planning purposes, trees with an 8-inch diameter or more are classified as sawtimber.

Scarify To abrade, scratch, or modify the surface of the ground to expose mineral soil.

Scenery The composition of basic terrain, geologic features, water features, vegetative patterns, and landrise effects that typify a land unit and influence the visual appeal the unit may have for visitors.

Scenic Class Scenic classes measure the relative importance or value of discrete landscape areas having similar characteristics of scenic attractiveness and landscape visibility. Scenic classes are used during forest planning to compare the value of scenery with the value of other resources, such as timber, wildlife, late succession, or minerals. The higher the scenic class, the more important it is to maintain the highest scenic value. Scenic classes are determined and mapped by combining the three classes of scenic attractiveness with the distance zones and concern levels of landscape visibility. A numerical value of 1 to 7 is assigned to Forest lands. Generally, scenic classes 1-2 have high public value; classes 3-5 have moderate value; and classes 6 and 7 have low value.

298 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

Scenic Integrity (Existing or Objective) State of naturalness or conversely the state of disturbance created by human activities or alteration. Integrity is stated in degrees of deviation from the existing landscape character in a national forest. It is the measure of the degree to which a landscape is visually perceived to be complete. The highest scenic integrity ratings are given to those landscapes that have little or no deviation from the character valued by constituents for its aesthetic appeal. Scenic integrity is used to describe an existing situation, standard for management, or desired future conditions.

· Very High: A scenic integrity level that generally provides for ecological change only. · High: A scenic integrity level meaning human activities are not visually evident. In high scenic integrity areas, activities may only repeat attributes of form, line, color, and texture found in the existing landscape character. · Moderate: A scenic integrity level that refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character "appears slightly altered.” Noticeable deviations must remain visually subordinate to the landscape character being viewed. · Low: A scenic integrity referring to the landscapes where the valued landscape character "appears moderately altered." Deviations begin to dominate the valued landscape character being viewed, but they borrow valued attributes such as size, shape, effect, and pattern of natural opening, vegetative type changes, or architectural styles within or outside the landscape being viewed. They should not only appear as valued character outside the landscape being viewed but compatible or complimentary to the character within. · Very Low: A scenic integrity level that refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character "appears heavily altered.” Deviations may strongly dominate the valued landscape character. They may not borrow from valued attributes such as size, shape, edge effect, and pattern of natural openings, vegetative type changes, or architectural styles within or outside the landscape being viewed. However, deviations must be shaped and blended with the natural terrain so that elements such as unnatural edges, roads, landings, and structures do not dominate the composition. · Unacceptable Low: A scenic integrity level that refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character being viewed appears extremely altered. Deviations are extremely dominant and borrow little if any line, form, color, texture, pattern, or scale from the landscape character. Landscapes at this level of integrity need rehabilitation. This level should only be used to inventory existing integrity. It must not be used as a management objective.

Sediment Displaced soil material suspended in water or that has been deposited in streams and lakes.

Sensitive Species Those plant and animal species identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density; or significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species' existing distribution.

Severely Burned Soil A condition in which most woody debris and the entire forest floor is consumed down to bare mineral soil. Soil may have turned red due to extreme heat. Also, fine roots and organic matter are charred in the upper one-half inch of mineral soil.

299 Chapter 5 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

SHPO (See "State Historic Preservation Officer.”)

Silvicultural System A management process that tends, harvests, and replaces forests, resulting in a forest of distinctive form with a desired condition.

Silviculture Generally, the science and art of tree management, based on the study of the life history and general characteristics of forest trees and stands, with particular reference to local factors; more particularly, the theory and practice of controlling the establishment, composition, constitution, and growth of forests for desired conditions.

Site An area considered in terms of its physical and/or biological environment; for example, a riparian zone, a homogenous stand of vegetation, or a campground.

Skid Trail Any way, more or less prepared, over which logs are dragged. Any road or trail leading from stump to landing.

Skidding Moving logs from the stump to a collecting point.

Slash The residue left on the ground after harvesting, sanitation operations, windstorm, or fire. It includes such material as unutilized logs, uprooted stumps, broken or uprooted stems, tops, branches, and leaves.

