STONY BUTTE ASSESSMENT

Transcription

1 STONY BUTTE ASSESSMENT Fort Pierre National Grassland By Darrin Jons, Kelly Fuoss, Ruben Mares, Ryan Cumbow, Dan Svingen June

2 Cover photo: Stony Butte Creek. Photo August 2015 by Kelly Fuoss. Recommended citation: Jons, D., K. Fuoss, R. Mares, R. Cumbow, and D. Svingen Stony Butte Assessment. Fort Pierre Ranger District, USDA Forest Service, internal document. 100 pp. 2

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 4 INTRODUCTION 5 PROJECT AREA. 6 METHODS 10 TOPIC 12 ARCHEOLOGY 12 FIRE GRAZING - RANGE INFRASTRUCTURE 16 GRAZING FREQUNCY & SEASON OF USE. 24 GRAZING - STOCKING RATE.. 28 HAYING AND MOWING RECREATION.. 34 TRAVEL MANAGEMENT - FISH PONDS VEGETATION - COMPOSITION VEGETATION - STRUCTURE VEGETATION - WOODY DRAWS. 56 WILDLIFE - BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG. 60 WILDLIFE - BUTTERFLIES.. 64 WILDLIFE - GAME SPECIES. 67 WILDLIFE - GRASSLAND BIRDS 69 WILDLIFE - PRAIRIE GROUSE 72 WILDLIFE - RAPTORS.. 78 WILDLIFE - SENSITIVE SPECIES 81 WILDLIFE WETLANDS & WATERFOWL 87 SUMMARY REFERENCES. 96 3

4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service compiled this landscape assessment to document a field review conducted in an 11,160-acre portion of the Fort Pierre National Grassland (Figure 1) in central South Dakota. The purpose of this assessment was to identify potential issues that are slowing or preventing attainment of the goals, objectives and desired conditions described in the Nebraska National Forest and Associated Units Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2009). To conduct this assessment, an interdisciplinary team of subject-matter experts compared desired conditions with the existing conditions of the Project Area s natural resources. Based on those efforts, a list of potential management issues was compiled. A list of possible projects to address those issues was then developed. Potential management issues include, but are not limited to: congested parking during the hunting season, deficiencies in range infrastructure, increasing exotic grasses and forbs, ineffective management of woody draws, lack of motorized access to some fish-bearing ponds, and shortages of desired low and high structure vegetation as well as vegetative diversity. Public input regarding this assessment is welcome (see p. 5). Figure 1. Portal sign to the Fort Pierre National Grassland along US Highway 83, looking south. Photo July 2014 by Dan Svingen. 4

5 INTRODUCTION: The USDA Forest Service s Fort Pierre Ranger District manages the 116,000-acre Fort Pierre National Grassland in central South Dakota. The Forest Service periodically compares existing natural resource conditions to the goals, objectives, and desired conditions outlined in the overarching Nebraska National Forest and Associated Unit s Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2009). This Stony Butte Assessment documents the results of one such comparison effort. This is not a decision document; it is merely a compilation of potential land management issues and a list of some possible projects to address those issues. A landscape assessment such as this one does not include an in-depth analysis of the likely effects of potential projects. That kind of weighing of the pros and cons would be done in a categorical exclusion, environmental assessment, or environmental impact statement completed under the procedures of the National Environmental Policy Act (i.e. NEPA ). It is only after such an analysis was completed that a decision document (i.e. a Decision Memo, a Decision Notice, or a Record of Decision) would be signed. This landscape assessment will be used, in part, to identify the potential issues and projects that should be carried forward for detailed analysis through the NEPA process. Public input on this assessment is welcome. To be most helpful, comments should be received by: August 15, Please mail your comments to: Darrin Jons, Fort Pierre Ranger District, 1020 N. Deadwood St., Ft. Pierre, SD or them to: djons@fs.fed.us or call Darrin at:

6 PROJECT AREA: The Stony Butte Project Area is in Lyman County, South Dakota. The project boundary (Figure 2) encompasses about 19,188 acres, of which 11,160 acres are National Forest System land. Unless noted otherwise, this document is specific to National Forest System land only. The Project Area is fairly typical of the Fort Pierre National Grassland in that it is characterized by wide-open, mixed-grass prairie, with very few trees, an abundance of residual grass, and a mix of rested and grazed pastures. The terrain varies from large flats to gently rolling hills; elevations range from approximately 1,850 to 2,200 above mean sea level. The most prominent topographic feature is Stony Butte. Shallow to deeply incised drainages dissect this landscape. All Project Area drainages are ephemeral to intermittent, although the lower-most reaches of Stony Butte Creek have been periodically dammed by beaver. Those dams have typically lasted for less than a year or two. The Nebraska National Forest and Associated Unit s Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) designated the Project Area as: Management Area Rangeland with Broad Resource Emphasis (LRMP p. 3-32). Management Area 6.1 is defined as primarily a rangeland ecosystem managed to meet a variety of ecological conditions and human needs. It is recognized that such lands often display high levels of development, commodity uses, and activity; density of facilities; and evidence of vegetative manipulation. The Stony Butte Project Area has a continental, semi-arid climate characterized by cold winters and hot summers, with April, May, and June usually being the wettest months. Precipitation, however, is highly variable spatially, as well as both within years and between years. Droughts (i.e. those years with <75% average precipitation, LRMP p. G-15) occur frequently and often persist for months or even years. Recent precipitation data from three local weather stations (Kennebec, Murdo, and Pierre, South Dakota) are presented in Table 1. Between 1983 and 2013, those three stations averaged approximately 20 inches of precipitation. The interannual variability in precipitation is well illustrated by a comparison of some of the recent annual averages of those three stations. For example, an average of 12.4 inches was recorded at those stations in 2012, whereas an average of 26.6 inches was tallied in Those values equate to 62% (12.4/20) and 133% (26.6/20) of the long-term average, respectively. Even more site-specific precipitation data is available from a Remote Automatic Weather Station (RAWS) established in 2003 on National Forest System land about 0.5 mile north of the Project Area, as well as from a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 6

