DRAFT United States ENVIRONMENTAL...

i

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

February 1, 2017

DRAFT

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Eastern Pennington Waterline Project

USDA FOREST SERVICE Wall Ranger District Buffalo Gap National Grassland Nebraska National Forests and Grasslands fs.usda.gov/Nebraska

For Information Contact:

Kurt Pindel District Ranger

708 Main Street Wall, South Dakota 57790

(605) 279-2126 [email protected]

The Eastern Pennington Waterline Project is a proposal to install 9 miles of buried pipelines, 11 permanent stock tanks, and 2 meter pits from an existing West River/Lyman-Jones rural water meter pit in Pennington County, southwest of Wall, SD. Some of the project area has existing temporary stock tanks and above ground waterlines that will be replaced by the proposed project. The new tanks and pipelines will provide reliable water sources for livestock and will also benefit wildlife, in 3 grazing allotments. The [email protected] Nebraska National Forest and Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan designates this project location as Management Area 6.1, rangeland with broad resource emphasis. The addition of the waterline and tanks will alleviate the uncertainty of reliable water sources during periods when forage production is adequate for authorized grazing and water provided by dams and dugouts is not adequate for the entire grazing season. Construction activities would occur in spring 2017.

mailto:[email protected]

i

Contents

Contents ................................................................................................................ i Chapter 1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ........................................... 1

1.1 Document Structure .................................................................................... 1 1.2 Background ................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Purpose and Need for Proposed Action ...................................................... 2 1.4 Proposed Action .......................................................................................... 3 1.5 Public Involvement .................................................................................... 11

1.5.1 Newspaper Notice ............................................................................... 11 1.5.2 Tribal Notification ................................................................................. 11 1.5.3 Letter Notification ................................................................................ 12

1.6 Forest Service Laws, Regulations, and Policy ........................................... 12

1.7 Issue Identification ..................................................................................... 12 1.7.1 Issues Identified by Comments ........................................................... 13

1.7.2 Resources Or Resource Issues Not Present In The Project Area And Not Carried Forward For Further Analysis .................................................... 13

1.8 Other Permits, Licenses, or Requirements ................................................ 14

1.9 Summary ................................................................................................... 15 Chapter 2. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ................ 15

2.1 Description of Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action ........................ 15 2.1.1 Alternative A: No Action ...................................................................... 15 2.1.2 Alternative B: Proposed Action ........................................................... 15

2.1.3 Alternative C: Alternative Proposed Action .......................................... 18 2.2 Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated From Detailed Study .................. 19

2.3 Comparison of Alternatives........................................................................ 20 Chapter 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONEMENT .......................................................... 25

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 25 3.2 Hydrology .................................................................................................. 26

3.2.1 Affected Environment .......................................................................... 26 3.2.1 Environmental Consequences ............................................................. 26

3.3 Threatened, Endangered, Region 2 Sensitive Species, and MIS .............. 27


3.4 General Wildlife ......................................................................................... 33 3.4.1 Affected Environment .......................................................................... 33 3.4.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................. 34

3.5 Invasive Species ....................................................................................... 34


3.6 Habitats within the Project Area ................................................................. 35


3.7 Vegetation ................................................................................................. 37 3.7.1 Affected Environment .......................................................................... 37 3.7.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................. 37

ii

3.8 Scenic Resources ..................................................................................... 37


3.9 Social and Economic Conditions ............................................................... 39 3.9.1 Affected Environment .......................................................................... 39 3.9.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................. 39

3.10 Recreation ............................................................................................... 39 3.10.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................ 39

3.10.2 Environmental Consequences ........................................................... 40 3.11 Climate Change ....................................................................................... 40

3.11.1 Affected Environment ......................................................................... 40 3.11.2 Environmental Consequences ........................................................... 40

3.12 Soil .......................................................................................................... 41

3.12.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................ 41 3.12.2 Environmental Consequences ........................................................... 42

3.13 Paleontology ............................................................................................ 43


3.14 Hazardous Materials ............................................................................... 44


3.15 Cultural / Heritage / Archeological Resources ......................................... 45 3.15.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................ 45 3.15.2 Environmental Consequences ........................................................... 45

3.16 Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) ......................................................... 46 3.16.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................ 46

3.16.2 Environmental Consequences ........................................................... 46 3.17 Range Resource Management ................................................................ 47


3.18 Fuels and Fire ......................................................................................... 47


3.19 Compliance with Forest Plan ................................................................... 49 3.19.1 Monitoring .......................................................................................... 55

3.20 Compliance with Other Laws and Regulations ........................................ 55

3.20.1 National Forest Management Act ...................................................... 55 3.20.2 Endangered Species Act ................................................................... 55

3.20.3 National Historic Preservation Act ..................................................... 55 3.20.4 Clean Water Act, Wetlands, Floodplains ............................................ 56

3.20.5 Clean Air Act ...................................................................................... 56 3.20.6 Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898) ............................... 56

Chapter 4. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION .......................................... 57 Chapter 5. REFERENCES .................................................................................. 63

iii

List of Tables

Table 1.4-1 Proposed alternate B waterlines with temporary and permanent disturbed acres on Forest Service lands. ....................................................... 6

Table 1.4-2 Proposed alternate C waterlines with temporary and permanent disturbed acres on Forest Service lands. ....................................................... 7

Table 3.3-1. Federally listed Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate species in Pennington County and their expected occurrence within the project area. . 28

Table 3.3-2. Sensitive Species Potentially Occurring Within the Nebraska National Forest and Buffalo Gap National Grassland. .................................. 29

Table 3.17.1 Grazing Allotments crossed by proposed pipeline alignment. ........ 47 Table 3.19-1 Compliance with the Forest Plan .................................................... 49 Table 4-1 Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team & Resource Specialists ............ 57

Table 4-2. Consulting Parties & Subcontractor Resource Specialists ................. 57

Table 4-3. List of Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Consulted and/or Contacted. (A complete contact list is located in the Planning Record). ...... 58

Table 4-4. List of Tribes Consulted and/or Contacted. ........................................ 62

List of Figures Figure 1.1 General location of the proposed project. ............................................ 5

Figure 1.2. Map of Alternative A ............................................................................ 8 Figure 1.3 Map of Alternative B ............................................................................. 9 Figure 1.4 Map of Alternative C .......................................................................... 10

iv

List of Acronyms Used in This Draft EA

APE Area of Potential Effect AUM Animal Unit Month BA/BE Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation BGNG Buffalo Gap National Grassland CEA Cumulative Effects Area CEQ Council on Environmental Quality DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPCCGD Eastern Pennington County Cooperative Grazing District FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact HDD Horizontal Directional Drilling LRMP Land Resource Management Plan MIS Management Indicator Species NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFMA National Forest Management Act NFS National Forest System NFSR National Forest System Route NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NNF Nebraska National Forest NRHP National Register of Historic Places QSI Quality Services, Inc. RFC Request for Comments RMP Resource Management Plan SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SUP Special Use Permit TCP Traditional Cultural Property TECP Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, or Proposed Species THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Office USDA US Department of Agriculture USFS US Forest Service USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service WPA Works Progress Administration WR/LJ West River/Lyman-Jones Rural Water Systems WRD Wall Ranger District

Eastern Pennington Waterline Project 1 Draft Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

1.1 Document Structure

Quality Services, Inc. (QSI) under the direction of the USDA Forest Service, Nebraska National Forests and Grasslands (NNFG), Buffalo Gap National Grassland, Wall Ranger District, has prepared this Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant laws and regulations. This draft EA discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects that would result from the no action, and proposed action alternative. The document is organized into five parts as follows.

CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION: This section includes information on the background of the project proposal, and the purpose and need for the project and the decisions to be made. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal, public response, and issues identified. Key Issues are identified and described. Resources not present in the Project area are identified and described.

CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION: This section provides a detailed description of the proposed action and alternatives. This section of the report provides a summary table comparing the alternatives with respect to key issues identified and resources affected.

CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES: This section describes the current state of environmental conditions and the environmental effects of implementing the no action or the action alternative by resource. For each resource, the existing conditions are described, followed by the analysis of the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the alternative on the resource. The effects of the no action alternative are described to provide a baseline for evaluating effects of the action alternative. This section also evaluates other projects within the Wall Ranger District of the Buffalo Gap National Grassland that create cumulative effects in combination with the Eastern Pennington County Cooperative Grazing District (EPCCGD). Finally, this section provides information regarding how the proposed action and alternatives and the predicted effects conform to regulatory requirements. CHAPTER 4 – CONSULTATION & COORDINATION: This section provides tabulated lists of the Forest Service interdisciplinary team


members and consulting parties and subcontractor resource specialists that participated in the preparation of this draft environmental assessment. Lists of agencies, organizations, and individuals consulted and/or contacted are presented. Finally, there is a list of Native American Tribes consulted and/or contacted in preparation of this draft environmental assessment. CHAPTER 5 - REFERENCES: This section provides full references for the citations found throughout the draft EA. Additional documentation, including more detailed descriptions and analyses of project-area resources, including resource specialist reports, may be found in the project planning record located at the Wall Ranger District Office, 708 Main St, Wall, South Dakota 57790.

1.2 Background

This draft Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to analyze the Eastern Pennington County Cooperative Grazing District (EPCCGD) proposal to install approximately nine miles of new waterlines, two meter pits, and eleven stock watering tanks for three grazing allotments on Forest Service land in order to provide clean and reliable water supply for the grazing allotments in question. As proposed, the new tanks and waterlines will provide reliable water sources for livestock and wildlife in three grazing allotments within the EPCCGD, Pennington County. These proposed improvements will distribute livestock grazing more evenly across pastures resulting in more consistent utilization of vegetative resources and reducing chances of areas being severely impacted. The new water sources will also relieve stress on wildlife such as big game in drought years, improve the health of livestock, and prevent animal losses to entrapment and poisoning when existing improvements are reduced by drought to unhealthy conditions. Figures 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 show the location of the proposed Project. Funding will be divided evenly between the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the EPCCGD. The USFS is responsible for project regulatory oversight and ensuring compliance with environmental and other related laws. The lands along the proposed route are used for agriculture (livestock grazing), wildlife habitat, and recreation.

1.3 Purpose and Need for Proposed Action


The purpose of the proposed action is to develop more reliable water sources in order to better control livestock grazing timing and intensity to maintain a spectrum of vegetative structure and a high degree of biodiversity. The Nebraska National Forest and Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan has this area designated as Management Area 6.1, rangeland with broad resource emphasis. The Eastern Pennington Waterline project is a proposal to install 9 miles of buried pipeline, 11 permanent stock tanks, and 2 meter pits from an existing West River/Lyman/Jones rural water meter pit in Pennington County, southwest of Wall, SD. Some of the project has existing temporary stock tanks and some existing above ground waterlines. As proposed, the new tanks and pipeline will provide reliable water sources for livestock, also benefitting wildlife in 3 grazing allotments.

1.4 Proposed Action

The EPCCGD proposes to construct two meter pits, approximately 9 miles (see Table 1-1 below) of waterlines and eleven new livestock watering tanks on federal lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) in the Buffalo Gap National Grassland. These improvements would be in the Crooked Creek, Roundtop, and West Wall grazing allotments. The Crooked Creek waterline would begin about 5 miles southwest of Wall, SD. An existing meter pit is present on the east side of Sage Creek Road, and a section of waterline will be placed on private land about 0.4 miles east to a new water pit, at the west boundary of the Crooked Creek Allotment boundary. From there, the waterline extends northeast for 0.4 miles to a westernmost proposed stock tank, where a branch of the waterline turns southeast 0.9 miles to a proposed water tank. From this location, a segment of waterline about 0.5 miles long will go east to the Roundtop Allotment border, and another branch will go 0.7 miles south to a new stock tank. Then it will go 0.7 miles east-southeast, terminating at another proposed new tank. The northern branch of the Crooked Creek pipeline runs from the western most stock tank northeast for about 1.3 miles, with a new stock tank at 0.6 miles and another at the end of the line. The total Crooked Creek waterline will be approximately 4.5 miles long, with 6 new stock tanks, and a meter pit at the allotment border. The Roundtop Allotment waterline would begin approximately 5 miles southwest of Wall, SD, at its boundary with the Crooked Creek Allotment. It would extend from a pipeline in the Crooked Creek Allotment 1.8 miles generally southeast with a proposed tanks in the middle and another proposed tank at its end. No meter pits are planned for the Roundtop Allotment.