Snag Standing dead tree or standing portion from which at least the leaves and smaller branches have fallen; often called a stub if it is less than 20 feet tall.

Soft Snags A snag composed primarily of wood in advanced stages of decay and deterioration, particularly in the sapwood (outer) portions; generally there are no live branches on the snag.

Soil Productivity The inherent capacity of a soil to support the growth of specified plants, plant communities, or a sequence of plant communities. Soil productivity may be expressed in terms of volume or weight/unit area/year, percent plant cover, or other measures of biomass accumulation.

Spruce Release This vegetative treatment consists of removing all ponderosa pine within and 100 feet surrounding treated spruce sites. This treatment enhances spruce habitat by removing the pine seed source surrounding spruce sites. Ponderosa pine produces relatively heavy seeds that typically do not disperse further than 1.5 tree heights. This prolongs the time spruce remain free of pine encroachment and competition. Spruce sites would be increased by 100 feet surrounding the boundary. This treatment requires commercial and non-commercial entries for completion.

Standard Mandatory courses of action; any deviation from standards requires amendment of the LRMP.

Stand A community, particularly of trees, possessing sufficient uniformity as regards to vegetation type, age class, risk class, vigor, size class, and stocking class that distinguishes it from adjacent communities and thus forms a management or silvicultural unity. Within a stand, a dominant or primary species and age class is identifiable, but there may be inclusions or clusters of different species or ages. R2 RIS stands are typically greater than 10 acres. IRI stands are typically greater than 5 acres.

300 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

Stand-replacing Fire A fire that kills all or most living overstory trees in a forest and initiates secondary succession or regrowth.

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) A person appointed by a state's governor to administer the State Historic Preservation Program.

Stream Health The condition of a stream relative to robust health for that stream type and landscape, considering indicators such as channel pattern; slope; particle size; pool frequency and depth; bank vegetation; and woody debris that reflect the stability and habitat quality of the stream.

Stream Level A classification of the relative position of streams in a channel network. First-level streams drain into the ocean. Second-level streams are tributaries to the first-level streams. For example, the Mississippi is a first-level stream; the Missouri is a second-level stream.

Structural Stages (Vegetation) Any of several developmental stages of tree stands described in terms of tree size and the extent of canopy closure they create. They include:

· Structural Stage 1 (Grass/Forb): An early forest successional stage during which grasses and forbs are the dominant vegetation. This stage is dominated by grasses and forbs lasting until tree seedlings become established. · Structural Stage 2 (Shrubs/Seedlings): Developmental stage dominated by tree seedlings (less than one inch DBH) and shrub species. This stage consists of shrubs and seedlings. This stage remains until seedlings reach 1-inch diameter at breast height (DBH). · Structural Stage 3 (Sapling/Pole): Developmental stage dominated by young trees 1 to 9 inches DBH, 10 to 50 feet tall, and usually less than 50 years old. This stage is subdivided into three canopy closure classes:

· SS3A Sapling/Pole stage with less than 40% canopy cover · SS3B Sapling/Pole stage with 40-70% canopy cover · SS3C Sapling/Pole stage greater than 70% canopy cover

· Structural Stage 4 (Mature): Consists of trees larger and older than structural stage 3. This stage contains trees which are at least 9 inches DBH.

· SS4A Mature stage with less than 40% canopy cover · SS4B Mature stage with 40-70% canopy cover · SS4C Mature stage greater than 70% canopy cover

· Structural Stage 5 (Late Succession): This stage is characterized by very large trees (16+ inches DBH). Trees are at least 160 years in age. Late succession ponderosa pine may occur in dense stands but may also grow in the open or in “park-like” stands.

Successional Stages (Seral Stages) The relatively transitory communities that replace one another during development toward a potential natural community.

301 Chapter 5 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Temporary Roads A road developed and operated for a limited period of time that will cease to exist as a transportation facility after the purpose for which it was constructed is completed and the occupied land is reclaimed and managed for natural resource purposes.