7 weather station established in 2006 on National Forest System land approximately 1.5 miles west of the Project Area. Recent data from those sources are presented in Tables 2 and 3; that data is illustrative of the inherent spatial variability in precipitation, as the three-year average was only 14.2 inches at the RAWS location but 18.4 inches at the NOAA location, even though the two sites are less than 10 miles apart. Table 1. Precipitation data (in inches) for the Kennebec, Murdo, and Pierre, South Dakota weather stations, Data taken from the National Climatic Data Center on 8/6/14, 8/7/14, and 1/26/15. Averages calculated by Darrin Jons. YEAR KENNEBEC MURDO PIERRE AVERAGE AVERAGE Table 2. Monthly precipitation data (in inches) from the Remote Automatic Weather Station (RAWS), Fort Pierre National Grassland, Averages (AVE) calculated by Darrin Jons MONTH YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC AVE Table 3. Monthly precipitation data (in inches) from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather station, Fort Pierre National Grassland, Averages (AVE) calculated by Darrin Jons MONTH YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC AVE Like the rest of the Fort Pierre National Grassland, the Stony Butte Project Area is managed for multiple uses. One such use is grazing by privately-owned livestock. Currently, the only such species present is domestic cattle (Figure 3), though bison, sheep and horses have been grazed in the past. About 75% of the livestock currently present are cow-calf pairs (Figure 4), with the remainder being yearlings or bulls. 7

8 Figure 2. Stony Butte Project Area, Fort Pierre National Grassland. Map by Kelly Fuoss. 8

9 Figure 3. Domestic cattle grazing on the Fort Pierre National Grassland. Photo June 2013 by Dan Svingen. Figure 4. Cow-calf pair grazing on the Fort Pierre National Grassland. Photo October 2014 by Dan Svingen. 9

10 METHODS: An interdisciplinary team ( IDT ) of subject-matter experts (Table 4) was appointed to this project in March Additional input regarding Project Area soils was provided by Nathan Jones, South Dakota State Soil Scientist, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Supplemental input regarding vegetative composition and ecological sites was provided by Stan Boltz, South Dakota State Rangeland Management Specialist, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. IDT meetings were held in May, November, and December 2014 and in February and March IDT field trips to the Project Area were conducted in May and July This document was finalized in winter 2015/2016 and was organized by topic. Under each topic heading, a short discussion was written describing desired and existing resource conditions, any disparity between the two, and possible solutions to correct such disparities. Relevant desired conditions (defined herein as including goals and objectives) were taken from the LRMP. As part of their work, the IDT reviewed District files. Those files contained data collected in the Project Area over the last several decades. The IDT also reviewed past land management decisions and their associated documents and project files. Those decisions included: Bright 2005, Darnell 2008, DeToy 2008, and Peterson The IDT collected new monitoring data where necessary to complete this assessment. Monitoring efforts are described below, by topic. In general, new monitoring data was collected in Exceptions include archeological data that was mostly collected in 2015 and vegetative data that was collected in both 2014 and Additional data collection is anticipated in Two direct permittees as well as the Central South Dakota Cooperative Grazing District hold permits to graze domestic livestock in the Project Area. The District s Board of Directors was informed of this assessment in February 2014 and updated periodically thereafter. Direct permittees and Grazing District members that typically have livestock in the Project Area were informed of this assessment and queried regarding potential issues and projects in February 2014 and again in January-March 2015 during their regular sign-up meeting. Past public input received about management of the Fort Pierre National Grassland was also considered when compiling this assessment. That input included, but was not limited to: feedback provided on earlier projects, discussions at public events (such as AgFest, Kids Fishing Days, Legislative Days, etc.), office visits, and telephone calls. 10

11 Table 4. Interdisciplinary team appointed to the Stony Butte Assessment Project. Core= member involved in the project on a continuous basis; Extended= member kept appraised of the project and used on an ad hoc basis for advice. NAME TITLE BACKGROUND ROLE Carla Loop NEPA Coordinator B.S. Agri-Business with a Extended: NEPA minor in General Biology. 32 years of experience Carol Administrative Support B.S. Zoology Core: recreation Erickson Dan Svingen Assistant District Ranger Darrin Jons Supervisory Rangeland Management Specialist 36 years of experience Assoc. Wildlife Mgt. B.S. Zoology M.S. Wildlife Biology 30 years of experience B.S. Rangeland Ecology and Watershed Mgmt. 14 years of experience Dennis Pry Archeologist B.A. Anthropology 20+ yrs. experience Kelly Rangeland Management B.S. Range Management Fuoss Specialist 14 years of experience Kris Hill Supervisory Archeologist B.A. Anthropology M.A. Anthropology 16 years of experience Lisa Heiser Recreation Specialist B.S. Forest Management 26 years of experience Matt Lucas Hydrologist B.S. Biology/Environmental B.S. Range Mgt./Ecology M.S. Organizational Mgmt. in Natural Resources 9 years of experience Ruben Mares Ryan Cumbow Wildlife Biologist Fire Engine Captain B.S. Wildlife Mgt. 11 years of experience B.A. Biology B.A. Human Performance 19 years of experience resource Core: line officer, editor Core: project leader, livestock grazing & vegetative analyses, writer/editor Core: heritage analysis Core: livestock grazing & vegetative analyses Extended: heritage analysis Extended: recreation resource Extended: soil and water resources Core: wildlife analysis Core: fire analysis 11