The West Wall waterline begins about 6 miles southwest of Wall, SD, and begins at a new meter pit on the west side of Sage Creek Road. The waterline will go west 1.8 miles, with a new stock being placed 1.0 miles from the road. At 1.8 miles from the road, the waterline will turn northwest across private property for 0.25 mile, where it re-enters Forest Service land, going another 0.4 miles northwest to a proposed new water tank. Another segment of the waterline starts along the proposed new waterline 1.3 miles west of Sage Creek Road and runs south approximately 0.5 miles to a proposed new stock tank. This puts the total length for West Wall Allotment waterlines at 2.8 miles, with 3 new stock tanks and a new meter pit. Waterlines will be installed with a static plow. The 1.5-inch diameter flexible polyethylene pipe will be buried approximately two feet deep. The width of pipe disturbance is about six inches. As the plow pulls the pipe into the ground, it raises soil up on the surface. This later settles back into place. Tracks or tires on pipe laying equipment may also cause a minimal amount of surface disturbance depending on ground conditions when construction occurs in an area up to about 8 feet wide. The water tanks and service meter pits will require an excavator or backhoe for installation. Each tank will be 10 to 12 feet in diameter, constructed from large rubber tires and filled with concrete at its base. The tanks will be partially buried about one foot into the ground, for stability and optimum height for livestock. Service meter pits will result in surface exposure of 1.5 to 2-foot diameter pipes with lids extending less than a foot above the surface of the ground. These meter pits will be surrounded by protective wooden corrals to prevent damage from livestock, wildlife, and vehicles. An area about 3 ft. by 3 ft. may be disturbed for meter pit installation. Placement of the waterline was determined by the desired location of the livestock watering tanks, using the shortest practical routes between them. Route selection was designed to avoid wetlands and stream crossings. On ground, surveys were conducted to locate cultural/heritage resources, critical wildlife habitat, and/or the presence of threatened, endangered or sensitive species. Final waterline alignment was accomplished with fine tuning to incorporate findings of the on-ground surveys. Construction of the majority of the waterlines would begin in the spring of 2017, beginning immediately after completion of the NEPA process, and would be completed in approximately one month. The general project location is shown in Figure 1.1, Alternative A is shown in Figure 1.2, Alternative B is shown in Figure 1.3, and Alternative C is shown in Figure 1.4.


Figure 1.1 General location of the proposed project.


Table 1.4-1 Proposed alternate B waterlines with temporary and permanent disturbed acres on Forest Service lands.

Township Range Section Section Subdivisions Pipe Length

(mi) Pipe Width

(ft.) Tanks

Meter Pits

Acres Disturbed

Permanent Temporary

1S 14E 24 E/NE/SE 0.29 8 1 0 0.00275 0.28

1S 15E 21 S/SE & SE/SE/SW 0.79 8 1 1 0.00295 0.77

1S 15E 22 SW & N/SE 0.97 8 2 0 0.0055 0.94

1S 15E 26 SE, S/S/NW, & N/NE/SW 1.26 8 1 0 0.00275 1.22

1S 15E 27 All 1.72 8 1 0 0.00275 1.67

1S 15E 28 NE/NE/NE/NE 0.04 8 0 0 0.0 0.40

1S 15E 29 N/N/N along section line 0.96 8 0 1 0.0002 0.93

1S 15E 30

Along N section line, E/W/NE &

NW/NE/NW/SE 1.38 8 2 0 0.0055 1.34

1S 15E 34 N/NE 0.60 8 1 0 0.00275 0.58

1S 15E 35 NE/NE/NE/NE & W/NW 0.24 8 1 0 0.00275 0.23

1S 15E 36 NW 0.47 8 1 0 0.00275 0.46

Total Length: 8.72 Total Acres: 0.03065 8.82


Table 1.4-2 Proposed alternate C waterlines with temporary and permanent disturbed acres on Forest Service lands.

Township Range Section Section Subdivisions Pipeline

Length (mi/) Pipeline

Width (ft.) Tanks

Meter Pits

Acres Disturbed

Permanent Temporary

1S 14E 24 E/SE/SE 0.49 8 1 0 0.00275 0.48

1S 14E 25 NE/NE/NE/NE 0.01 8 0 0 0.0 0.01

1S 15E 21 S/SE & SE/SE/SW 0.79 8 1 1 0.00295 0.77

1S 15E 22 SW & N/SE 0.97 8 2 0 0.0055 0.94

1S 15E 26 SE, S/S/NW, & N/NE/SW 1.26 8 1 0 0.00275 1.22

1S 15E 27 All 1.72 8 1 0 0.00275 1.67

1S 15E 28 NE/NE/NE/NE 0.04 8 0 0 0.0 0.40

1S 15E 29 N/N/N along section line 0.96 8 0 1 0.0002 0.93

1S 15E 30 Along N section line,

E/W/NE & NW/NE/NW/SE 1.51 8 2 0 0.0055 1.46

1S 15E 34 N/NE 0.60 8 1 0 0.00275 0.58

1S 15E 35 NE/NE/NE/NE & W/NW 0.24 8 1 0 0.00275 0.23

1S 15E 36 NW 0.47 8 1 0 0.00275 0.46

Total Length: 8.72 Total Acres: 0.03065 9.15


Figure 1.2. Map of Existing Condition


Figure 1.3 Map of Proposed Action


Figure 1.4 Map of Alternative Proposed Action


Responsible Official and Scope of the Decision As the responsible official, the Wall District Ranger of the Nebraska National Forest and National Grassland will decide between the no action, proposed action, and alternative action. The decision to be made is selection of an alternative as documented in the respective Decision Notice/Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Implementation would proceed immediately upon completion of all NEPA requirements and Forest Service appeal regulation requirements. The responsible official is: Kurt Pindel District Ranger, Wall District 710 Main Street Wall, SD 57790 605-279-2126 Ext. 203

1.5 Public Involvement

Public involvement is an integral part of the Forest Service decision-making process, and an important component of "scoping," a process to solicit public comment regarding the requested action. Implemented at an early stage of project planning and in an open manner, scoping is a tool to identify public concerns and identify issues related to a proposed action. It assists the Deciding Officer to develop alternatives and conduct the appropriate level of analysis for the proposed action. An effort to solicit issues and concerns related to the proposed action was accomplished by newspaper notices; direct mailings to individuals or groups; and direct mailings to designated American Tribal representatives. Notification proceeded in the following manner:

1.5.1 Newspaper Notice

A Request for Comments (RFC) was published in the Rapid City Journal, (Rapid City, South Dakota) and in the Pennington County Courant (Wall, South Dakota) on July 28, 2016. Another public notice of draft EA availability was published in the Rapid City Journal, (Rapid City, South Dakota), the official record of disclosure and in the Pennington County Courant (Wall, South Dakota) on February 4, 2017.

1.5.2 Tribal Notification

The NNFG maintains a list of American Tribes and their designated representative(s). On August 5, 2016, a letter was sent to tribal officials summarizing the proposed


Project. Explanation of the purpose of the comment period was provided within the notice. Contact information for the Forest Service project leader was provided and tribal representatives were requested to refer any comments or questions regarding this Project to that person.

1.5.3 Letter Notification

The NNFG maintains a list of interested people, organizations, and government agencies. Letters were sent to all those listed in the tables in Chapter 4.

1.6 Forest Service Laws, Regulations, and Policy

Federal acts which apply to this proposed action will be listed in the decision document. Resource reports and documents located in the project file reference federal laws which apply to the respective report, such as the Bankhead Jones Farm Tenant Act of July 22, 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1010-1012); and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1716). The principal regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture that are applicable to Forest Service special use authorizations are in Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 251, subpart B. Forest Service policy for special use can be referenced in the Forest Service Manual 2700, 2710, 2720 and 2730 and referenced in Forest Service Handbook 2709.11. This proposed Project will follow Forest Service policy. The Project includes lands administered by the Wall Ranger District of the Nebraska National Forest and Grasslands in Pennington County, South Dakota. Some agencies the Forest Service worked with include the South Dakota State Historic Preservation Office, South Dakota Department Environment and Natural Resources, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. The decision document will address a public interest determination and describe positive and negative effects and impacts by alternative.

1.7 Issue Identification

CEQ1 regulations at 40 CFR Sec. 1500.4 and 1501.7 require that the draft environmental assessment emphasizes issues that are directly applicable and relevant to each of the alternatives presented in the assessment, including the no action alternative. By focusing the analysis on key issues that may affect resources, the pertinent differences between alternatives can be efficiently and effectively identified, and the subsequent analysis may lead to the development of additional alternative

1 CEQ: Council on Environmental Quality: regulations that guide the implementation of NEPA.


actions or other mitigation. Non-key issues are to be de-emphasized and are defined as being: 1) outside the scope of the analysis; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision (because there is no effect or significant difference between alternatives), or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence.

1.7.1 Issues Identified by Comments

Issues are identified by the Forest Service in response to public comments, resource specialists and project proponent. Issues create the necessity for alternatives or generate the need for mitigation once a decision is made. The SD Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources indicated “appropriate erosion and sediment control measures must be installed to control the discharge of pollutants from the construction site. Any construction activity that disturbs an area of one or more acres of land must have authorization under the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activities. Contact the Department of Environment and Natural Resources for additional information or guidance at 1-800-SDSTORM (737-8676) or http://denr.sd. gov/des/sw/StormWaterandConstruction.aspx. A tributary may be impacted by this project. These water bodies are considered waters of the state and are protected under the South Dakota Surface Water Quality Standards. The discharge of pollutants from any source, including indiscriminate use of fill material, may not cause destruction or impairment except where authorized under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Please contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concerning these permits.” Two comments from private citizens were received supporting the project.

1.7.2 Resources Or Resource Issues Not Present In The Project

Area And Not Carried Forward For Further Analysis

Resources not present or in the Project area or not impacted by the proposed action are identified in this section. They will not be affected by the action or no action alternatives. As a result, there will be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to these resources and they are not carried forward for further analysis.

Air Quality – No effects or impacts upon the current air quality class were identified.

Environmental Justice – No disproportionately high or adverse human effects on

minority or low-income populations were identified.

Farmlands – The Project would not occur in an area of prime or unique farmland.


Floodplains – Waterline installation work will not adversely impact any mapped floodplains if project design criteria and BMPs are followed. These management measures include requirements to store construction materials outside of floodplains and prevent the creation of debris piles in floodplains. This Project will not affect floodplains because no ground disturbing activity will occur in any floodplains (USDA-Forest Service, 2016).

Noise – Noise associated with construction would be moderate, short-term (i.e. less

than one month in any specific area) and would only occur during daylight. There would be no noise associated with equipment installed along the waterline after construction is completed.

Road System – The Project is in an area used for livestock grazing and recreation.

It will generally follow designated Forest Service roads and will cross roads 7119, 7189 and 7191 in multiple places. No road system impacts will occur.

Wetlands – Numerous ephemeral/intermittent stream channels will be crossed by

the Project. No wetlands will be impacted by Project installation. There are a few wetlands above and below the proposed pipeline and water tank installations, but they will not be impacted by the proposed Project installation work. (USDA-Forest Service, 2016).

Wild and Scenic Rivers –There are no designated Wild and Scenic Rivers or suitable

study segments in the Project area.

Wilderness –The Project would not be in a designated Wilderness Area, Wilderness Study Area, or Inventoried Roadless Area.

Water Quality – No effects or impacts to water quality were identified (USDA-Forest

Service, 2016).

1.8 Other Permits, Licenses, or Requirements

Pennington County has no zoning, permit, or license regulations or requirements for this type of project. On private land next to the project, but not covered by this assessment, the Pennington County Highway Department will need to be contacted in order to authorize pipeline placement under the county highway between sections 28 and 29. The project will comply with all county, State of South Dakota, and federal statutes, permits, and license requirements.


1.9 Summary

This chapter has presented the purpose of and need for the Project, as well as the issues (i.e., those elements that could be affected by the implementation of the proposed Project). The potential environmental impacts or consequences resulting from the implementation of each alternative are analyzed in Chapter 3 for each of the identified issues.

Chapter 2. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED

ACTION

This chapter provides a detailed description of the proposed action and its alternatives. The alternatives were developed from the project purpose and need. This chapter also provides a summary table comparing the alternatives with respect to the key issue identified and resources affected.

2.1 Description of Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

2.1.1 Alternative A: No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, which is the existing condition, the requested waterlines would not be authorized. This condition provides a baseline for estimating the effects of other alternatives. The purpose of this Project is to authorize use of national grassland to install the proposed water meter pits, permanent potable waterlines, and permanent tanks which are needed to improve the water conditions on three grazing allotments. The existing improvements are limited, of temporary design and construction, and have at times been reduced by drought to unhealthy conditions, resulting in potential entrapment and poisoning of livestock. If the existing water conditions are not improved, the health of the livestock and quality of the grazing land will continue to be at risk. The existing temporary tanks and pipeline would be removed but may be re-installed in the future use for extreme drought, if authorized by the responsible official.

2.1.2 Alternative B: Proposed Action

EPCCGD would be authorized to construct, operate and maintain the proposed waterlines, livestock tanks, and water service meter pits. Construction could then be initiated on NFS lands. The title of all improvements placed on NFS lands would be in the name of the United States Government.