Thermal Cover (Wildlife) Cover used by animals to ameliorate the effects of weather. Optimally, thermal cover is provided by a stand of coniferous trees, 30 to 60 acres in size, at least 40 feet tall, with a canopy cover of at least 70 percent.

Thinning The practice of removing some of the trees in a stand to meet desired conditions. Two types of thinning may be done:

· Pre-commercial, Non-commercial: Removing trees that are too small to make a merchantable product. · Commercial: Removing trees that have reached sufficient size to be manufactured into a product and to improve tree spacing and promote more rapid growth.

Threatened Species Any species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range and that has been designated in the Federal Register by the Secretary of Interior as such.

Trail A general term denoting a way usually less than 50 inches wide for purposes of travel by foot, stock, or trail vehicle.

Transportation System All roads needed to manage and administer Forest resources. A road network.

Travel Corridor A strip of land that includes up to a maximum of 1,000 feet for major roads (500 feet either side of the road's centerline) or 500 feet for major trails (250 feet either side of the trail's centerline); travel corridors form a passageway that allows travelers to experience and interact with the quality and character of the landscape.

Travel Management Travel management is the movement of people and products to and through national forests and grasslands. It connects many different varieties of users and multiple uses on National Forest System (NFS) lands.

Understory The lowest layer of vegetation in a forest or shrub community composed of grass, forbs, shrubs, and trees less than 10 feet tall. Vegetation growing under the tree canopy.

Understory Removal A vegetative treatment that removes all ponderosa pine trees under 9” DBH in dense, mature sites in order to promote the growth vigor of larger overstory pine, and to reduce the potential for crown fire by the removal of ladder fuels.

Uneven-aged Management The application of a combination of actions needed to simultaneously maintain tall, continuous cover, recurring regeneration of desirable species, and the orderly growth and development of trees through a range of diameter or age classes to provide a sustained yield of forest products. Cutting is usually regulated by specifying the number or proportion of trees of particular sizes to be retained within each area, thereby maintaining a planned distribution of size classes. Cutting methods that develop and maintain uneven-aged stands are single-tree selection and group selection.

Values, Values at Risk (Fire Management) Any or all natural resources, improvements, or other values that may be jeopardized if a fire occurs.

302 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

Variable Density Thinning A vegetative treatment that generally maintains an even-aged structure by thinning from below using different residual densities across the site to achieve a target basal area per acre. The objective is to provide stand diversity within these sites. Target basal area is 30, 40 or 60 ft²/ac across the site. The density at any point within the site could range from 30-90 ft²/ac to avoid even residual tree spacing.

Viewshed Total visible area from a single observer position or the total visible area from multiple observer positions. Viewsheds are accumulated seen areas from highways, trails, campgrounds, towns, cities, or other view locations. Examples are corridors, feature, or basin viewsheds.

Water Influence Zone (WIZ) The land next to streams and lakes where vegetation plays a major role in sustaining the long-term integrity of aquatic ecosystems. Includes the geomorphic floodplain, riparian ecosystem, and inner gorge, and has a minimum horizontal width (from top of each bank) of 100 feet or the mean height of mature dominant late-seral vegetation, whichever is greater.

Watershed The area of land bounded by a divide that drains water, sediment, and dissolved materials to a common outlet at some point along a stream channel or to a lake, reservoir, or other body of water; also called drainage basin or catchment.

Watershed Level The number assigned to an entire drainage basin contributing to the stream segment of a given level and bearing an identical designation; for example, a first-level watershed contains all the drainage area of a first-level stream (See “Stream Level.”)

Waters of the United States Waters used for navigation and all other waters such as lakes, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes or natural ponds, and their tributaries.

Wetlands Those areas that are inundated by surface water or groundwater with a frequency sufficient to support and under normal circumstances do or would support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas such as sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats, and natural ponds.

Wilderness Areas designated by Congressional action under the 1964 Wilderness Act or subsequent Acts. Wilderness is defined as undeveloped federal land retaining

Wildfire Any wildland fire not designated and managed as a prescribed fire within an approved prescription. All wildfires will be given an appropriate suppression action.