12 TOPIC: ARCHEOLOGY: Archeology is the study of past human life and activities. Numerous laws and regulations govern the management of archeological resources on federal lands such as the Fort Pierre National Grassland. DESIRED CONDITIONS: Within 5 years, develop and implement a heritage inventory strategy and implementation schedule to survey and evaluate sites in support of management actions and activities as agreed upon with the State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO), Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPO) and to include compliance with laws Sec. 106 and Sec. 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act. (LRMP p. 1-5). Create and foster partnerships with other agencies, accredited educational and research institutions, tribal colleges, and other appropriate public and private sector organizations to further the goals of research, education, protection, and interpretation. (LRMP p. 1-9). EXISTING CONDITIONS & DISCUSSION: Several heritage resource surveys have been conducted in the Project Area; the most recent were completed in summer 2015; more surveys are scheduled for the 2016 field season. All heritage resource surveys conducted in the Project Area have been/will be completed in compliance with established, interagency heritage inventory procedures (e.g. Vogt and Darnell 2014). The Stony Butte Project Area is known to contain both prehistoric and historic heritage resources. Based on current knowledge, none of the potential projects discussed in this document are expected to adversely impact those resources. If new information indicates that prehistoric or historic properties would be adversely effected by the Stony Butte Project then a mitigation plan would be developed and implemented to protect those heritage resources. Current conditions are consistent with LRMP desired conditions. RECOMMENDATIONS: No recommendations at present, but reassess when additional heritage resource surveys are completed. 12

13 FIRE: Fire is a critically-important ecological disturbance in the Northern Great Plains. Fire s effects on mixed-grass plant communities (like those in the Stony Butte Project Area) include: consumption of vegetative litter and relatively even impacts to all graminoids. DESIRED CONDITIONS: Within 10 years, implement management practices, including prescribed fire that will move all affected landscapes toward desired vegetation composition and structure as described in Geographic Area direction. (LRMP p. 1-3). Prescribe burn a minimum of 1,000-5,000 acres per decade. (LRMP p. 2-69). EXISTING CONDITIONS & DISCUSSION: For discussions related to this topic, see the VEGETATION COMPOSITION and VEGETATION STRUCTURE portions of this document. The historic fire interval in the Stony Butte Project Area would have been approximately 5-10 years. Wild fires have been increasingly suppressed, however, since the 1880s. No fires have been reported in the Project Area during the last 10 years, in part due to the successful control of adjacent fires that would otherwise have extended into the Project Area (Figure 5). In the first decade of the LRMP (defined here as ), approximately 4,770 acres were prescribed burn on the Fort Pierre National Grassland. In the current decade (defined here as ), approximately 1,020 acres have been prescribed burned prior to June These levels are consistent with the LRMP s minimum desired conditions. However, none of the recent nor past treatments occurred in the Stony Butte Project Area. Currently there is no site-specific approval for conducting prescribed burning in the Project Area (i.e. there is no completed NEPA analysis and associated decision document and no approved burn plan). Prescribed fire could be used as an important tool for managing the Project Area s vegetative composition, particularly if used in conjunction with prescribed grazing. Sites suitable for prescribed fire would be those that are not adjacent to residences and that have: good access for fire control equipment, natural or anthropogenic control lines, and a compelling management need. Some particularly well-suited sites are summarized in Table 5 and shown in Figure 5. 13

14 RECOMMENDATIONS: Carry forward for detailed analysis an evaluation of sites (Table 5, Figure 5) for treatment with prescribed fire. Table 5. Stony Butte Project Area pastures particularly well-suited to treatment with prescribed fire. PASTURE EXTENT NOTES Camp Flat East South Ditch Creek West North Ditch Creek West South Medicine Creek #3 Medicine Creek Winter Sioux East Entire 320-acre unit West half, ~280-acres West half, ~480-acres Entire 480-acre unit Entire 320-acre unit Entire 700-acre unit Closet residence >1.5 miles away. Unit still mostly native grasses (both warm- and coolseason species) though smooth brome spreading, particularly at the south end. Burning could help slow further incursions of smooth brome. Unit borders US 83. Closet residence >1.75 miles away. Unit is mostly native grasses though smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass increasing. Burning could help slow incursions of exotic grasses and invigorate remaining stands of big bluestem. Unit borders closed portion of Old Highway 83 (291 st Ave.) and Stony Butte Creek. Same notes as Ditch Creek West North. Closet residence >2.5 miles away. Unit contains Project Area s riparian area that has the most persistent water (albeit still of an intermittent nature). Smooth brome is becoming established, particularly at north end. Burning could help slow incursion of smooth brome and stimulate more vigorous plant growth in riparian zone. Unit borders 236 th St. Closet residence >0.75 mile away. Unit contains Project Area s largest playa; wetland vegetation could benefit from periodic burning. Unit borders County Roads 293 Ave. & 235 th St. & Forest Service Road 220 (a.k.a. 236 th St.). Closet residence >2 miles away. Unit is mostly native grasses though both Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome spreading. Burning could help slow further incursions of exotic grasses. Unit borders US

15 Figure 5. Map of wild fires occurring in the Stony Butte Project Area, Data from USDA Forest Service records confirmed through conversations with Volunteer Fire Department Chiefs in Ft. Pierre, Presho, and Vivian, South Dakota. Note also potential prescribed fire units. Map by Ryan Cumbow, Josh Hoffman, and Kelly Fuoss. 15

16 GRAZING - RANGE INFRASTRUCTURE: Like fire, large ungulate grazing is a critically-important ecological disturbance in the Northern Great Plains. Prior to the 1880s, bison were the dominant grazer; since the 1880s domestic cattle have filled that role. To effectively manage domestic cattle, range infrastructure is necessary. The term range infrastructure is a collective term for the facilities used to manage livestock. Range infrastructure includes, but is not limited to: water developments (dugouts, stock ponds, water tanks, pipelines, etc.); fences (including gates), and corrals; see also Range Structural Development (LRMP p. G-41). DESIRED CONDITIONS: Over the next 15 years, retain only those range structures (fences and water developments) that achieve resource management (i.e. wildlife habitat, botanical, range management, visual quality, and recreation) goals and objectives. (LRMP p. 1-3). During fair weather, visitors should have no difficulty opening and closing gates. (LRMP p. 2-67). Increase the average pasture size by 25 percent over the decade. (LRMP p. 2-69). EXISTING CONDITIONS & DISCUSSION: For discussions related to this topic, see the VEGETATION COMPOSITION and VEGETATION STRUCTURE portions of this document. District staff periodically inventory range infrastructure on the Fort Pierre National Grassland. Based on the most recent data available, the Stony Butte Project Area contains 30 pastures; 81.5 total miles of fence (39 miles of which are interior boundary fence and 42.5 miles of which are exterior boundary fence); 47 dams/dugouts (of which 42 are on NFS lands and 5 on private land located within federally-administered pastures); 19 water tanks; and 13 waterlines totaling miles in length (Figure 6). No corrals occur on the Project Area s National Forest System land. Unless otherwise noted below, all current range infrastructure in the Stony Butte Project Area are considered useful to achieving resource management goals and objectives. Regarding gates, all those on public travelways were considered relatively easy to open and close during IDT field visits. Numerous gates on non-public travelways, however, were not. Note: the Central South Dakota Cooperative Grazing District systematically replaced wire-hoop gate closures along US 83 with easier-to-use chain closures in fall