Environmental Protection Measures specific to this Project would be documented in the respective Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact. The measures will be included with and become part of the authorizing document. Under Alternative B, EPCCGD proposes to construct two-meter pits, 8.72 miles (see Table 1-1) of waterlines and eleven new livestock watering tanks on federal lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) in the Buffalo Gap National Grassland. These improvements would be in the Crooked Creek, Roundtop, and West Wall grazing allotments. The Crooked Creek waterline would begin about 5 miles southwest of Wall, SD. An existing meter pit is present on the east side of Sage Creek Road, and a section of waterline will be placed on private land about 0.4 miles east to a new water pit, at the west boundary of the Crooked Creek Allotment boundary. From there, the waterline extends northeast for 0.4 miles to a westernmost proposed stock tank, where a branch of the waterline turns southeast 0.9 miles to a proposed water tank. From this location, a segment of waterline about 0.5 miles long will go east to the Roundtop Allotment border, and another branch will go 0.7 miles south to a new stock tank. Then it will go 0.7 miles east-southeast, terminating at another proposed new tank. The northern branch of the Crooked Creek pipeline runs from the western most stock tank northeast for about 1.3 miles, with a new stock tank at 0.6 miles and another at the end of the line. The total Crooked Creek waterline will be approximately 4.5 miles long, with 6 new stock tanks, and a meter pit at the allotment border. The Roundtop Allotment waterline would begin approximately 5 miles southwest of Wall, SD, at its boundary with the Crooked Creek Allotment. It would extend from a pipeline in the Crooked Creek Allotment 1.8 miles generally southeast with a proposed tanks in the middle and another proposed tank at its end. No meter pits are planned for the Roundtop Allotment. The West Wall waterline begins about 6 miles southwest of Wall, SD, and begins at a new meter pit on the west side of Sage Creek Road. The waterline will go west 1.8 miles, with a new stock being placed 1.0 miles from the road. At 1.8 miles from the road, the waterline will turn northwest across private property for 0.25 mile, where it re-enters Forest Service land, going another 0.4 miles northwest to a proposed new water tank. Another segment of the waterline starts along the proposed new waterline 1.3 miles west of Sage Creek Road and runs south approximately 0.5 miles to a proposed new stock tank. This puts the total length for West Wall Allotment waterlines at 2.8 miles, with 3 new stock tanks and a new meter pit. Waterlines will be installed with a static plow. The 1.5-inch diameter flexible polyethylene pipe will be buried approximately two feet deep. The width of pipe disturbance is about six inches. As the plow pulls the pipe into the ground, it raises soil up on the surface. This later settles back into place. Tracks or tires on pipe laying


equipment may also cause a minimal amount of surface disturbance depending on ground conditions when construction occurs in an area up to about 8 feet wide. The water tanks and service meter pits will require an excavator or backhoe for installation. Each tank will be 10 to 12 feet in diameter, constructed from large rubber tires and filled with concrete at its base. The tanks will be partially buried about one foot into the ground, for stability and optimum height for livestock. Service meter pits will result in surface exposure of 1.5 to 2-foot diameter pipes with lids extending less than a foot above the surface of the ground. These meter pits will be surrounded by protective wooden corrals to prevent damage from livestock, wildlife, and vehicles. An area about 3 ft. by 3 ft. may be disturbed for meter pit installation. Placement of the waterline was determined by the desired location of the livestock watering tanks, using the shortest practical routes between them. Route selection was designed to avoid wetlands and stream crossings. Ground surveys were conducted to locate cultural/heritage resources, critical wildlife habitat, and/or the presence of threatened, endangered or sensitive species. Final waterline alignment was accomplished with fine tuning to incorporate findings of the on-ground surveys. This draft EA analyzes impacts associated with developing the Forest Service lands with the meter pits, waterlines, and stock tanks shown in Figure 1-1. Site-specific NEPA analysis would be conducted on any future proposal to add additional waterline segments or facilities on the subject lands or surrounding acreage. The Project construction would include flexible waterline buried underground via static plow, with service meter pits and water tanks installed with excavator or backhoe. Horizontal directional drilling (HDD), a method of installing underground pipe that minimizes environmental disruption, may be used if needed. Following construction, permanent disturbance within the project corridor would measure 0.03065 acres. Temporary disturbance would measure approximately 8.82 acres (please see Table 1-1). Construction and Installation: Construction of the majority of the waterlines would begin in the late winter and/or early spring of 2017, beginning immediately after USFS approval and completion of the NEPA process, and would be completed in approximately one month. Construction equipment may include a static plow, trencher, pick-up trucks, flatbed trucks, backhoe, excavator and/or drill rig. Construction activities would only occur during daylight hours, and 1 to 10 construction personnel would be on location any given day.


2.1.3 Alternative C: Alternative Proposed Action

EPCCGD would be authorized to construct, operate and maintain the proposed waterlines, livestock tanks, and water service meter pits. Construction could then be initiated on NFS lands. Environmental Protection Measures specific to this Project would be documented in the respective Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant impact. The measures will be included with and become part of the authorizing document. Under Alternative C, EPCCGD proposes to construct two meter pits, 9.15 miles (see Table 1-1) of waterlines and eleven new livestock watering tanks on federal lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) in the Buffalo Gap National Grassland. These improvements would be in the Crooked Creek, Roundtop, and West Wall grazing allotments. The Crooked Creek and Roundtop Allotment waterlines, meter pits, and stock tanks would be the same as in Alternative B. The West Wall waterline begins about 6 miles southwest of Wall, SD, and begins at a new meter pit on the west side of Sage Creek Road. The waterline will go west 1.8 miles, with a new stock being placed 1.0 miles from the road. It would continue west one mile and then turn north going another 0.49 miles to a proposed new water tank. Another segment of the waterline starts along the proposed new waterline 1.3 miles west of Sage Creek Road and runs south approximately 0.5 miles to a proposed new stock tank. This puts the total length for West Wall Allotment waterlines at about 2.97 miles, with 3 new stock tanks and a new meter pit. Waterlines will be installed with a static plow. The 1.5-inch diameter flexible polyethylene pipe will be buried approximately two feet deep. Width of pipe disturbance is about six inches. As the plow pulls the pipe into the ground, it raises soil up on the surface. This later settles back into place. Tracks or tires on pipe laying equipment may also cause a minimal amount of surface disturbance depending on ground conditions when construction occurs in an area up to about 8 feet wide. The water tanks and service meter pits will require an excavator or backhoe for installation. Each tank will be 10 to 12 feet in diameter, constructed from large rubber tires and filled with concrete at its base. The tanks will be partially buried about one foot into the ground, for stability and optimum height for livestock. Service meter pits will result in the surface exposure of 1.5 to 2 foot diameter pipes with lids extending less than a foot above the surface of the ground. These meter pits will be surrounded by protective wooden corrals to prevent damage from livestock, wildlife, and vehicles. An area about 3 ft. by 3 ft. may be disturbed for meter pit installation.


Placement of the waterline was determined by the desired location of the livestock watering tanks, using the shortest practical routes between them. Route selection was designed to avoid wetlands and stream crossings. On ground surveys were conducted to locate cultural/heritage resources, critical wildlife habitat, and/or the presence of threatened, endangered or sensitive species. Final waterline alignment was accomplished with fine tuning to incorporate findings of the on-ground surveys. This draft EA analyzes impacts associated with developing the Forest Service lands with the meter pits, waterlines, and stock tanks shown in Figure 1-1. Site-specific NEPA analysis would be conducted on any future proposal to add additional waterline segments or facilities on the subject lands or surrounding acreage. The Project construction would include flexible waterline buried underground via static plow, with service meter pits and water tanks installed with excavator or backhoe. Horizontal directional drilling (HDD), a method of installing underground pipe that minimizes environmental disruption, may be used if needed. Following construction, permanent disturbance within the project corridor would measure 0.03065 acres. Temporary disturbance would measure approximately 9.15 acres (please see Table 1-1). Construction and Installation: Construction of the majority of the waterlines would begin in the late winter and/or early spring of 2017, beginning immediately after USFS approval and completion of the NEPA process, and would be completed in approximately one month. Construction equipment may include static plow, trencher, pick-up trucks, flatbed trucks, backhoe, excavator and/or drill rig. Construction activities would only occur during daylight hours, and 1 to 10 construction personnel would be on location any given day. This alternative is in part routed through the West Wall Research Natural Area (RNA). However, these facilities are not generally permitted to be constructed within an RNA.

2.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Study

The current water sources on the allotments are primarily dams and dugouts, or temporary surface pipelines and tanks. The temporary surface pipelines and tanks would be replaced with permanent buried pipelines and tanks with the proposed Project. Existing dams and dugouts have been reduced by drought to unsuitable conditions in the past, drying out or becoming stagnant and boggy, resulting in entrapment and poisoning of livestock. In contrast, the water Project proposed by EPCCGD would provide clean, reliable water for livestock on the allotments. It would improve the health of livestock, reduce animal


losses due to entrapment and poisoning, more evenly distribute grazing throughout the allotments, and relieve stress on wildlife in periods of drought. It is concluded that utilizing the current water impoundments is insufficient in addressing future drought concerns and is not a viable long-term alternative to meet the needs of the permittees and their livestock, or wildlife.

2.3 Comparison of Alternatives

This section is a discussion of issues and agency considerations by alternative. Table 2-3 compares differences among alternatives that affect resources based on the key issues.

EPCCGD Waterline Project 21 Draft Environmental Assessment

Table 0-3. Comparison of the Effects of the Alternatives According to Key Issues.

Key Issue Alternative A

No Action Alternative B

Proposed Action Alternative C

Alternate Proposed Action

Range Resource

Management

The proposed waterline and associated improvements would not be authorized. Existing water improvements on the grazing allotments would continue to be reduced during drought conditions, adversely affecting the health of livestock that graze there. This would result in weight loss and decreased production in the livestock, as well as reduction in the amount of livestock permitted to graze on these allotments (Brew et al., 2011)

The proposed waterlines will improve the health of the livestock by providing a reliable source of clean water. This will result in increased weight gain and production. Additionally, animal losses due to entrapment and poisoning will be avoided as the proposed improvements will not be subject to reducing conditions brought on by drought.

The proposed waterlines will improve the health of the livestock by providing a reliable source of clean water. This will result in increased weight gain and production. Additionally, animal losses due to entrapment and poisoning will be avoided as the proposed improvements will not be subject to reducing conditions brought on by drought.

Research Natural Areas

The proposed waterline and associated improvements would not be authorized. No impacts would occur in Research Natural Areas.

The proposed waterlines would not be routed through the West Wall Research Natural Area.

The proposed waterlines would be routed through the West Wall Research Natural Area causing minimal potential effects.






Hydrology / Water

Resources

The proposed waterline and associated improvements would not be authorized. Water availability will be reduced in drought years for wildlife, livestock and fire protection. The integrity of wetlands may be decreased due to livestock use during droughts.

The proposed Project will provide increased water quality and availability for wildlife, livestock and fire protection during all years. Wetland integrity will be maintained or improved due to reduced livestock use.

The proposed Project will provide increased water quality and availability for wildlife, livestock and fire protection during all years. Wetland integrity will be maintained or improved due to reduced livestock use.

Scenic Integrity

Objectives

The proposed waterline and associated improvements would not be authorized. No impacts would occur to Scenic Integrity Objectives.

It is in a low Scenic Integrity Objective area with existing impacts, and the proposed Project will result in minimal additional impacts.

The proposed waterlines would be routed through the West Wall Research Natural Area which is a high-level Scenic Integrity area. There will be minimal impacts to the Scenic Integrity Objectives during construction and until the temporary disturbance areas return to their natural state.






Paleontological Resources

The proposed waterline and associated improvements would not be authorized. No impacts would occur.

Paleontological resources if found will be protected through standard operating procedures. Special Use Clause X17 (Archaeological-Paleontological Discoveries) or an equivalent would be included in all authorizations that require construction activity of any kind.


Heritage Resources


Inventory was conducted and it was determined no heritage resources are present in the project area. If any are found during Project implementation, they will be protected through standard operating procedures. Special Use Clause X17 (Archaeological-Paleontological Discoveries) or an equivalent would be included in all authorizations that require construction activity of any kind.

Inventory was conducted and it was determined no heritage resources are present in the project area. If any are found during Project implementation, they will be protected through standard operating procedures. Special Use Clause X17 (Archaeological-Paleontological Discoveries) or an equivalent would be included in all authorizations that require construction activity of any kind.






Traditional Cultural

Properties


No traditional cultural properties (TCPs) have been identified. If during any Project activities TCPs were inadvertently discovered, the USFS Authorized Officer would be notified, and all work in the area would cease. An inspection by a professionally trained archeologist would be conducted and a mitigation plan developed, if necessary, in consultation with the South Dakota SHPO and affiliated THPO. Special Use Clause X17 (Archaeological-Paleontological Discoveries) or an equivalent would be included in all authorizations that require construction activity of any kind.

No traditional cultural properties (TCPs) have been identified. If during any Project activities TCPs were inadvertently discovered, the USFS Authorized Officer would be notified, and all work in the area would cease. An inspection by a professionally trained archeologist would be conducted and a mitigation plan developed, if necessary, in consultation with the South Dakota SHPO and affiliated THPO. Special Use Clause X17 (Archaeological-Paleontological Discoveries) or an equivalent would be included in all authorizations that require construction activity of any kind.


Chapter 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.1 Introduction

This chapter contains a description of the affected environment in the Project area and environmental consequences of implementing the alternatives. The affected environment includes physical, biological, social, and economic conditions. The level of detail of the environmental consequences for each resource depends on the character of that resource, the scale of analysis used for that resource and the degree of effects. Additional details and analyses are referenced in the Project file. The analysis considers three types of actions: connected, cumulative, and similar; three types of effects: direct, indirect, and cumulative; and design criteria, if identified (40 CFR 1508.25). Connected actions are closely related and automatically trigger other actions which may require additional analysis; cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously; or are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification. Cumulative actions, which when viewed with other proposed actions, may have cumulatively significant impacts. No cumulative actions have been identified by Forest Service resource staff in their reports for this proposed waterline area. According to the USFS Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA), there are no proposed actions near the Project area. A consultation was performed with the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the South Dakota school and public lands and resulted with no planned proposed actions occurring within 5 miles of the proposed project. Based on the lack of other planned actions, no cumulative impacts are anticipated toward any resource within the grasslands. Similar actions, which when viewed with other reasonably foreseeable or proposed agency action, have similarities that provide a basis for evaluating their environmental consequences together, such as common timing and geography. There are no additional waterlines, tanks, or other land uses planned for the Project location. Site-specific NEPA analysis would be required on future proposals requesting further development or addition of water improvements or other land uses on the subject parcel or adjoining national grassland. Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place.