303 Chapter 5 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Index A F air quality, 183, 184, 186, 189, 192, 193, 196 allotments, 28, 238 Fire hazard, 6, 181, 198, 204 Alternative 1 - No Action, - 1 - fire history, 177 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action, - 1 -, 11 fire regime, 4, 6, 15, 174, 175, 176, 182, 183, 193, Alternative 3, - 2 -, 7, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30, 194, 197, 201, 277 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, fire risk, 74, 120, 183, 184, 186, 189, 191, 193, 196, 68, 69, 70, 71, 79, 81, 82, 85, 89, 90, 92, 94, 99, 198 101, 103, 106, 109, 130, 133, 134, 151, 158, 167, fire suppression, 6, 41, 43, 72, 73, 74, 75, 87, 111, 168, 172, 174, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 112, 115, 119, 127, 130, 131, 137, 139, 141, 144, 195, 196, 198, 199, 200, 205, 206, 213, 215, 221, 147, 151, 160, 163, 171, 183, 212, 265 222, 223, 227, 234, 236, 248, 249, 250, 254, 257, floodplains, 133, 202, 211, 213, 216, 217 258, 259, 260, 263, 264 flow regime, 124, 212, 213, 215, 217 Alternative 4, - 2 -, 23, 24, 26, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, focus species, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 22, 24, 27, 29, 40, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 79, 82, 85, 90, 92, 93, 94, 98, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 61, 76, 77, 78, 79, 83, 90, 93, 101, 103, 106, 110, 118, 131, 133, 134, 135, 136, 96, 99, 101, 103, 107, 111, 112, 166, 236, 243, 292 138, 141, 142, 143, 146, 153, 154, 158, 160, 167, forage, iii, 4, 5, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25, 34, 44, 168, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 205, 206, 45, 46, 52, 53, 57, 60, 64, 69, 71, 72, 77, 78, 79, 213, 215,鿜223, 227, 236, 250, 255, 257, 258, 260, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 263, 264 93, 105, 111, 115, 126, 140, 152, 165, 181, 187, animal months, 241 190, 196, 241, 242, 244, 250, 294 aquatic life, 213, 215, 217, 303 forage enhancement, 13, 19, 24, 25, 81, 82, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 190, 196 B free selection, 12, 14, 19, 20, 25, 206 French Creek, 122, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 286 Battle Creek, 122, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 226 Frest sites, 131 bed and bank stability, 213, 215, 216 fuel breaks, 16, 22, 26, 174, 185, 293 best management practices, 114, 123, 124 Black Elk Wilderness (BEW), 81, 177 G Breezy Point Picnic Area, 223 broadcast burning, 201 Greyhound Gulch, 210 Buckeye Gulch, 210 Grizzly Bear Creek, 122, 209, 210, 211, 212, 233, 287 C Grizzly II timber sale, 237 group retention treatments, 13, 19, 25 chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), 43 clearcut, 13, 19, 25, 45, 73, 99, 206, 207, 221 H commercial thin, 12, 14, 18, 132, 165 Condition Class, ix, 174, 175, 176, 177, 292 Habitat, 131 cover types, 4, 5, 9, 36, 40, 44, 46, 47, 52, 55, 59, 62, habitat of interest, 242 66, 68, 76 hardwood enhancement, 13, 19, 53, 54, 55, 60, 61, crown fire, 12, 177, 181, 184, 249, 288, 290, 302 62, 65, 70, 88, 100, 115, 153, 158, 160, 167, 190, cultural resources, 253, 254, 255 196, 248 Custer Expedition, 224 hardwoods, 2, 5, 6, 13, 17, 22, 27, 40, 45, 53, 72, 73, 77, 78, 86, 88, 90, 99, 101, 102, 103, 111, 113, 114, 115, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 132, 133, 134, D 136, 138, 140, 143, 146, 150, 151, 157, 158, 160, diversity habitats, 107 166, 187, 220, 221, 222, 225, 226, 243, 293, 294 down woody material, 27, 44, 51, 58, 65, 70, 106, Harney Peak, 42, 72, 77, 80, 169, 170, 171, 180, 164, 197 183, 218, 232, 233, 234, 235, 258 hibernacula, 152, 153, 154, 156 hiding cover, 17, 90, 116 E horseback riding, 231, 232 existing fire hazard, 213 Horsetheif Lake, 228