17 Increasing average pasture size in the Stony Butte Project Area could be done by removing fences to combine pastures. The intended purpose of that objective is to improve wildlife habitat and increase the quality of experience for recreationists; see USDA Forest Service 2001b, pp , A-33, A-34, and A-57 for further discussion. Numerous options exist in the Stony Butte Project Area for combining pastures, though all such options have tradeoffs. Combining Highway 83 Triangle with Camp Flat East North Pasture for example would increase pasture size, but would also eliminate an area (i.e. the Highway 83 Triangle Pasture) that is often rested to protect the relatively numerous cedar trees there. The most common trade-off of combining pastures would be the loss of ability to control livestock on a smaller scale, thus reducing the ability to target livestock grazing onto undesired exotic grasses and forbs to better recover native vegetation. An exception to this trade-off might be pastures where exotics are either absent altogether or are now overwhelmingly dominant. There are no examples of the former in the Stony Butte Project Area (see VEGETATION - COMPOSITION topic, below, for details). The Chester Quarter-Section, North Half-Section and/or South Half-Section Pastures (Figure 6), however, may be examples of the latter scenario. Range infrastructure location not only affects pasture size, it also affects the availability of secondary range. Secondary range is defined, in part, as suitable rangeland that is more than one-mile from water (for background, see: USDA Forest Service 2001b pp. 3-87, 3-94, 3-279, A-33, A-34, B-49 to B-51). Currently there is no secondary range in the Stony Butte Project Area (Figure 7). The most widespread, and complicated, potential issue regarding range infrastructure in the Stony Butte Project Area is water availability. The long-term reliability of existing water sources fed from privately-owned water sources is of particular note. This is due to the fact that only 6 of the Project Area s 19 water tanks are connected to a public rural water system. The remaining 13 tanks are connected to water sources on adjacent private lands. Connecting those 13 tanks to the public rural water system could help avoid future issues relating to wells running dry, private land ownership changes, and water ownership. In order for those water lines to tie into the rural water system, additional taps and pipelines would have to be installed. Furthermore, pastures that are currently poorly watered could have improved water distribution if new tanks were installed. Water source, water availability, and watering option details are summarized in Table 6 and shown in Figure 8. Note: the LRMP (p. 2-71) contains a guideline stating: Allow no net gain in the number of water developments, while maintaining or increasing the surface area covered by ponds providing brood habitat for waterfowl and fisheries. 17

18 Figure 6. Map of existing pastures, fences, and water developments in the Stony Butte Project Area. Map by Kelly Fuoss. 18

19 Figure 7. Area eliminated as secondary range due to <1 mile distance from water sources (tanks and dams) in the Stony Butte Project Area. Map by Kelly Fuoss. 19

20 Table 6. Details on selected water developments, water distribution, and water availability in the Stony Butte Project Area. WRLJ= West River/Lyman-Jones Rural Water Systems, Incorporated. PASTURE(S) CURRENT DETAILS Bower North Butte & Bower South Butte SOURCE Private land adjacent to these pastures Currently utilizes a shared tank located on private land; tank fed by private water source. WRLJ water could be provided from a new tap on west side of North Butte Pasture to feed 2 new tanks (one in each pasture), and 1 mile of new connecting pipeline. This tap would have to tie into a WRLJ core line and so would be relatively expensive. Camp Flat East North WRLJ Current waterline feeds 1 tank. Pasture adequately watered in conjunction with an existing dam. Camp Flat East South & Camp Flat East Chester ¼ Section & Chester ½ Section North & Chester ½ Section South WRLJ (tap on private land) WRLJ Currently these pastures share a tank (in fence line) that is fed by WRLJ from a tap located on private land. This is the only water source for Camp Flat E; Camp Flat ES has a small dam in addition to this tank. Pastures are adequately watered. Current waterline feeds 1 tank in each pasture. Pastures adequately watered in conjunction with 2 existing dams and 2 dugouts. Cut Off Fall Private land Current privately-sourced waterline feeds 1 tank in pasture s north fence line. Cut Off Spring Private land Pasture watered by two privatelysourced tanks and the tailwaters of two private dams. Cut Off Winter & South Lake Flat East Private land, half mile to the SE of Cut Off Winter Pasture Current private-sourced waterline feeds 1 tank in each pasture. Existing waterline could be tied into WRLJ in the Sioux E Pasture by adding 1.5 miles of new connecting waterline. Pastures adequately watered in conjunction with existing dams in each pasture, though improved vegetative management would be facilitated by addition of a new tank at north end of South Lake Flat East. 20