Indirect effects are caused by the proposed action and are later in time or farther removed in the distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. They are combined with direct effects in most cases. Cumulative effects are those which result from incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Discussion of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects are disclosed for each resource type in this chapter.

3.2 Hydrology

3.2.1 Affected Environment

The Project would result in temporary surface disturbance measuring about 9 acres. This disturbance will involve waterline, tank and meter pit construction. Total disturbance period is expected to be less than 24 hours of actual exposed open excavation. Following completion of waterline construction, approximately 0.03 acres will be permanently disturbed due to water tanks and service meter pits located along the waterline. Based on site visits, it appears that present erosion in the general area is low due to gently sloping topography, extensive vegetative cover and minimal disturbance.

3.2.1 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A – No Action

There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effect under Alternative A.

Alternatives B and C – Proposed Action Alternatives

Neither alternative would affect the timing, duration, or volume of runoff (water yield) or water quality in the area and thus will not affect any downstream wetlands or riparian areas. Grass, forb, and shrub communities within the pipeline construction disturbed area will recover over the winter and spring. Overall, water quality will not be affected by project activities because slope stability will be maintained, hillslope runoff and erosion will be minimized, stream stability and floodplain functions will be maintained, and wetlands and riparian areas will be avoided. Both alternatives are expected to maintain current water quality through the proper implementation and adherence to required Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, watershed conservation practices, grazing best management practices, and the alternative-specific design criteria. Therefore, no negative, measurable change in overall water quality is expected in any of the streams or water bodies due to activities associated


with either action alternative. There would be no cumulative impacts to ground water aquifer yields associated with any of the project alternatives because there are no overlapping direct or indirect impacts.

3.3 Threatened, Endangered, Region 2 Sensitive Species, and MIS


The Project area offers a diverse habitat used by many wildlife species. The Project could potentially impact individual species of wildlife through displacement due to construction noise, and other unforeseen reasons for very short periods of time. Approximately 9 acres of habitat will be temporarily disturbed during waterline construction, and about 0.03 acres of habitat could be physically and permanently disturbed by proposed improvements. Livestock activity concentrated around watering tanks may disturb up to a total of 4.07 additional acres of habitat. Determination of effects of species is documented in the Biological Assessment / Biological Evaluation (BA / BE) (Dierks and Turbiville, 2016). The BA/BE is located in the Planning Record. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, regional direction, and the Forest Plan (LRMP, 2001) direct the Forest Service to assess potential effects of all proposed projects on federally listed threatened and endangered species and regionally listed sensitive species. These evaluations include direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. The effects, expressed as biological determinations, are based on the assumption that the standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan are fully implemented and strategically located to benefit species at risk. The U.S. Forest Service provided a listing, updated on October 21, 2016, of endangered, threatened, candidate, or proposed (TECP) species occurring or potentially occurring within Pennington County, as well as a listing of Region 2 sensitive species. It was stated on the listing that it reflected current Endangered Species Act listing status. Action Alternatives B and C differ only in the placement of the proposed water line in or around the West Wall Research Natural Area. Species diversity and potential are not expected to differ between these alternate routes. Thus, the impacts listed below will apply to both Alternative B and Alternative C. Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species Threatened, endangered and candidate species occurring in Pennington county was obtained from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) on August 26, 2016. These species are listed in Table 3.3-1 below.


Table 3.3-1. Federally listed Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species in Pennington County and their expected occurrence within the project area.

Species ESA

Status1 Species Present2

Habitat Present3

Habitat Description

Leedy’s Roseroot (Rhodiola integrifolia ssp. leedyi)

T NO NO

A cliff side wildflower, previously found in only Minnesota & New York, with one recently discovered population in the Black Hills of South Dakota (USFWS 2015b).

Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis)

T NO NO

Winter Habitat: They spend winter hibernating in caves and mines that contain constant temperatures, high humidity, and no air currents. Summer Habitat: Roost in cavities or crevices of both live trees and snags. They may also roost in cooler places like caves and mines (USFWS 2015a).

Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes)

XN NO YES

Exclusively tied to prairie dogs. Within the Wall Ranger District, the species is mostly relegated to the Conata Basin - Heck Table area and a few colonies in Badlands National Park (District Records).

Whooping crane (Grus americana)

E NO YES Extremely rare migrant that breeds in northern bogs and winters in tidal, coastal prairie (Robbins et al. 1983).

Least Tern (Sterna antillarum)

E NO NO

This bird prefers sandy beaches for nesting but will use a flat gravel roof of a building. Habitat includes seacoasts, beaches, bays, estuaries, lagoons. (Cornell University, 2016)

Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa)

T N

O N

O

Breed in drier tundra areas, such as sparsely vegetated hillsides. Outside of breeding season, it is found primarily in intertidal, marine habitats, especially near coastal inlets, estuaries and bays. (Cornell University, 2016a)

1E = Endangered, T = Threatened, P = Proposed, C = Candidate, XN = Non-essential Experimental Population 2NO = No confirmed records of species in area. 3 Suitable habitat known or suspected to occur.

Sensitive Species A Wall Ranger District specific sensitive species list was obtained from the Region 2 sensitive species list for this district. These species are listed in Table 3.3-2.


Table 3.3-2. Expected occurrence of Forest Service Sensitive Species within the Project Area.

Species Status1 Species Present2

Habitat Present3

Habitat Description

Mammals

Black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus)

S MIS

YES YES Short-grass and mixed-grass prairies (Higgens et. al. 2000).

Fringe-tailed myotis (Myotis thysanodes)

S NO NO Roost sites include tree snags, caves, mines, rock crevices, and other sheltered sites such as buildings and bridges (Keinath, 2004).

Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus)

S NO NO

Roosts primarily in forested habitat, often at the edge of a clearing or open area. Occasionally roosts in rock crevices, but less commonly in caves. (natureserve.org)

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis canadensis)

S POS YES

Open grassland habitats with access to escape terrain (SDGFP 2013). Escape terrain typically includes cliffs, talus slopes, rock outcrops, and similar rugged terrain features (Beecham et al. 2007).

Swift fox (Vulpes velox)

S YES YES

Short-grass and mixed-grass prairies with open gently rolling hills (Higgens et. al. 2000) or flatlands that provide good visibility (Stephens and Anderson, 2005).

Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii)

S NO NO

Habitat generally includes dry uplands throughout the west. This species typically roosts in caves and mines, and occasionally buildings and bridges (Gruver and Keinath, 2006)

Birds

American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus)

S NO NO

Can be found in shallow marshes, meadows and wetlands of many sizes (greater than 2.5 ha) but prefers large open marshes and meadows. It nests in areas with thick, emergent vegetation like cattails, sedges, reed and bulrushes. (natureserve.org)

American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum)

S NO NO

Habitat ranges from open steppe and seacoasts to mountains, forests, and human population centers. Typically nests on cliff ledges, but may also nest on buildings and other tall manmade structures (USFWS 1999).

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

S NO NO Winter resident and spring/fall migrant. Usually found near unfrozen water or carrion in winter (Tallman et al. 2002).

Black tern (Chlidonias niger)

S NO NO

Nests in freshwater wetlands with emergent vegetation. Marsh habitats with an even mix of open water and emergent vegetation are preferred. Prefers semi-permanent ponds with abundant aquatic vegetation in marsh complexes >49 acres in size (Naugle, 2004).

Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri)

S NO NO

Prefers to breed in shrub lands with a canopy height <1.5 m. Also associated with areas that contain big sagebrush (Artemesia tridentate) and pinon-juniper (Pinus edulus – Juniperus spp.) (Rotenberry et al. 1999).



Habitat Present3

Habitat Description

Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)

S POS YES Dry grasslands and pastures, usually associated with prairie dogs or ground squirrels (Tallman et al. 2002).

Chestnut-collared longspur (Calcarius ornatus)

S POS YES

Mixed grass and shortgrass uplands as well as moist lowlands, usually nesting in vegetation height less than 30cm (Sedgwick, 2004).

Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis)

S POS YES Unbroken semiarid grassland with elevated nesting sites available. Prefers high densities of rodents and lagomorphs (Johnsgard 1990).

Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum)

S POS YES Found almost exclusively in native mixed-grass prairies (Panjabi 2003).

Greater prairie chicken (Tympanuchus cupido)

S NO YES

Typically found in the mid-tallgrass and tallgrass regions where there are areas of permanent grasslands in which the topography is open and rolling with few trees (Robb and Schroeder 2005).

Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)

S POS YES Open country with scattered, low deciduous thickets (Tallman et al. 2002).

Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus)

S YES YES

Prefers short-to-mixed grass prairie with relatively flat-to-rolling topography (Dugger & Dugger 2002).

Mountain plover (Charadrius montanus)

S NO YES Disturbed, shortgrass prairies; sometimes associated with prairie dog habitat. Presumed extirpated from South Dakota (Dinsmore, 2003).

Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus)

S POS YES

Breeding habitat includes open wetlands, grasslands, and lightly grazed pastures. Prefers large, contiguous areas of grassland, typically over 100 hectares (Slater and Rock, 2005).

Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus)

S POS YES In the Great Plains, the species prefers a mosaic of tall-to-short grass structure in relatively large unbroken patches (Wiggins 2004).

Trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator)

S NO NO Habitat includes freshwater ponds, lakes, and marshes, often with emergent vegetation, about 100m of water for flight takeoff (Slater, 2006).

Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus)

S NO NO

Breeding habitat includes open and riparian woodlands, typically with thick undergrowth. Uncommon to rare in western South Dakota (Wiggins, 2005b).

Amphibians

Northern leopard frog (Lithobates pipiens)

S POS YES

Breeds in permanent to semi-permanent mid-sized ponds that don’t support fish populations. Adults use upland habitat surrounding breeding ponds, and overwinter underwater (Smith and Keinath, 2007).

Fish

Flathead chub (Platygobio gracilis)

S NO NO

Generally associated with turbid rivers and tributaries with moderate to strong current. May use smaller streams to breed (Rahel and Thel, 2004a).



Habitat Present3

Habitat Description

Plains minnow (Hybognathus placitus)

S NO NO This species is adapted to turbid flows shallow, fluctuating streams and braided channels (Rees, 2005).

Sturgeon chub (Macrhybopsis gelida)

S NO NO

Main channels of medium to large rivers exhibiting high turbidity and moderate to strong currents over sand or fine gravel substrates Rahel and Thel, 2004b).

Insects

Western bumblebee (Bombus occidentalis)

S POS YES Nests are underground, often within abandoned rodent burrows. May forage on a wide variety of flowering plants (Evans, et al. 2008).

Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus plexippus)

S POS YES Breeding habitat includes virtually any patch of milkweed plants. Overwinters in Mexico and southern California. (natureserve.org).

Ottoe skipper (Hesperia ottoe)

S POS YES Typically inhabits relatively undisturbed mixed-grass prairie habitats (Selby, 2005).

Regal fritillary (Speyeria idalia)

S POS YES In western South Dakota, prefers non-degraded mixed-grass prairie. Requires violets, which are the only larval food plants (Selby, 2007).

Plants

Barr’s milkvetch (Astragalus barrii)

S POS YES Typically grows on slopes and ridges of barren to semi-barren badlands soils (Ladyman, 2006a).

Visher’s buckwheat (Eriogonum visheri)

S POS YES Barren to semi-barren clay, sandy clay, or loamy soils, often in areas of low relief (Ladyman, 2006b).

1 S = Sensitive, MIS = Management Indicator Species. 3 YES = Confirmed records of species in area. POS = No confirmed records, but presence is possible due to suitable habitat

and/or survey data in nearby areas. NO = No confirmed records, and unlikely to be present. 3 Suitable habitat known or suspected to occur.

Management Indicator Species (MIS) There are two management indicator species (MIS) within the Wall North Geographic Area: the plains sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus) and the black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus). Sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus) is the MIS for wheatgrass-grama grass habitat type on the National Forest. Sharp-tailed grouse prefer grassland and prairies with scattered groves of trees or thickets. They generally prefer more open habitats in the summer and areas with more trees and bushes in the winter. Suitable summer habitat for this species is present in the area, with potential winter habitat available elsewhere within the West Wall allotment, southwest of the project area. Black-tailed prairie dogs are associated with short-grass and mixed-grass prairies. There is a small, 25 acre prairie dog town within the direct APE of the project area, at the location of the northeastern-most proposed tank. There would be approximately 250 square feet (0.006 acres) of temporary disturbance within this colony, at a depth of 18 inches, and 113 square feet of permanent disturbance at a depth of one foot. Additional prairie dog towns of 10 to 250 acres are located within a mile of the project area.


Roberts Prairie Dog Town, a colony spanning 947 acres, is located on National Park land within one mile directly south of the project area.



There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effect on the TECP, sensitive species, MIS, or their habitats under Alternative A.