304 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

I N inherent scenic attractiveness, 295 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 1, 11, Iron Creek, 75, 102, 113, 114, 115, 116, 122, 123, 290, 291 124, 126, 128, 148, 149, 209, 210, 211, 214, 215, National Scenic Byway, 218 216, 228, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 237, 258 Natural Watershed Sensitivity Index (NWSI), 209 Iron Mountain Road, 224, 225 Needles Highway, 224 ironwood (Ostrya virginiana), 43 Needles timber sale, 82, 85 Nelson Creek, 210, 216 J nesting habitat, 16, 34, 35, 92, 93, 94, 96, 104, 105, 106, 110, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, Jasper Burn Area, 93, 140 143, 144, 146, 147, 164 Johnson Canyon, 210, 287 No-Name Gulch, 210 noxious weeds, 239, 241, 243, 244, 246, 247, 248, K 249, 250, 251 kinnikinnik (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi), 43 O L old growth, 96, 142, 157, 282 Oregon grape (Berberis repens), 43 Lafferty Gulch, 102, 211, 230, 231 Lakota Lake, 73, 93, 113, 118, 126, 210, 211, 229, P 232, 235, 237 landscape visibility, 298 Palmer Creek, 126, 209, 210, 211, 216, 230, 232 landslides, 198, 208 Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway, 3, 5, 6, 26, 181, 183, large tree enhancement, 12, 18, 23, 24, 91, 98, 105, 218, 223, 224, 231, 232, 255, 260, 269 109, 190, 196 Pine Creek, 3, 210, 211, 212, 220 large trees, 9, 12, 13, 18, 23, 28, 29, 37, 44, 45, 47, pine encroachment, 13, 14, 20, 45, 54, 55, 60, 62, 51, 52, 58, 60, 62, 64, 65, 66, 70, 74, 75, 78, 81, 72, 73, 80, 88, 89, 102, 103, 111, 115, 119, 127, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 104, 105, 106, 109, 130, 137, 139, 141, 144, 147, 151, 160, 206, 247, 110, 111, 112, 131, 135, 138, 139, 141, 144, 146, 300 147, 158, 159, 164, 165, 167, 168, 187, 220, 221, prescribed broadcast burning, 186, 189, 192, 193, 222, 225, 226, 227, 237, 243, 293, 294, 301 196 late succession, 14, 17, 20, 25, 45, 46, 52, 59, 66, prescribed burning, - 1 -, - 2 -, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 71, 75, 77, 78, 90, 91, 92, 93, 96, 97, 98, 99, 103, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 105, 107, 109, 111, 113, 120, 139, 141, 144, 146, 27, 28, 30, 53, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 294, 298 68, 70, 72, 78, 81, 82, 84, 85, 88, 91, 94, 98, 109, late succession enhancement, 14, 17, 20, 25, 59, 118, 127, 130, 158, 165, 166, 167, 168, 171, 172, 66, 71, 91, 98 173, 174, 183, 187, 189, 190, 193, 194, 195, 196, log hauling, 16, 22, 26, 29, 223 198, 200, 208, 215, 219, 221, 222, 223, 233, 235, logging systems, 219 236, 237, 241, 243, 244, 247, 248, 249, 254, 261, lop-and-scatter, 186, 188, 195 263 Lost Cabin Creek, 210 prescribed fire, - 2 -, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 23, 65, 94, 95, 171, 172, 174, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 201, 205, 213, M 215, 216, 222, 223, 249, 254, 255, 265, 268, 281, Management Indicator Species (MIS), 112 303 meadow enhancement, 14, 18, 20, 23, 24, 53, 60, 64, 70, 88, 90, 91, 92, 94, 118, 127, 167, 190, 196, R 222, 244, 245, 247, 248 Mickelson Trail, 225 Rabbit Gulch, 210, 216 migratory birds, 164 raptors, 163, 164, 275 Mount Rushmore National Memorial, ix, 18, 112, rare plants, 240, 243, 244, 245, 246, 248, 249, 250, 144, 147, 169, 218, 225, 228 251 mountain pine beetle (MPB), - 1 -, 181 Record of Decision (ROD), 7 recreation facilities, 218, 224, 225 recreational activities, 72, 112, 115, 127, 130, 137, 139, 141, 144, 147, 151, 153, 158, 160, 237