21 PASTURE(S) CURRENT DETAILS SOURCE Ditch Creek South & Ditch Creek West North & Ditch Creek West South Private land, 0.25 mile to the E and 0.5 mile to the N Current private-sourced waterlines feed a total of 4 tanks in the 3 pastures. The tanks could be tied into WRLJ by adding a new tap at the north end of Ditch Creek WN Pasture and installing 3 miles of new connecting pipeline. Pastures adequately watered in conjunction with the two dams and a dugout in each pasture. Dry Hole Northwest & Dry Hole Northeast & Dry Hole South North Private land, 0.5 mile to the S of Dry Hole NE Current private-sourced waterline feeds 2 tanks among the 3 pastures. Existing waterline could be tied into WRLJ by adding a new tap at the south end of Dry Hole NW Pasture. Pastures adequately watered in conjunction with dams. Dry Hole South South & Dry Hole Winter None Livestock drink at tanks located on adjacent private land. Dry Hole SS also has 2 dams and Stony Butte Creek. Additional water sources would be beneficial to these pastures; access to WRLJ would require pipeline easements across private land. Highway 83 Triangle None This normally rested pasture contains no Medicine Creek Winter & Medicine Creek #1 & Medicine Creek #2 & Medicine Creek #3 Private land, 0.1 mile to the south of Medicine Creek Winter water source. Current private-sourced waterline feeds 1 tank in each of the 4 pastures; waterline crosses 0.5 mile of private hayland. Existing waterlines currently cannot be tied into the WRLJ due to insufficient pressure at this location. Other water sources include: a playa in Medicine Creek Winter and 4 dams in Medicine Creek #1 (2 of those dams are on private land within the pasture). Medicine Creek #2 and #3 each have 1 dam, 1 dugout, and Stony Butte Creek. Sioux East WRLJ Current waterline feeds 2 tanks. Pasture adequately watered in conjunction with the 3 existing dams, though water distribution could be improved by adding or moving tank to the south end. Stony Butte Butte Private land Pasture watered from 1 tank that is fed from private water source. Stony Butte East None Pasture adequately watered by dam. 21

22 PASTURE(S) CURRENT DETAILS SOURCE Stony Butte Home None Pasture currently poorly watered from 2 unreliable dams. Improved water system could be created by adding 0.5 mile of new pipeline and a new tank fed by the new tap discussed above for Bower N Butte & Bower S Butte Pastures. Summit East None Pasture watered by 3 dams; improved vegetative management could be facilitated by addition of a new tank at south end of pasture (tank would require ~1 mile of new waterline to tie into WRLJ). RECOMMENDATIONS: Carry forward for detailed analysis an evaluation of new range infrastructure, specifically new water pipelines and tanks (see Figure 8), as well as the combination of Chester ¼ Section and Chester ½ Section North Pastures. Continue to retrofit existing gates with easy-opening devices or chains instead of ropes or wire hoops. 22

23 Figure 8. Map of potential range infrastructure changes. Map by Kelly Fuoss. 23

24 GRAZING - FREQUENCY & SEASON OF USE: The effects of livestock grazing in the Project Area varies by the frequency and season of that grazing. Project Area vegetation can be harmed by too frequent grazing. It can also be harmed by too infrequent grazing. This pattern is well displayed in the ecological site descriptions and diagrams prepared by the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service and its collaborators. The Stony Butte Project Area is dominated by the Clayey Ecological Site. That site s description (USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service 2008) notes that in the absence of disturbance (i.e. when there is no grazing and no fire), plant litter accumulates in large amounts. Over time the litter buildup reduces plant vigor resulting in low grass seedling recruitment and eventually, lower plant density. This in turn allows opportunities for establishment and expansion of unwanted plant species such as cheatgrass, Kentucky bluegrass, smooth brome, and yellow sweetclover (Figure 9). Conversely, continuous heavy livestock grazing can also reduce grass vigor and density, resulting in a community dominated by red three-awn and annual forbs (Figure 9). As elsewhere on the Fort Pierre National Grassland, the grazing regime used in the Project Area is a type of modified deferred-rotation. Each year, 10% of the Grassland is rested (i.e. has no livestock grazing). Where grazing does occur, multiple-pastures (generally ranging from 3-9) are used in rotation. The use of the multiple-pasture system reduces the time livestock spend in each pasture. Entry dates into any given pasture usually vary annually. The bulk of the grazing occurs sometime between May and November. Note: other important considerations regarding the impact of grazing include, but are not limited to: weather (see PROJECT AREA, above, for discussion) and stocking rate (see GRAZING - STOCKING RATE, below, for discussion). DESIRED CONDITIONS: As needed, revise allotment management plans (AMP) to meet desired vegetative conditions described in Geographic Area and to implement all appropriate management plan direction. (LRMP p. 1-6). Maintain at least 10 percent of the suitable rangeland in rest each year. (LRMP p. 2-69). EXISTING CONDITIONS & DISCUSSION: Peterson (1998) and the LRMP (p. 2-69) contain direction that 10% of the Fort Pierre National Grassland s pastures are to be rested annually. Although that direction has been met or exceeded on the Grassland, rest treatments have been unevenly applied in the Stony Butte Project Area itself. Specifically, only 16 of the Project Area s 30 pastures have been rested since 1998; the remaining 14 pastures received no rest during that period (Figure 10). Some of the rested 24

25 pastures have received multiple years of rest. For example, the Chester ½ Section North Pasture was rested during 6 (35%) of the last 17 years. It is likely not a coincidence that this pasture has also shown the most dramatic increase in exotic grasses. In 1989 the Chester ½ Section North Pasture contained 2% exotic grasses, but in 2014 that same pasture was dominated by 50% or more exotic grasses (mostly smooth brome). As noted in the Clayey Ecological Site description (USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service 2008), however, it is possible for prescribed burning and/or prescribed grazing to return this plant community to one more dominated by native grasses. Peterson (1998) contains additional direction regarding season of use. Specifically, that decision excludes livestock grazing in the Medicine Creek #3 and Dry Hole South-South Pastures between June 15 and September 30 each year. That provision was intended to benefit the recruitment of woody species (i.e. shrubs and trees). An unintended consequence of this action, however, was that these pastures have consequently been grazed during the same seasons (i.e. early and late). Furthermore, it has effectively guaranteed that adjacent pastures have always been grazed during the mid-season period. RECOMMENDATIONS: Continue to rest 10% of the suitable rangeland across the Fort Pierre National Grassland, but when designing annual livestock grazing rotations in the future, distribute grazing and rest treatments more evenly throughout the Project Area. For recommendations re: season of use in Medicine Creek #3 and Dry Hole South-South Pastures, see the VEGETATION - WOODY DRAWS section of this document. 25