Alternatives B and C – Proposed Action using Alternate Routes 2 or 3

Under the proposed action, there is a “not likely to jeopardize” determination for the black-footed ferret, and a “no effect” determination for all other federally listed threatened and endangered species. A determination of “may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the project area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability range wide” is made for black-tailed prairie dog, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, swift fox, burrowing owl, chestnut-collared longspur, ferruginous hawk, grasshopper sparrow, loggerhead shrike, long-billed curlew, northern harrier, short-eared owl, western bumblebee, monarch butterfly, Ottoe skipper, regal fritillary, Barr’s milkvetch, and Visher’s buckwheat. With these sensitive species, direct impacts include disturbance of individuals that may inhabit the waterline corridor at the start of construction. Similar habitat is plentiful in the vicinity, though, and movement into adjacent habitats is likely. A determination of “beneficial impact” is made for the northern leopard frog, as a result of decreased use of existing ponds by livestock. All other sensitive species have a “no impact” determination. A determination of “neutral effect on population trend” is made for both the sharp-tailed grouse and the black-tailed prairie dog Management Indicator Species. Construction activities will not occur within 1.0 miles of any active display grounds for the sharp-tailed grouse from March 1 until June 15. Disturbed soil from construction and increased cattle activity at the new tanks will allow for expansion of prairie dog habitat in the immediate vicinity of the project. This will reduce potential habitat here for the sharp-tailed grouse, but more moderate grazing practices will result in improved grouse habitat elsewhere on the affected allotments. The proposed action will result in short term disturbance to approximately 9 acres and the long term loss of 0.03 acres of mixed grass prairie. Livestock activity concentrated around watering tanks may disturb up to a total of 4.07 additional acres of habitat. The Wall North Geographic Area covers approximately 69,600 acres. Upland grassland is the primary vegetation covering approximately 92% of the Wall North Geographic. The loss of 4.10 acres of grassland comprises 0.006% of the habitat type in this geographic area. Due to this minimal disturbance acreage and the predominance of the habitat type in the area, this proposed action will have “no effect” on the habitat type.


According to the USDA Nebraska National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA), there are no proposed actions near the Project area. Based on the lack of other planned actions, no cumulative impacts are anticipated toward any TECP, sensitive species, MIS or their habitats, as a result of scheduled USFS actions. Other potential sources of cumulative impacts include the regulated hunting of sharp-tailed grouse, which results in thousands of grouse harvested each year in South Dakota, as well as rodenticide use and/or other population control measures on the black-tailed prairie dog as described in the Nebraska National Forest Land Resource Management Plan. Grouse hunting is expected to greatly outweigh any direct or indirect effects as a result of the proposed project, while prairie dog population control is not expected to occur to a significant extent in the project area.

3.4 General Wildlife


Construction activities associated with the installation of the proposed water improvements may disturb wildlife present within the project area. The Forest Plan (LRMP, 2001) has listed standards and guidelines that establish the minimum distances certain activities must remain from active raptor nests during specific dates, described below:

Table 3.4 General Wildlife regulations.

Species and Habitat Minimum Distance (miles) and Dates

Bald Eagle Nest 1.0 from 2/1 to 7/31

Bald Eagle Winter Roost Area 1.0 from 11/1 to 3/31

Golden Eagle Nest 0.50 from 2/1 to 7/31

Merlin Nest 0.50 from 4/1 to 8/15

Ferruginous Hawk Nest 0.50 from 3/1 to 7/31

Swainson’s Hawk Nest 0.50 from 3/1 to 7/31

Burrowing Owl Nest 0.25 from 4/15 to 8/31

Nests of Other Raptors 0.125 from 2/1 to 7/31a

a Dates may vary depending on the species

To help reduce disturbances to nesting and wintering raptors, do not authorize the following activities within the minimum distances (line of sight) of active raptor nests and winter roost areas during the dates specified in the previous table:

Construction (e.g., pipelines, utilities, fencing),

Seismic exploration,

Workover operations for maintenance of oil and gas wells,

Fuelwood cutting,

Permitted recreation events. Guideline


There is little or no suitable habitat for the majority of raptors in the project area. Potential habitat for the burrowing owl is present in the prairie dog colony in the northeast portion of the project area. The new tanks can pose a drowning hazard to small birds and mammals that happen to fall in. As a result, the Forest Plan indicates that all new tanks constructed will include escape ramps in order to mitigate this potential effect. Due to the proximity of the two alternate routes, species diversity and potential are not expected to differ between Alternative B and Alternative C. Thus, the impacts listed below will apply to both alternatives.



There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effect on general wildlife species under Alternative A.

Alternatives B and C – Proposed Action Alternatives

Under the proposed action the direct impact of the Project in either alternative would temporarily displace wildlife during construction. This impact is short-term during construction with disturbance of any one segment of the waterline typically taking less than 24 hours. The proposed action will result in short term disturbance to about 9 acres and the long term loss of 0.03 acres of mixed grass prairie. Livestock activity concentrated around watering tanks may disturb up to a total of 4.07 additional acres of habitat. The Wall North Geographic Area covers approximately 69,600 acres. Upland grassland is the primary vegetation covering approximately 92% of the Wall North Geographic. The loss of 4.10 acres of grassland comprises 0.006% of the habitat type in this geographic area. Due to this minimal disturbance acreage and the predominance of the habitat type in the area, this proposed action will have no indirect or cumulative impacts on wildlife species. The direct effects will be only short-term during construction.

3.5 Invasive Species


Quality Services, Inc. has surveyed the federal lands proposed for the project and no invasive species were identified.




There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effect on the presence of invasive species in the Project or surrounding areas under Alternative A.


The proposed action will result in temporary disturbance of about 9 acres of grassland habitat and 0.03 acres of permanent loss due to watering tanks and service meter pits located along the waterline routes. Livestock activity concentrated around watering tanks may disturb up to a total of 4.07 additional acres of habitat. The Forest Service is a proponent of prevention as the cornerstone of an effective invasive species program. Accordingly, the following preventative measures will be adopted for the waterline project. All Project vehicles and equipment would be cleaned of soils, seeds, vegetative matter, or other debris or matter that could contain or hold noxious weed seeds prior to entering the Project area. All ground disturbances would be revegetated by cleaning impacted areas, re-contouring, and reseeding disturbed soil. A certified noxious weed-free mix would be used for reseeding disturbed areas to establish vegetation for erosion control. The seed mix would be 90% pure live seed (minimum), with germination meeting or exceeding 85%, and applied at 15 pounds per acre (minimum). There is the potential increase of invasive species due to temporary disturbance of the waterline corridor. With the proposed mitigation measures identified above, these impacts will be short-term. There would be no indirect or cumulative effect on the presence of invasive species in the Project or surrounding areas under Alternative B.

3.6 Habitats within the Project Area


The primary habitat along the proposed waterline corridor is upland mixed grass prairie. This habitat type has two components, tall grass, and short grass. The habitat within the Project corridor is primarily composed of western wheatgrass (Pascopyron smithii), buffalograss (Buchloe dactyloides), side-oats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), big bluestem (Andropogon gerardi), and green needlegrass (Stipa viridula). Wildlife species that use the mixed grass prairie can be divided into several categories. First are species that prefer tall grass. Western wheatgrass and green needlegrass are the primary tall growing component of the mixed grass prairie. Sensitive species that prefer this cover include greater prairie chicken, northern harrier, short-eared owl, grasshopper sparrow, and regal fritillary butterfly. The management indicator species for this habitat is the sharp-tailed grouse. Second are species that prefer short grass.


Buffalograss and blue grama grass are the main components of the short grass part of the mixed grass prairie. The sensitive species that prefer short grasses include swift fox, black-tailed prairie dog, chestnut-collared longspur, burrowing owl, and mountain plover. The management indicator species for this habitat is the black-tailed prairie dog. The last group is the generalist species that do well in both components of the mixed grass prairie or prefer a mosaic of tall and short grass species and include the ferruginous hawk and long-billed curlew. A small area of a second habitat type is located in the northeastern portion of the project area. This outcrop of badland formation habitat consists of white clay soils and is characterized by a scarcity of vegetation. The West Wall Research Natural Area contains a small amount of woody vegetation, but the vegetation within and adjacent to the proposed Alternative C route consists of upland prairie grasses identical to the majority of the project area. Because the habitat type within the project area is the same between both routes, the impacts listed below will apply to both Alternative B and Alternative C.



There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effect on mixed grass prairie or badland formation habitats under Alternative A.


The proposed action will result in short term disturbance to about 9 acres and the long term loss of about 0.03 acres of mixed grass prairie. Livestock can disturb up to 0.37 acres of vegetation when concentrated at a watering tank, for a total additional loss of 4.07 acres of mixed grass prairie. The Wall North Geographic Area covers approximately 69,600 acres. Upland grassland is the primary vegetation covering approximately 92% of the Wall North Geographic. The loss of 4.10 acres of grassland comprises 0.006% of the habitat type in this geographic area. Due to this minimal disturbance acreage and the predominance of the habitat type in the area, this proposed action will have “no effect” on the habitat type. According to the USFS SOPA, there are no proposed actions near the Project area. Based on the lack of other planned actions, no cumulative impacts are anticipated toward any habitats within the Project area.


3.7 Vegetation


Based on LRMP for the NNFG and Associated Units (LRMP, 2001), the Project area lies within the Wall North geographic area. Upland grassland is the primary vegetation covering approximately 92% of the Wall North Geographic Area. The native vegetation is dominated by mid grasses and a variety of forbs. The principle grass species are buffalograss (Buchloe dactyloides), side-oats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), and green needlegrass (Stipa viridula).



There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effect on upland grassland vegetation under Alternative A.

Alternative B

The Project would result in the direct impact from the temporary disturbance of approximately 9 acres and permanent surface disturbance of .03 acres of native upland grassland. Due to the small acreage involved and the prevalence of this vegetation type in the vicinity, the impact of vegetation loss is expected to be inconsequential. The Project does not include the removal of any trees and it will not adversely affect any wetland or wet drainage bottom. The Project would relieve stress on wetlands as livestock would cease using them as watering holes in favor of the proposed tanks, allowing the wetlands to support more and varied vegetation. There are no indirect or cumulative effects to this resource under Alternative B.

3.8 Scenic Resources


The Buffalo Gap National Grassland is primarily a rangeland ecosystem managed to meet a variety of ecological conditions and human needs. Scenic resource integrity was evaluated in the Forest Plan to determine the level of importance. The level for the proposed project is mainly low with one small area high. (LRMP, 2001). Low scenic resource level refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character “appears moderately altered” while high scenic resource level refers to an area with little to no human activity or development evident.


In low level scenic areas users expect to see other people, roads, fences, and other facilities supporting everyday activities in the area. High scenic areas have maintained most of their natural view with minimal human activities visible.



There are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to this resource under Alternative A.

Alternative B – Proposed Action

This proposed action occurs only in “low level” scenic areas. Due to the existing human developments throughout the project, this project will not adversely affect existing view shed of the project area. Immediate effects of the Project upon completion will be disturbed soil and new water tanks. Once construction is initiated, waterline and tank installation will proceed quickly, with ground disturbance of any one segment of the waterline typically taking less than 24 hours. The only aboveground expression of the buried waterline will be the eleven livestock watering tanks and two service meter installations. The locations of these features are shown on Project Maps Figures 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3.

Alternative C– Alternative Proposed Action

Over 99% of this proposed action occurs in a “low level, ” and less than 1% is within a “high level” scenic areas. The low level scenic areas will not be adversely affected due to existing human developments throughout the project areas. Proposed work in “low level” scenic areas will have the immediate effect of soil disturbance throughout the project area. At the completion of the project, the only visible portions of the project will be 11 livestock watering tanks and 2 service meter pits. Areas designated high scenic level, i.e. the West Wall Research Natural Area, will be temporarily affected as the waterline construction is actively occurring. Construction through the high scenic area will proceed quickly with ground disturbance of any one segment of the waterline typically taking less than 24 hours to complete. No water tanks or meter pits will be located in the high level scenic area. Waterlines are to be placed along landownership boundaries with an existing fence line, next to an existing road. Long term affects are minimal since the ground will settle into its natural state within a few years. Overall adverse effects to scenic resources would be minimal in this alternative.


3.9 Social and Economic Conditions


The livestock industry is the primary source of income in the project area. Insufficient or poor quality water resources on the grazing allotments endanger the health of livestock that rely on them. Livestock without regular access to clean water gain less weight due to malnutrition and illness and reduce the yield gained by the ranchers that own them (Brew et al., 2011). Previous drought conditions have reduced existing water sources on the grazing allotments to hazardous conditions, drying out or becoming stagnant and boggy, resulting in entrapment and poisoning of livestock. The proposed water improvements will provide clean, reliable water to livestock via several new watering tanks per allotment. This will improve the overall health of the livestock and increase their weight gained while foraging. The water will be provided by the WR/LJ Rural Water System.


Alternative A

The requested improvements would not be authorized. Livestock on the allotments would continue to be restricted to the existing water sources, susceptible to reducing conditions brought on by future drought. The health of the livestock would continue to be at risk due to insufficient clean water available, resulting in decreased weight gain and lower profit yields for the ranchers that own them.

Alternative B and C

The water improvements would provide clean and reliable water for livestock on the allotments. This source of water would not be susceptible to reducing conditions brought on by drought. With access to this water, livestock health would improve and weight gain would increase, thereby increase profit yields for ranchers.

3.10 Recreation


The Buffalo Gap National Grassland offers a variety of recreational activities. The Wall Ranger District is a Management Area with Broad Resource Emphasis (LRMP, 2001). The only developed recreational facilities within this geographic area are the National Grasslands Visitor Center and the fourteen mile long Prairie Bike Trail. There are no


developed recreation sites within the Project area. Recreational opportunities emphasize dispersed recreation activities including hunting, rock hounding, and hiking. Users could expect to see lands that often display high levels of development, density of facilities, other people and evidence of human activities. Motorized transportation is commonly seen in the proposed Project area, as is traffic on the nearby county roads and Highway 240. Heavily used Interstate I-90 begin to dominate the valued landscape character being viewed north of the Project (LRMP, 2001, Appendix G). I-90 is principal east - west artery in southwest South Dakota for tourism, and commercial truck traffic, including agricultural, manufacturing, and service industries.