305 Chapter 5 Norbeck Wildlife Project Final Environmental Impact Statement riparian ecosystems, 213, 216, 217, 280 T riparian habitat, 75, 77, 95, 101, 102, 103, 114, 115, 116, 126, 127, 128, 133, 149, 151, 152, 159, 166, temperature and oxygen, 215 246 thermal cover, 4, 6, 34, 44, 45, 51, 52, 59, 65, 71, 75, road construction, 87, 130, 132, 134, 173, 220, 237, 88, 89, 116, 302 241, 248, 250, 251, 257, 259, 260, 261, 269 Toll Gate Creek, 210 road reconstruction, 256 transportation, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 288, 294, 302 S tributaries, 148, 212, 301, 303 scenic class, 298 U scoping, - 1 -, 1, 7, 8, 11, 40, 164, 248, 261, 270 Section 2, - 1 -, 3, 169, 170, 293 Upper Pine Creek Research Natural Area, 6, 169, sensitive species, 40, 83, 86, 113, 117, 120, 161, 237 162, 164, 240, 242, 244, 246, 247, 248, 249, 289 shrub enhancement, 13, 18, 24, 57, 88, 91, 102, 196 V slash treatments, 186, 188, 195, 224 snags, 6, 28, 44, 48, 51, 54, 58, 65, 70, 75, 77, 78, 94, variable density, 12, 19, 24, 163, 206, 207 95, 96, 97, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 113, 120, 142, 143, 145, 146, 147, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, W 157, 158, 159, 161, 162, 164, 166, 181, 183, 282 snowberry, 43 Water Influence Zone (WIZ), 303 soil compaction, 203, 204, 206, 208, 251 water purity, 213, 215, 217 soil erosion, 198, 204, 205, 207, 235, 259, 265 water quality, 148, 202, 211, 212, 213 soil heating, 204, 205, 208, 247 watershed condition, 201 soil productivity, 198, 202, 204, 205, 206, 207, 264 watershed conservation practices, 114, 123, 124, Species of Local Concern (SOLC), 76, 124, 125 127, 149 Spokane Creek, 113, 114, 115, 122, 126, 127, 128, wetlands, 77, 113, 126, 127, 140, 202, 211, 212, 213, 209, 210, 214, 215 216, 217, 303 spruce enhancement, 14, 18, 24, 57, 96, 98, 99, wilderness values, 167, 169, 171, 172, 173 130, 134, 242, 245, 246 wildfire, 4, 6, 9, 16, 18, 22, 26, 59, 66, 71, 74, 75, 98, Stockade Lake, 93, 105, 210, 211, 212, 286 99, 112, 120, 122, 129, 132, 134, 136, 138, 140, stream crossings, 116, 122, 123, 148, 214, 215, 216 142, 143, 144, 146, 147, 153, 157, 171, 172, 173, structural stage, 5, 6, 9, 12, 14, 27, 28, 29, 33, 36, 177, 181, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 189, 190, 191, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 192, 193, 194, 196, 197, 198, 200, 201, 204, 208, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 213, 216, 217, 225, 234, 241, 242, 249, 250, 254, 70, 71, 73, 74, 81, 88, 89, 90, 92, 93, 94, 97, 104, 265, 276 107, 120, 130, 133, 134, 135, 138, 140, 142, 145, Willow Creek, 75, 128, 131, 209, 210, 220, 228, 230, 157, 166, 167, 168, 176, 182, 184, 186, 189, 192, 232, 234, 235, 258 193, 195, 196, 242, 301 Willow Creek Feasibility study, 131 Sunday Gulch, 15, 43, 60, 122, 209, 210, 212, 214, Wrinkled Rock Climbing Area, 218, 226 215, 230, 231, 242, 287 Sylvan Lake, 73, 210, 211, 212, 218

306