26 Excessive litter Continuous seasonal grazing Long-term prescribed grazing Heavy continuous grazing Prescribed grazing Figure 9. Diagrammatic illustration of plant communities and transitional pathways for the Clayey Ecological Site. Adapted from: USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service Western wheatgrass/blue grama/buffalograss Heavy continuous grazing Blue grama/buffalograss sod Long-term prescribed grazing Western wheatgrass/ green needlegrass Long-term no disturbance Non-disturbed state Threeawn/annuals Invaded state 26

27 Figure 10. Distribution and frequency of grazing rest treatments in the Stony Butte Project Area. Number shown indicates number of years each pasture rested, Note: Highway 83 Triangle Pasture was rested 15 years, Map by Kelly Fuoss. 27

28 GRAZING - STOCKING RATE: Stocking rate is the number of livestock (expressed in either animal units or animal unit months) on a specific area for a specific time (LRMP p. G-54). In local practice it is often expressed in terms of the acres of forage allocated to each animal unit month (AUM), e.g. that pasture is stocked at 2.1 acres/aum. An AUM is the amount of forage required for a 1000 lb. cow with or without a calf less than 6 months of age (LRMP p. G-3). DESIRED CONDITIONS: Improve the capability of the Nation s forests and grasslands to provide a desired sustainable level of uses, values, products and services. (LRMP p. 1-6). Annually, provide forage for livestock on suitable rangelands. Annual grazing levels will be adjusted, as needed, during periods of drought or for other conditions. (LRMP p. 1-6). As needed, revise allotment management plans (AMP) to meet desired vegetative conditions described in Geographic Area and to implement all appropriate management plan direction. (LRMP p. 1-6). EXISTING CONDITIONS & DISCUSSION: For additional discussion related to this topic, see the VEGETATION - COMPOSITION and VEGETATION - STRUCTURE portions of this document. Peterson (1998, pp. 2-3) set the maximum stocking level for federally administered pastures on the Fort Pierre National Grassland at 51,558 AUMs, a reduction from previous levels of up to 70,000 AUMs (USDA Forest Service 1998, p. 43). Peterson (1998) clarified that annual adjustments to the maximum stocking level would be made in response to events such as drought, fires, hail, grasshopper infestations, etc., or to best meet resource management objectives. It was specifically noted that some pastures might be stocked heavier or lighter than other pastures. Like elsewhere on the Fort Pierre National Grassland, stocking rates have varied in the Stony Butte Project Area year-to-year in response to resource conditions (see Table 7 for recent stocking rates). Overall, current stocking rates seem compatible with attainment of the current LRMP desired conditions though site-specific adjustments may be necessary to better achieve vegetative compositional and structural diversity objectives while still maintaining quality wildlife habitat. 28

29 RECOMMENDATIONS: Use existing management flexibility to more strategically distribute stocking rate so that LRMP vegetative goals and objectives can be more fully achieved. If above-normal precipitation patterns dominate into the future, recalibrate forage production models during the next Grassland-wide Range Allotment Management Planning process. 29

30 Table 7. Approximate stocking rate (in acres/aum) authorized in the Stony Butte Project Area, Data taken from grazing schedules (AUMs) and USDA Forest Service 2003 (acres). Calculations by Darrin Jons. ACRES/AUM PASTURE Bower N Butte Bower S Butte Camp Flat East Camp Flat EN Camp Flat ES Chester ¼ Section RESTED 1.65 Chester ½ Section N RESTED 2.11 Chester ½ Section S Cut Off Fall RESTED RESTED 0.91 Cut Off Home RESTED Cut Off Winter Ditch Creek S Ditch Creek WN Ditch Creek WS Dry Hole NE Dry Hole NW Dry Hole SN Dry Hole SS Dry Hole Winter Hwy 83 Triangle RESTED RESTED RESTED RESTED 1.71 Medicine Creek # Medicine Creek # Medicine Creek # RESTED RESTED 1.49 Medicine Creek Winter Sioux E South Lake Flat E Stony Butte Butte 1.35 RESTED RESTED Stony Butte E Butte 2.34 RESTED Stony Butte Home 1.39 RESTED Summit East RESTED

31 HAYING AND MOWING: As used in this document, haying refers to the cutting and removal of herbaceous material, whereas mowing refers to the cutting and non-removal of herbaceous material. Both haying and mowing are widely-used tools for the management of grass-dominated habitats. Haying and mowing can be particularly effective when applied in conjunction with prescribed grazing and prescribed fire. DESIRED CONDITIONS: Increase the amount of forests and grasslands restored to or maintained in a healthy condition with reduced risk and damage from fires, insects and diseases, and invasive species. (LRMP p. 1-3). Within 10 years, implement an integrated prevention and pest control management program for noxious weeds and undesirable non-native or invasive plant species. (LRMP p. 1-4). The desired condition is to perpetuate diverse and healthy mixed-grass communities. This includes both cool-season and warm-season species (LRMP p. 2-66). EXISTING CONDITIONS & DISCUSSION: The South Dakota Highway Department mows or allows haying on a portion of the US Highway 83 right-of-way each year (Figure 11). In general, the entire median ditch is mown, as is about ½ of each lateral ditch, though the extent of mowing varies place-to-place and year-to-year. In most years, staff from the Fort Pierre Ranger District (Figure 12) mow swaths along Forest Service Roads that are open to public use to reduce the likelihood of vehicle-exhaust fires (DeToy 2008). Swath dimensions vary, but are typically 33 wide. Mowing or haying on National Forest Service land elsewhere in the Stony Butte Project Area could also be done as part of a vegetative management strategy used in conjunction with prescribed grazing and/or prescribed fire. For example, if timed correctly, haying or mowing patches of unwanted exotic grasses could be used to suppress those grasses, allowing intermingled native grasses to better compete for sunlight and moisture. Patches of unwanted exotic grasses could also be hayed or mown to make those patches more palatable to grazing livestock. Yet another example of when haying or mowing could be used would be mowing seeded areas to give a competitive example to sown grasses and forbs (e.g. Kurtz 2001). 31