Alternatives A, B, and C

There are no developed recreation sites within the Project area affected under any alternative. The net loss of 0.03 acres grassland that would result from the Project. This net loss would have an insignificant effect on the opportunities for dispersed recreation on the national grassland. Thus there are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to this resource.

3.11 Climate Change


The three most prevalent greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. In 2013, carbon dioxide accounted for about 82% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, methane accounted for about 10%, and nitrous oxide accounted for 5%. South Dakota contributes 15 million metric tons of emissions a year.


Alternative A

There are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on this resource under Alternative A. Alternative B & C When placing the proposed project carbon emissions will be increased due to the equipment involved in construction. This direct effect will only persist during the initial placement timeline that is to be performed in less than 1 month. Predicted total emission from the proposed action is 0.005 metric tons in the initial year and 0 metric tons per year after. Constructing the Project will result in less produced greenhouse gases in the future because during drought conditions vehicles will not be needed to haul water out to temporary tanks to supply livestock. There are insignificant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to this resource under the Proposed Action.


3.12 Soil


The Project area covers approximately nine linear miles, and can potentially cross through 16 different general soil map units as listed below and illustrated in Appendix A2. Each unit has a distinctive pattern of soils, relief, and drainage.

Arvada loam (ArA): Very deep, well drained, clay loam on alluvial fans, fan remnants, fan terraces, and hillslopes

Badland (Bb): Outcrop of the White River Group.

Blackpipe-Norrest Complex (BnC): Moderately deep, well drained, silty clay

loam on uplands with moderately slow permeability.

Blackpipe-Wortman Complex (BoB): Moderately deep, well to moderately well drained clay and silty clay loam on uplands, upland fans, and flats with moderately slow to very slow permeability.

Fairburn clay loam (FaE): Shallow, somewhat excessively to well drained, clay loam on gently sloping to very steep hills and ridges with moderate to moderately slow permeability.

Interior loam (Io): very deep, well drained loam, silt loam, and silty clay loam on flood plains, low terraces, and in drainage ways.

Larvie clay (LaD): Moderately deep, well drained clay on uplands with very slow permeability.

Midway silty clay loam (MoE): Shallow, well drained clay derived from shale on ridge crests, mesas, plains and hills in shale bedrock uplands.

Nunn loam (NuA, NuB, NuC): Very deep, well drained clay loam on terraces or alluvial fans, and in drainage ways.

Nunn-Beckton Complex (NvA): Very deep, well to moderately drained clay loam and silty clay loam on terraces, alluvial fans, and drainage ways.

Samsill-Pierre, thin solumn complex (N711G): Moderately deep to shallow, well drained, and slowly permeable clay derived from shale on gently sloping to rolling hillslopes on uplands.


Razor-Midway Complex (RbD): Moderately deep, well drained, slowly permeable silty clay to loam on plains, hills, and breaks to major drainages; and clays on ridge crests, mesas, plains and hills.

Nuncho loam (U535B): Very deep, well drained clay loam on outwash terraces, alluvial fans, fan aprons, fan remnants, ridges, and hills.

Savo-Blackpipe silty clay loam (U712D): Very to moderately deep, well drained silty clay loam with moderately slow permeability on uplands and terraces.

Wanblee-Wortman silt loams (WbB): Moderately deep, well to moderately well drained clay loam and clay on upland fans and flats with very slow permeability.

Wortman silt loam (WwB): Moderately deep, well to moderately well drained clay loam and clay on upland fans and flats with very slow permeability.

This soil information was obtained from the Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database (2016).


The Project would result in temporary surface disturbance of about 9 acres. This disturbance will involve waterline placement, tank and meter pit installation, and soil replacement. Total disturbance period is expected to be less than 24 hours of actual exposed open trench. Following completion of waterline construction, 0.03 acres will be permanently disturbed due to watering tanks and service meter pits located along the waterline. All of the permanent disturbance will be of upland grassland with native grassland species. Based on Project area visits potential for erosion is low due to gently sloping topography, extensive vegetative cover and minimal disturbance. In light of the small acreage involved and the prevalence of this vegetation type in the vicinity, the impact of vegetation loss is expected to be inconsequential, and therefore the potential for soil erosion will be minimal.


There are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to this resource under Alternative A. Alternatives B and C – Proposed Action Following construction, all temporarily disturbed areas would be revegetated by seeding with a WRD approved seed mix. No ground disturbance would occur during or immediately following rain events or under any wetted conditions that would create ruts 2 inches or greater. There are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to this resource under the Proposed Action.


3.13 Paleontology


Paleontological resources mean any fossilized remains, traces, or imprints of organisms preserved on or in the earth’s crust, that are of paleontological interest, and that provide information about the history of life on earth. Most of the project area consists of Quaternary eolian and alluvial deposits with a Class 2 (low) potential fossil yield classification (PFYC). A small portion of the proposed waterline does cross an area with higher potential for fossil resources. Impacts to paleontological resources in the project area are considered on the likelihood of fossils occurring in the geologic formations present. Action Alternatives B and C differ only in the placement of the proposed waterline in or around the West Wall Research Natural Area, which is low potential for fossil resources within the proposed Project area. The impacts listed below apply to both Alternative B and Alternative C.


Alternative A

There are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on this resource under Alternative A. Alternatives B & C For those areas in the Project that consist of Quaternary eolian and alluvial deposits; the potential to affect paleontological resources is low. As long as the water line is not dug into underlying bedrock paleontological resources will not be affected. Potential adverse effects are possible for a short section of the proposed water line. Exposure of fossil resources from construction activities can lead to an increased risk of damage from erosion, vandalism, and theft. If during any Project activities, paleontological resources are inadvertently discovered, the holder of the permit would immediately notify the USFS Authorized Officer, and all work in the area would cease. Under the provisions of the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act (Public Law 111-11 16 U.S.C. 470aaa-11), the USFS shall manage protect, and preserve paleontological resources on National Forest Systems lands using scientific principles and expertise. An inspection by a professionally trained paleontologist would be conducted and a mitigation plan developed, if necessary. Protective and mitigate


measures such as avoidance or collection of the resources may be suggested by the USFS Authorized Officer. Construction monitoring may also be suggested.

3.14 Hazardous Materials


The Project area and surrounding acreage has been inspected. There are no known hazardous materials in the Project area and surrounding acreage nor will any hazardous material, as defined in this paragraph, will be used, produced, transported or stored on or within the right-of-way or any of the right-of-way facilities, or used in the operation, maintenance or termination of the right-of-way or any of its facilities. "Hazardous material" means any substance, pollutant or contaminant that is listed as hazardous under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., and its regulations. The definition of hazardous substances under CERCLA includes any "hazardous waste" as defined in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq., and its regulations. The term hazardous materials also includes any nuclear or byproduct material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq. The term does not include petroleum, including crude oil or any fraction thereof that is not otherwise specifically listed or designated as a hazardous substance under CERCLA Section 101(14), 42 U.S.C. 9601(14), nor does the term include natural gas. The Project would not result in the introduction of hazardous wastes to the area. Further, all Project related materials not required for operation of the EPCCGD Waterlines (e.g., paper goods, wrapping material, hardware, etc.) and waste (e.g., used or unused pipe, trash, etc.) would be removed and disposed of properly from federal lands.


Alternative A

The Project and surrounding acreage has been inspected for the past or present presence of hazardous materials as required by regulation. No evidence was found to indicate a presence of hazardous materials. There are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to this resource under Alternative A.

Alternative B and C

The Project would not result in the introduction of hazardous wastes to the area. All Project related materials not required for operation of the waterline (e.g., hardware, pipe, tools, etc.) and waste (e.g., used electrical tape, trash, paper, etc.) would be removed and disposed of properly from federal lands.


Prior to construction, a Spill Prevention and Control plan would be submitted to the USFS. No toxic material, including fuel, or equipment servicing areas, including refueling stations, would be situated within 300 feet of any streams during construction activities. If a fuel/oil or other hazardous material spill occurs, immediately report the release or spill to SD DENR at 605-773-3296 during regular office hours (8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Central time). To report the release after hours, on weekends or holidays, call State Radio Communications at 605-773-3231. EPCCGD would also be immediately contacted and actions would be taken to prevent the spill material from entering live waters. Such measures may include straw bale plugs, earthen berms, or use of other absorbent materials. Additionally, soil remediation would be conducted including the removal of contaminated soils to an approved facility. Soil sample(s) would be taken to verify the success of the site remediation. The construction contractor would be required to follow any other local, state, or federal regulations related to the use, handling, storing, transporting, and disposing of hazardous materials. There are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to this resource under either alternative.

3.15 Cultural / Heritage / Archeological Resources


Archeological records search indicated there are no cultural sites formally determined eligible, sites being nominated to, sites determined eligible by consensus, or sites that are previously evaluated and found to meet National Register criteria within one quarter mile of the proposed waterline. The Forest Service archeologist surveyed the federal lands proposed for the EPCCGD Waterline Project as required by law and regulation. The studies conducted for heritage resources were compliant with those expected by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (36 CFR 800) and those of the South Dakota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). A determination of “No Historic Properties Affected” in the Areas of Potential Effects has been made by the forest archeologist. The Project, as proposed, will have no effect on any heritage resources. There are no known sites eligible for the NRHP within the direct or indirect APEs. The Project file was submitted to SD SHPO for review and concurrence with the forest archeologist’s determination.



There are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to this resource under Alternative A.


Alternative B and C – Proposed Action If during any Project activities, cultural, historical, or prehistoric resources were inadvertently discovered, the USFS Authorized Officer would be notified, and all work in the area would cease. An inspection by a professionally trained archaeologist would be conducted and a mitigation plan developed, if necessary, in consultation with the South Dakota SHPO and affiliated Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO). Special Use Clause X17 (Archaeological-Paleontological Discoveries) or an equivalent would be included in all authorizations that require construction activity of any kind. There are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to this resource under Alternatives B or C.

3.16 Traditional Cultural Property (TCP)


American Indian tribes were notified of the Project through the public involvement efforts during the scoping phase of this Project (see Section 1.6 Public Involvement). On November 8, 2016, American Indian tribes on the Forest Service contact list (see Table 4.4) were sent notification of EPCCGD's intention to install water improvements on Forest Service lands. The notification was sent to tribal officials and summarized the proposed waterline project, location, and archaeological information. Contact information for the Forest Service project leader was provided and tribal representatives were requested to refer any comments or questions regarding this Project to that person. No comments were received in regards to the Project. Another letter was sent to tribes with archeological report and no comments or concerns were received.



There are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to this resource under Alternative A. Alternative B and C – Proposed Action If during any Project activities TCPs were inadvertently discovered, the USFS Authorized Officer would be notified, and all work in the area would cease. An inspection by a professionally trained archaeologist would be conducted and a mitigation plan developed, if necessary, in consultation with the South Dakota SHPO and affiliated THPO. Special Use Clause X17 (Archaeological-Paleontological Discoveries) or an equivalent would be included in all authorizations that require construction activity of any kind. There are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to this resource under Alternative B.


3.17 Range Resource Management


Federal lands under this Project are made up of mixed grass native prairie habitat, characterized by buffalograss (Buchloe dactyloides), side-oats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), and green needlegrass (Stipa viridula). The federal lands proposed for the Special Use Permit and the actual area proposed for construction and maintenance of the buried water pipeline comprises approximately 3 acres or permanent disturbance and about 9 acres of temporary disturbance as shown on Table 1-1. The Project area crosses three grazing allotments administered by the Wall Ranger District as summarized in the following table.

Table 3.17.1 Grazing Allotments crossed by proposed pipeline alignment.

Grazing Allotment Pastures

Crooked Creek North & South

Roundtop West & School

West Wall East & Center

The minimal disturbance to the range vegetation will result in a minimal temporary effect, and no permanent effect, on the grazing capacity of each pasture of less than one Animal-Unit Month (AUM) per pasture.



The three allotments listed in the preceding table would not have a reduction of Animal-Unit Months (AUMs). There are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to this resource under Alternative 1. Alternative B and C – Proposed Actions The three allotments would have a temporary net reduction of less than one AUM per pasture for the grazing season in which construction occurs, and no net reduction in the grazing seasons following construction. There are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to this resource under Alternatives B or C.

3.18 Fuels and Fire


Any treatment, such as grazing, which reduces available fuel loading in the project area, can be expected to reduce wildfire intensity and resistance to control.



Alternative A – No Action With no action occurring within the project area, during drought years the cattle will be removed from grazing allotments earlier in the year, reducing the amount of fuel utilized by the cattle. Forage not utilized by cattle can increase the fuel loading of the area resulting in possibility of larger and more intense wildfires. Alternatives B and C – Proposed Action Alternatives Fuel reduction from livestock grazing would continue to be beneficial to the suppression to wildland fires throughout the normal growing season due to available water for livestock. Additionally, livestock water tanks provide the benefit of additional water sources for fire suppression activities. Although the frequency of ignitions would remain unaffected, wildfires that do start would generally be easier to control as less fuel would be available for combustion. We would expect less resource damage as well as less risk to improvements and private property.