32 RECOMMENDATIONS: Carry forward for detailed analysis a proposal to use haying and mowing in the Project Area as a vegetative management tool to benefit native grasses and forbs. Sites evaluated should include areas already identified for possible treatment with prescribed fire (Figure 5) so that those tools could be used in combination with prescribed fire and prescribed grazing. Focusing on the areas shown in Figure 5 would also reduce the area needed to be covered by archeological clearance surveys. 32

33 Figure 11. Mown area along US Highway 83, Fort Pierre National Grassland. Photo August 2013 by Dan Svingen. Figure 12. District staff mowing along Forest Service two-track road, Fort Pierre National Grassland. Photo August 2010 by Tim Iron Thunder. 33

34 RECREATION: The Stony Butte Project Area does not contain recreational infrastructure in the form of campgrounds, interpretative sites, or picnic areas. The Project Area is, however, heavily used year-round by the public for fishing, hunting, and wildlife observation. DESIRED CONDITIONS: Improve the capability of the Nation s forests and grasslands to provide diverse, highquality outdoor recreation opportunities. (LRMP p. 1-4). Within 10 years, complete site and recreation plans, including rehabilitation and revegetation strategies. As demand warrants, increase recreational opportunities where compatible with resource objectives. These opportunities may include trails, campgrounds, and interpretation. (LRMP p. 1-4). Within 5 years, develop and implement a science- and marketing-based interpretive program strategy that uses a variety of communication media. The purpose of the strategy will be to effectively use communication principles and methods based in the field of interpretation to: Communicate with target audiences regarding management concerns or issues, changes in management direction and specific projects. Enhance visitor s recreation experiences by identifying and implementing interpretive projects that highlight national grassland and forest resources and management. (LRMP p. 1-4). Within 10 years, identify, manage, develop, and interpret appropriate watchable wildlife and plant viewing sites. (LRMP p. 1-7). Cooperate with the appropriate state and federal agencies in balancing desired wildlife and fish population objectives with desired habitat conditions. (LRMP p. 1-9). A significant percent of the area should display the desired landscape conditions to provide recreationists an opportunity to view or hunt wildlife. (LRMP p. 2-67). Provide for an interpretive site along highway 83 in conjunction with the new construction scheduled within the next five years. (LRMP p. 2-70). 34

35 EXISTING CONDITIONS & DISCUSSION: Hunting, particularly for greater prairie-chickens, ring-necked pheasant, and sharp-tailed grouse; is very popular in the Project Area. Local gamebird populations are driven, in part, by habitat quality on National Forest System lands. For further discussion (including that related to the LRMP s desired conditions to view or hunt wildlife. ), see the VEGETATION COMPOSITION, VEGETATION STRUCTURE, and WILDLIFE - PRAIRIE GROUSE portions of this document. During the regular hunting season (September-January) it is not uncommon to encounter numerous hunting parties using NFS land. At peak times (such as during the opening weekend of pheasant season), dozens of hunters may be present. During those periods, hunters often park on the shoulders of the County Roads, creating congested parking areas (Ryan Cumbow, Fort Pierre Ranger District, pers. obs.). Provision of off-road parking might improve the recreational experience for hunters. Based on field review, the most common sites for congested parking in the Project Area (Figure 13) are: along County Road 234 Street at the north end of the Chester Quarter and Chester ½ Section North Pastures; at the NE corner of Sioux East Pasture; and along County Road 293 Avenue near Stony Butte, and to a lesser extent along County Road 234 Street at the south end of Dry Hole South North Pasture. In summer 2014, Lyman County mowed a wide swath of National Forest System land adjacent to Bower North Butte Pasture near Stony Butte. That swath provided off-road parking opportunities. In summer 2014, the Fort Pierre Ranger District mowed a swath at the NE corner of Sioux East Pasture on the old Highway 83 grade (291 st Ave.); that too provided off-road parking for recreationists. Adequate off-road parking remains particularly lacking along the northern edge of the Chester Quarter and Chester ½ Section North Pastures. Approaches in the center of Sections 9 and 10 provide very limited parking opportunities. In addition, view distances from the existing approach in the center of Section 10 are short (i.e mile to the west and 0.1 mile to the east). There is an approach on the north side of County 234 Street at the northern junction of Sections 9 and 10. The view distances from this point are long (i.e. 1 mile to the west and 0.5 mile to the east), but there is no approach at this site on the south side of County 234 Street. Placement of such an approach, especially one that broadened into parking space for 3 or 4 vehicles would likely receive regular use during the fall hunting season. The creation of such a parking spot would likely necessitate removing ~0.25 acre from livestock grazing and rerouting the existing fence. There would be construction costs as well as annual costs for mowing of the parking spot to reduce wildfire risk. These tradeoffs should be assessed if this potential issue is carried forward for additional analysis. 35

36 As regards desired conditions related to providing interpretative services, several developments have recently occurred. For example, fishing and birding guides for the Fort Pierre National Grassland (including the Stony Butte Project Area) are now available (SDGFP 2015, Svingen et al. 2016). A plant guide (Svingen et al. IN PREP) is scheduled for publication in early In addition, two or more grouse lek observation blinds are erected each spring on the Fort Pierre National Grassland (though usually not in the Stony Butte Project Area due to the Project Area s distance from Pierre/Ft. Pierre). These watchable wildlife structures are typically booked by the public throughout the available period. This landscape assessment, and the invitation for public comment on it, is designed, in part, to achieve the LRMP s desired condition to: Communicate with target audiences regarding management concerns or issues, changes in management direction and specific projects. As elsewhere on the Fort Pierre National Grassland, the USDA Forest Service coordinates and cooperates closely with South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks Department regarding recreational fisheries in the Stony Butte Project Area. For more discussion, see the TRAVEL MANAGEMENT FISH PONDS portion of this document. The LRMP s desired condition of an interpretive sign along US Highway 83 has not been achieved, nor are there plans to complete such a project. Instead, an interpretative sign was erected at Richland Dam (outside of the Stony Butte Project Area) in RECOMMENDATIONS: Carry forward for detailed NEPA analysis a proposal to provide off-road parking along the north border of Chester ½ Section North Pasture. Continue to develop interpretative opportunities across the Fort Pierre National Grassland. 36