3.19 Compliance with Forest Plan

The Project fully complies with the NNF Forest Plan (USDA-Forest Service. 2009a) and incorporates all applicable Forest Management Goals, Standards and Guidelines. The Forest Plan provides broad direction for management of the NNF and general discussions of associated environmental effects. Following approval of the proposed EPCCGD Waterline Project Draft EA, the Special Use Application with or without any mitigation measures would be authorized in the Decision Notice/Finding of No Significant Impact. Implementation would proceed immediately upon completion of all National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements and Forest Service appeal regulation requirements. Concurring with EPCCGD’s proposed construction of waterlines and livestock watering tanks on national grassland would contribute to the goals and objectives of the Forest Plan (LRMP, 2001, Chapter 1, pages 1-1 thru 1-30), in part, by providing the following:

Table 3.19-1 Compliance with the Forest Plan

Forest Plan Direction EPCCGD’s proposed waterlines contribution and/or consistency

CHAPTER 1: GRASSLAND-WIDE AND FOREST-WIDE DIRECTION

Goals and Objectives

Goal 1.a: Improve and protect watershed conditions to provide the water quality and quantity and soil productivity necessary to support ecological functions and intended beneficial water uses (LRMP, 2001 Amended 2009, Chapter 1, page 1-2).

The proposed project will allow livestock to be watered by new tanks instead of wetlands. Overall quality of the wetlands will improve as livestock spend less time disturbing and polluting those water sources.

Goal 1.b: Provide ecological conditions to sustain viable populations of native and desired non-native species and to achieve objectives for Management Indicator Species (MIS) (LRMP, 2001 Amended 2009, Chapter 1, page 1-3).

As livestock utilizes proposed water tanks, wetland habitats will improve, allowing wetland habitats to sustain more ecologically sensitive plant and animal species. This will also encourage more distributed grazing, minimizing intensive impacts on mixed-grass prairie habitat caused by overgrazing.

Goal 2.c: Improve the capability of the Nation's forests and grasslands to provide a desired sustainable level of uses, values, products, and services (LRMP, 2001 Amended 2009, Chapter 1, page 1-6)


Forest Plan Direction EPCCGD’s proposed waterlines contribution and/or consistency

Livestock Grazing Objective: Annually, provide forage for livestock on suitable rangelands. Annual grazing levels will be adjusted, as needed, during periods of drought or for other conditions.

Animal losses due to entrapment and poisoning will be avoided as the proposed improvements through reliable available water sources. Annual grazing would probably not need to be reduced during drought conditions due to available water sources.

Scenery Objective: Implement practices that will meet, or move the landscape character toward scenic integrity objectives, as described in Geographic Area direction.

Alternative B in completely within a “Low Level” Scenic Integrity Objective area which refers to the landscape with existing human activity and development. The proposed Project will not adversely affect the Scenic Integrity. Alternative C has a minor portion (<1%) of the project area designated at “High Level” of scenic integrity. The Project within the high level area will cause minimal short-term affect. The majority of the project falls under a “Low Level” and will not adversely affect existing scenic integrity.


Standards and Guidelines

PHYSICAL RESOURCES

B. Water

3. In the water influence zone next to perennial and intermittent streams, lakes, and wetlands, allow only those actions that maintain or improve long-term health and riparian ecosystem condition. Standard (LRMP, 2001 Amended 2009, Chapter 1, page 1-10).

Approval of the EPCCGD application is consistent with this Standard. Wetland areas will improve as livestock utilize the proposed tanks for watering instead of the wetlands and disturbance and pollution of the wetlands caused from livestock use is reduced.

14. Locate facilities away from the water's edge or outside the riparian areas, woody draws, wetlands and floodplains unless alternatives have been assessed and determined to be more environmentally damaging. Guideline (LRMP, 2001 Amended 2009, Chapter 1, page 1-11).

All stream and stream bank impacts will be avoided. The only ancillary facilities that are planned for the proposed waterline are eleven watering tanks and two service meter pits. These facilities will be located consistent with this guideline.

E. Paleontological Resources

1. Protect key paleontological resources from disturbance, or mitigate the effects of disturbance, to conserve scientific interpretive and legacy values. Standard (LRMP, 2001 Amended 2009, Chapter 1, page 1-13)


3. Prior to ground-disturbing activities, conduct paleontological surveys in any area where there is a high potential to encounter these resources according to the process outlined in Appendix J. Standard (LRMP, 2001 Amended 2009, Chapter 1, page 1-13)


C. Soils

Table 1. Table 2. 1. Limit roads and

other disturbed sites to the minimum feasible number, width, and total length consistent with the purpose of specific operations, local topography, and climate. Standard (LRMP, 2001 Amended 2009, Chapter 1, page 1-11).

Table 3.

This Project will remain consistent with all of these standards. Disturbance to the National Grasslands will be minimal (see Table 1-1; permanent disturbance about 0.03 acres, temporary disturbance for alternative B of 8.82 acres and Alternative C of 9.15 acres). There will be no new roads necessary for the waterline. Preventative measures to be utilized during construction include the following.

Vehicles and equipment will be cleaned of soils, seeds, vegetative matter, or other debris or matter that could contain or hold noxious weed seeds prior to entering the Project area.

All ground disturbances would be revegetated by cleaning impacted areas, re-contouring, and reseeding disturbed soil.

A certified noxious weed-free mix would be used for reseeding disturbed areas to establish vegetation for erosion control. The seed mix would be 90% pure live seed (minimum), with germination meeting or exceeding 85%, and applied at 15 pounds per acre (minimum).

Table 4. 2. Stabilize and maintain roads and other disturbed sites during and after construction to control erosion. Standard (LRMP, 2001 Amended 2009, Chapter 1, page 1-11).

3. Reclaim roads and other disturbed sites when use ends, as needed, to prevent resource damage. Standard (LRMP, 2001 Amended 2009, Chapter 1, page 1-11).


BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

F. Fish, Wildlife and Rare Plants

2. Modify livestock grazing practices as needed to reduce adverse impacts of drought on food and cover for prairie grouse and other wildlife. Standard (LRMP, 2001 Amended 2009, Chapter 1, page 1-13).

Existing wetlands will have reduced use and damage because livestock will use the proposed water tanks. This also provides more water during drought conditions for birds and other wildlife. Due to increased water availability and its distribution, livestock grazing will be more distributed across the landscape, reducing the pressure from overgrazing on the mixed-grass prairie habitat.

3. When installing new livestock water tanks, install durable and effective escape ramps for birds and small mammals. During maintenance of existing tanks, replace ramps that are ineffective or missing. Standard (LRMP, 2001 Amended 2009, Chapter 1, page 1-14)

All proposed tanks will provide escape ramps as directed in this Standard.

10. During the AMP process or as other opportunities arise, design and implement livestock grazing strategies to provide well-developed emergent vegetation through the growing season on 30 to 50% of the wetlands (natural and constructed) distributed across watersheds and landscapes, contingent on local site potential. Guideline (LRMP, 2001 Amended 2009, Chapter 1, page 1-14).

Wetland habitats will improve as livestock utilize the proposed tanks for watering instead of the wetlands. This reduction in disturbance and pollution will allow the wetland habitats to sustain more ecologically sensitive and diverse vegetation.


15. To help reduce disturbances to breeding and nesting sharp-tailed grouse, do not authorize the following activities within 1.0 mile of active display grounds from March 1 to June 15: Construction (e.g., roads, water

impoundments, pipelines, utilities, oil and gas facilities, fencing). Guideline (LRMP, 2001 Amended 2009, Chapter 1, page 1-14)

Construction will not occur within 1.0 mile of any active display grounds from March 1 to June 15 as directed by this guideline.

I. Livestock Grazing

3. Adjust livestock management activities annually as needed to take into account the effect of natural processes, such as droughts, fires, floods, and grasshoppers on forage availability. Guideline (LRMP, 2001 Amended 2009, Chapter 1, page 1-21).

Such adjustments do occur as needed and will continue to occur if the Project is implemented.

J. Non-native and Invasive Species, Noxious Weeds and Insect Management

2. Attempt to prevent the spread of undesirable non-native, invasive, or noxious plant species to the NNF, by including necessary provisions in contracts and permits designed to limit its lands and resources to exposure to these plants. Standard (LRMP, 2001 Amended 2009, Chapter 1, page 1-23)

This will be achieved by minimizing cross-country vehicular travel, washing vehicles that travel off roads before entering and after leaving national grassland, and cleaning out the under carriage of vehicles where weeds and grasses tend to accumulate.


3.19.1 Monitoring

Project implementation monitoring will monitor compliance with LRMP Standards and Guidelines. The EPCCGD will inspect the Project both during and after construction and reclamation to ensure compliance with Best Management Practices, environmental protection measures, SUP, and other requirements. In addition, user self-inspection requirements would ensure the accuracy of certified inventory statements that facility owners and facility managers provide annually to the authorized officer.

3.20 Compliance with Other Laws and Regulations

Implementation of the action alternative would comply with all applicable federal and state laws, and local zoning and building ordinances during all phases of the Project. All companies involved during the construction, maintenance, and operation phases of the Project would comply with all Terms and Conditions attached to the SUP. These provide for environmental protection designed to prevent damage to existing natural resources.

3.20.1 National Forest Management Act

Compliance with various points of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) can be found throughout this draft EA. Following approval of the proposed EPCCGD Waterline Project, the SUP with or without any mitigation measures would be authorized in the Decision Notice/Finding of No Significant Impact. Implementation would proceed immediately upon completion of all National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements and Forest Service appeal regulation requirements.

3.20.2 Endangered Species Act

The Project complies with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Amended. A BA/BE (USDA-Forest Service, 2010a) was completed and is included in the Planning Record.

3.20.3 National Historic Preservation Act

Cultural resource surveys have been conducted in the Project area (USDA-Forest Service, 2010b) and no sites considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places were discovered. The studies conducted for cultural resources for the Project site were compliant with those expected by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800) and those of the SD SHPO, which require that cultural resources be identified in study areas and evaluated for eligibility to the NRHP. A


determination of "No Historic Properties Affected" in the APE’s has been made by the forest archeologist for the Project. The Project, as proposed, will have no effect on any cultural resources. There are no known sites eligible for the NRHP within the direct or indirect APEs.

3.20.4 Clean Water Act, Wetlands, Floodplains

All wetlands, streams and other waterways would be avoided. Implementation of the proposed action would not impact water quality. The Project is consistent with the Clean Water Act. Implementation of the proposed action would not impact floodplains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds and would be consistent with Executive Orders 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) and 11988 (Floodplain Management). The Project will cross Fork Crooked Creek in two locations in the Crooked Creek allotment, and multiple other water body crossings (unnamed creeks) will occur in the Crooked Creek and Roundtop allotments. A trencher will be used to place the waterline in these areas. Monitoring for signs of erosion will take place, and mitigation measures will be implemented as needed.

3.20.5 Clean Air Act

Emissions anticipated from the Project would be of short duration and would not exceed State of South Dakota ambient air quality standards. Water or other dust suppressants would be used as needed for dust control. Equipment would be properly maintained to minimize emissions. The proposed action is consistent with the Clean Air Act.

3.20.6 Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898)

The Project would not result in disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and/or low-income populations.


Chapter 4. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

As part of this draft EA process, the Forest Service consulted and coordinated with a variety of Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes, interested parties, specialists, property owners, and non-Forest Service persons. Summaries of these consulting parties are presented in the tables below.

Table 4-1 Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team & Resource Specialists

Name Position

Kurt Pindel Wall District Ranger

Phillip Dobesh Wildlife Biologist

Terri Harris Range Management Specialist

Dennis Pry Forest Archeologist

Matt Lucas Hydro Technician

Chancey Odell Range Management Specialist

Barbara Beasley Zone Paleontologist

Table 4-2. Consulting Parties & Subcontractor Resource Specialists

Name Position

Joan Cantrell General Manager, EPCCGD Cooperative Grazing District

Lance Rom Principal Archeologist, Quality Services, Inc.

Jana Morehouse Operations Supervisor, Quality Services, Inc.

Patricia Turbiville Forester, Quality Services, Inc.

Nick Dierks Biologist, Quality Services, Inc.

Sydney Boos Paleontologist, Quality Services, Inc.


Table 4-3. List of Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Consulted and/or Contacted. (A complete contact list is located in the Planning Record).

Federal Agencies

The Honorable Dennis Daugaard, Governor of South Dakota

The Honorable Mike Rounds, United States Senator, West River Director

The Honorable John Thune, United States Senator

The Honorable Kristi Noem, United States Congress

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Planning Division

United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Department of Energy and Natural Resources

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

USDA Rocky Mountain Research Station

Eric Brunnemann, Superintendent, Badlands National Park

Bureau of Land Management

Alan Hesse, National Park Service

Scott Larson, US Fish and Wildlife Service

State Agencies

South Dakota State Historic Preservation Office

Steve Emery, Secretary, SD Department of Tribal Relations

Shelly Deisch, Environmental Review and Management, SD Department of Game, Fish and Parks

Ted Spencer, Director, SD Historic Preservation

Jay Vogt, SD Historical Society

Supervisor O&G, SD Department of Environment and Natural Resources

SD Archeological Research Center

Katie Konda, Policy Analyst, SD Department of Agriculture

Kelly Hepler, Secretary, SD Department of Game, Fish and Parks

Jim Hagen, Secretary, SD Department of Tourism

Steve Pirner, Secretary, SD Department of Environment and Natural Resources

The Honorable Jim Bradford, South Dakota State Senator

The Honorable Bruce Rampelberg, South Dakota State Senator

The Honorable Lance Russell, South Dakota House of Representatives

The Honorable Mike Verchio, South Dakota House of Representatives

The Honorable Kevin Killer, South Dakota House of Representatives


The Honorable Elizabeth May, South Dakota House of Representatives

Vickie Daniels, WY State BLM

County Agencies

Fall River County Commissioners

Jackson County Commissioners

Pennington County Commissioners

Organizations and Individuals

Black Hills, Badlands and Lakes Association

Black Hills, Forest Resource Association

Black Hills Multiple Use Coalition

Black Hills RC&D

City of Wall

Martha Whitcher, Imlay Township Clerk, Imlay Township

Interior Township

Scenic Township

Dennis Reichman, Superintendent, Wall School

Scott T Beal, National Wild Turkey Fed-BH Chapter

Sharon Bertsch, Lewis & Clark Gem & Mineral Society

Silvia Christen, SD Stockgrower's Association

Paul Coughlin, SD Chapter Wildlife Society

Rich Day, National Wildlife Federation

Cam Ferweda, SD Wildlife Federation

Nancy Hilding, Prairie Hills Audubon Society

Christopher Krupp, Western Lands Project

Jim Margadant, Sierra Club-The Black Hills Group

Dr. Jeff Olsen, Black Hills Sportsmen

Corissa Kreuger, Director Western Dakotas Program

Dick Rasmussen, Izaak Walton League

Tom Tornow, Wildlife Society - USFWS

Delda Williams, Muzzle Loaders of Black Hills

National Wild Turkey Fed-BH Chapter

SD Association of Conservation Districts

Association of National Grasslands


Jim Faulstich, South Dakota Grassland Coalition

Cary Allen, Hillside Motel

Bob Anderson, SD Landowners Rights Association

James L. Anderson

Duane Berke

Gerald Lee Bloomer

Don Cardinal,

Jean Culverhouse

Ben Wudtke, Black Hills Forest Resource Association

John Bahneman

Annette Bailey

Rozanne Bazinet

Brenda Beeson

Buffalo Bruce

William L and Kathleen Deem, Off Road Riders Association

Sarah Ellis

Jennifer Fairbrother, FS Employees for Environmental Ethics

Ron Fry, Picture Perfect Photography

Jayme Fuhrmann

Arlow A Gehrke

Joshua Geigle, East Pennington Conservation District

Tim Grosz

Perry Guptill

Don Harwood

Nancy Hilding, Prairie Hills Audubon Society

Barry Hoover

Marvin Jobgen

David Johansen

Eric Johnson

Jackie Keith

Glenn Kjerstad

Adele Heidi or Daniel Kruse

Kevin Kruse

Deb Kukuchka

Jim Margadant, Black Hills Group - Sierra Club

Terry Mayes

Dave Miller


Vina Mongeon

Fred / Marilyn Moore

Amie Mummert

Toni Murray

Dan Nitzel, NE Off Highway Vehicle Association

Karen Olson, Sierra Club

Dr Colin J Paterson, Norbeck Society Inc

Bob Paulson, Nature Conservancy

Cliff Poss, Poss Ranch

Gary Schmidt

Jerry Schumacher

Duane Short, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Gerry Steinauer

Jerry Stoner

Authur Storm

Chadron Chamber of Commerce

Ridgeview Chamber of Commerce

University of Nebraska State Museum

Nebraska Student Union Room 22

South Dakota Public Lands Council

Predator Conservation Alliance

The Humane Society of the United States, Billings, MT

The Humane Society of the United States, Rapid City, SD

Center for Biologisal Diversity

Center for Native Ecosystems

Joan Cantrell, Eastern Pennington County Cooperative Grazing District/ White River Cooperative Grazing District


Table 4-4. List of Tribes Consulted and/or Contacted.

Designated Tribal Representative, Tribe

Donna Rae Peterson, Cultural Programs Administrator, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Eagle Butte, SD

Kevin Wright, Tribal Vice-Chairman, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule, SD

William Kindle, Vice President, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Rosebud, SD

John Yellow Bird Steele, Tribal Chairman, Oglala Sioux Tribe, Pine Ridge, SD

Kevin Keckler, Tribal Chairman, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Eagle Butte, SD

Steven Vance, THPO, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Eagle Butte, SD

Eddie Hamilton, Governor, Cheyenne/Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma, Concho, OK

Karen Little Coyote, NAGPRA Coordinator, Cheyenne/Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma, Concho, OK

Margaret Anquoe, Cheyenne/Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma, Concho, OK

Roxanne Sazue, Chairwoman, Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, Fort Thompson, SD

Wanda Wells, THPO, Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, Fort Thompson, SD

Anthony Reider, Chairman, Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe, Flandreau, SD

Elsie Montoya, Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe, Flandreau, SD

Dewey D. Tsonetokoy, Sr., Kiowa Ethnographic Endeavor, Carnegie, OK

Clair Green, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule, SD

Scott Jones, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule, SD

Mark Fox, Chairman, Mandan, Hidatsa, & Arikara Nation, New Town, ND

Elgin Crows Breast, THPO, Mandan, Hidatsa, & Arikara Nation, New Town, ND

Llevando Fisher, President, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Lame Deer, MT

Teanna Limpy, THPO, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Lame Deer, MT

Charlene Alden, EPA Director, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Lame Deer, MT

Dennis Yellow Thunder, THPO, Oglala Sioux Tribe, Pine Ridge, SD

Russell Eagle Bear, THPO, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Rosebud, SD

Roger Trudell, Chairman, Santee Sioux Nation, Niobara, NE

Sicangu Treaty Council, Rosebud, SD

David Flute, Chairman, Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe, Agency Village, SD

Dianne Desrosiers, Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe, Agency Village, SD

Robert Flying Hawk, Chairman, Yankton Sioux Tribe, Wagner, SD

Lana Gravatt, THPO, Yankton Sioux Tribe, Wagner, SD

Bobby Walkup, Chairman, Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma, Perkins, OK

Dr. Bob Fields, Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma, Perkins, OK

Vernon Miller, Chairman, Omaha Tribe of Nebraska, Macy, NE

Darla LaPointe, Chairwoman, Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, Winnebago, NE

Bruce Pratt, President, Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma, Pawnee, OK

Alison Black, Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma, Pawnee, OK

Dave Archambault II, Chairman, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Fort Yates, ND

John Shotton, Chairman, Ote-Missouria, Red Rock, OK

Angela Heim, Ote-Missouria, Red Rock, OK


Chapter 5. REFERENCES

Beecham, J.J. Jr., C.P. Collins, and T.D. Reynolds. (2007, February 12). Rocky

Mountain Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/rockymountainbighornsheep.pdf [Accessed Nov. 2016].

Brew, M.N., Carter, J., and Maddox, M.K., 2011. The Impact of Water Quality on

Beef Cattle Health Performance, University of Florida, IFAS Extension, December 2011.

Cornell University 2016a. All About Birds: Least Tern. Accessed 2016.

https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Least_Tern/id Cornell University 2016a. All About Birds: Red Knot. Accessed 2016.

https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Red_Knot/id Dierks, N. & Turbiville, P. 2016. Biological Assessment and Evaluation/Wildlife

Report for the Eastern Pennington Waterline Project. December 2016. Dinsmore, S.J. (2003, December 8). Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus): a

technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/mountainplover.pdf [Accessed Nov. 2016].

Dugger, B. D., and K. M. Dugger. 2002. Long-billed Curlew (Numenius

americanus). In The Birds of North America, No. 628 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Evans, E., R. Thorp, S. Jepsen, and S. H. Black. 2008. Status Review of Three

Formerly Common Species of Bumble Bee in the Subgenus Bombus. U.C. Davis and The Xerces Society. 62 pp. http://www.xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/xerces_2008_bombus_status_review.pdf [Accessed Oct. 2016].

Gruver, J.C. and D.A. Keinath (2006, October 25). Townsend’s Big-eared Bat

(Corynorhinus townsendii): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/townsendsbigearedbat.pdf [Accessed Nov. 2016].

https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Red_Knot/id


Higgins, K. F., E. Dowd Stukel, J. M. Goulet, and D. C. Backlund. 2000. Wild mammals of South Dakota. South Dakota Dept. of Game, Fish and Parks. 278pp.

Keinath, D.A. (2004, October 29). Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes): a

technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/fringedmyotis.pdf [Accessed Nov. 2016].

Ladyman, J.A.R. (2006a, March 14). Astragalus barrii Barneby (Barr’s milkvetch):

a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/astragalusbarrii.pdf [Accessed Nov. 2016].

Ladyman, J.A.R. (2006b, December 18). Eriogonum visheri A. Nelson (Visher’s

buckwheat): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/eriogonumvisheri.pdf [Accessed Nov. 2016].

LRMP. 2001. Land and Resource Management Plan for the Nebraska National

Forest and Associated Units as Amended, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Nebraska National Forest, Chadron, NE. 2009. http://www.fs.usda.gov/land/nebraska/landmanagement/planning/

Natureserve. 2016. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web

application]. Version 7.0. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. U.S.A. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. [Accessed: Sept. 2016].

Naugle, D.E. (2004, August 10). Black Tern (Chlidonias niger surinamensis): a

technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/blacktern.pdf [Accessed Nov. 2016].

Panjabi, A. 2003. Monitoring birds of the Black Hills: year 2. Annual report

submitted to Black Hills National Forest. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Fort Collins, Colorado. 125 p.

Rahel, F.J. and L.A. Thel. (2004a, July 22). Flathead Chub (Platygobio gracilis):

a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/land/nebraska/landmanagement


http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/flatheadchub.pdf [Accessed Nov. 2016].

Rahel, F.J. and L.A. Thel. (2004b, August 31). Sturgeon Chub (Macrhybopsis

gelida): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/sturgeonchub.pdf [Accessed Nov. 2016].

Rees, D.E., R.J. Carr, and W.J. Miller. (2005, May 17). Plains Minnow

(Hybognathus placitus): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/plainsminnow.pdf [Accessed Nov. 2016].

Robb, L.A. and M.A. Schroeder. (2005, April 15). Greater Prairie-Chicken

(Tympanuchus cupido): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/greaterprairiechicken.pdf [Accessed Nov. 2016].

Robbins, C. S., B. Bruun, H. S. Zim, and A. Singer. 1983. A guide to field

identification, birds of North America. Expanded, revised edition. Western Publishing Company, Racine, Wisconsin. 360 p.

Rotenberry, J. T., M. A. Patten, and K. L. Preston. 1999. Brewer’s Sparrow

(Spizella breweri).In The Birds of North America, No. 390 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Sedgwick, J.A. (2004, December 13). Chestnut-collared Longspur (Calcarius

ornatus): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/chestnutcollaredlongspur.pdf [Accessed Nov. 2016].

Selby, G. (2005, November 17). Ottoe Skipper (Hesperia ottoe W.H. Edwards): a

technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/ottoeskipper.pdf [Accessed Nov. 2016].

Selby, G. (2007, February 9). Regal Fritillary (Speyeria idalia Drury): a technical

conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/regalfritillary.pdf [Accessed Nov. 2016].


Slater, G.L. (2006, August 17). Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator): a technical

conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/trumpeterswan.pdf [Accessed Nov. 2016].

Slater, G.L. and C. Rock. (2005, September 30). Northern Harrier (Circus

cyaneus): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northernharrier.pdf [Accessed Nov. 2016].

Smith, B.E. and D.A. Keinath. (2007, January 16). Northern Leopard Frog (Rana

pipiens): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northernleopardfrog.pdf [Accessed Nov. 2016].

Stephens, R.M. and S.H. Anderson. (2005, January 21). Swift Fox (Vulpes

velox): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/swiftfox.pdf [Accessed Nov. 2016].

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. 2011. Prairie Grouse

Management Plan for South Dakota. 26 pp. Tallman, D. A., D. L. Swanson, and J. S. Palmer. 2002. Birds of South Dakota.

South Dakota Ornithological Union, Northern State Univ., Aberdeen. 441pp.

Turbiville, P. 2016. Eastern Pennington Waterline Project Climate Change

Report. December 2016. Turbiville, P. 2016. Eastern Pennington Waterline Project Fire & Fuels Report.

December 2016. Turbiville, P. 2016. Eastern Pennington Waterline Project Range & Invasive

Species Report. November 2016. USDA-Forest Service, 2016. Hydrologist’s Report for West Wall Waterline,

Floodplains, Wetlands, Municipal Watersheds, Water Quality and Water Yield, Pennington County, SD, prepared by Matt Lucas, Nebraska National Forests and Grasslands, October 2016.


U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To Remove the American peregrine Falcon From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, and To Remove the Similarity of Appearance Provision for Free-Flying Peregrines in the Conterminous United States. Federal Register (Vol. 64, No 164, pp. 46542-46558).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status for the Northern Long-Eared Bat with 4(d) Rule. Federal Register (Vol. 80, No. 63, pp. 17974-18033). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015b. Leedy’s Roseroot (Rhodiola integrifolia ssp. leedyi) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, MN. 23 pp. Wiggins, D. (2004, September 22). Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/shortearedowl.pdf [Accessed Nov. 2106]. Wiggins, D. (2005b, March 25). Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/yellowbilledcuckoo.pdf [Accessed Nov. 2016].

Date post:	06-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

DRAFT United States ENVIRONMENTAL...

Documents