37 Figure 13. Map of most common locations of congested parking in the Project Area during the fall hunting season and the location of potential parking lots to reduce that congestion. Map by Kelly Fuoss. 37

38 TRAVEL MANAGEMENT - FISH PONDS: Travel management refers to the movement of people and products to and through national forests and grasslands (LRMP p. G-58). As used in this document, travel management focuses on the Project Area s network of Forest Service Roads. This section of the assessment will address access to the most reliable fishing ponds in the Stony Butte Project Area. DESIRED CONDITIONS: Provide nonmotorized and motorized trails for a wide variety of uses and experiences. (LRMP p. 1-4). Improve the safety and economy of the USDA Forest Service roads, trails, facilities, and operations and provide greater security for the public and employees. (LRMP p. 1-8). Within 5 years, identify travel opportunities and restrictions, including designating motorized travelways and areas, to meet land management objectives. Provide reasonable access for use of the national grasslands and national forests. (LRMP p. 1-8). Identify opportunities for partnerships to provide new recreational fisheries and/or waterfowl and wetlands habitat. (LRMP p. 1-8). During fair weather, visitors should have little trouble traveling designated roads and trails. (LRMP p. 2-67). EXISTING CONDITIONS & DISCUSSION: The current road network includes County, Forest Service, and State roadways which provide access throughout the Stony Butte Project Area (Figure 14). Approximately 6,638 (59%) of the 11,160 acres of NFS land are within 0.5 mile of a publically-accessible road, whereas about 10,697 acres (96% of the total) are within 1 mile. The most isolated portion of the Project Area is in the Ditch Creek West South Pasture, where the maximum distance to a public road ranges up to 1.5 miles. Travel management decisions determine which of the roadways on the Project Area s National Forest System lands are open to public use. In 2008, a new travel management decision prohibited motorized cross-country travel year-round (except for administrative and emergency uses), and restricted snowmobile use to the Highway 83 right-of-way (DeToy 2008). As part of the DeToy (2008) decision, several roads were added to the road inventory as designated two-track trails. Those additions included Forest Service Road (FSR) #221 (Figure 15). FSR #221 is open to motorized use from December 1 to August 31. The September 1 to November 30 closure is intended to reduce impacts to wildlife, specifically big game species, 38

39 during the fall hunting seasons (DeToy 2008, p. 3). All other designated roadways in the Project Area are open to motorized use year-round. FSR #221 accesses River Runt Dam, which is the most heavily used recreational fishery in the Project Area. Past public input has questioned the need to close FSR #221 to motorized use during the autumn. In addition, field review has shown that FSR #221 is occasionally (about 10% to 20% of the time) impassable due to snow (Figure 15) or soaked ground in the small swale located half-way between US Highway 83 and River Runt Dam. An alternative route (Figure 16) from the NW corner of the South Lake Flat East Pasture would avoid that swale. Another potential management issue is the lack of roads to the relatively deep ponds in the Cut Off Winter and Medicine Creek #1 Pastures (Table 8). Because pond depth is particularly important to reduce winter kill of fish, deeper ponds are better suited for management as recreational fisheries. The three ponds in question (#814w02, #814w01, and #832w03) would be comparatively easy to access by building new two-track roads (see Figures 17 and 18). RECOMMENDATIONS: Carry forward for detailed NEPA analysis a proposal to reroute Forest Service Road #221 and to designate it as a year-round use road. In addition, carry forward for detailed NEPA analysis a proposal to provide motorized access to fishing ponds in the Cut Off Winter and Medicine Creek #1 Pastures. Table 8. Project Area stockponds known to be fish-bearing, based on 2009 hook-and-line surveys supplemented with more recent data. FSR=Forest Service Road, R=Range, T= Township. PASTURE LOCATION SPECIES COMMENTS Cut Off Winter T107N, R79W, NESW Section 21 Largemouth bass Dam #814w02; 2.2 acres in size. At least 10 deep in January 2015, with ~5 vertical feet of additional capacity at maximum pool level. Cut Off Winter Medicine Creek #1 T107N, R79W, SWSW Section 21 T106N, R79W, SWNW Section 13 Largemouth bass, bluegill Dam #814w01; 2 acres in size. At least 10 deep in January 2015, with ~5 vertical feet of additional capacity at maximum pool level. Largemouth bass Dam #832w03; 1.4 acres in size; about 0.4 mile north of FSR #220. At least 13 deep in January 2015, with ~4 vertical feet of additional capacity at maximum pool level. 39

40 Figure 14. Roads within the Stony Butte Project Area. Map by Kelly Fuoss. 40

41 Figure 15. Looking northerly across the small swale bisected by Forest Service Road #221. Note snow drift in swale (arrow). Photo January 2015 by Dan Svingen. Figure 16. Looking southeasterly into South Lake Flat East Pasture from NW gate. Note relatively flat route to River Runt Dam (arrow). Photo January 2015 by Dan Svingen. 41

42 Figure 17. Cut Off Winter Pasture. Note location of drainages, dams, existing roads, and potential new road routes. Map by Kelly Fuoss. 42

43 Figure 18. Medicine Creek #1 Pasture. Note location of drainages, dams, existing roads (including Forest Service Road #220), gates, wetlands (including playas) and potential new road route. Map by Kelly Fuoss. 43

44 VEGETATION COMPOSITION: As used in this document, vegetative composition refers to the species diversity found within a given vegetative community as well as the diversity between communities. For example, on thin upland ecological sites within the Project Area, a typical grama/sedge/threeawn plant community might have 30 or so plant species, while a nearby western wheatgrass/needlegrass/sideoats grama plant community may have twice that amount. Overall, approximately 370 plant species have been documented to date on the Fort Pierre National Grassland (Svingen et al. IN PREP). Of particular interest for this assessment are noxious weeds and undesirable non-native or invasive species. Examples of state noxious weeds include: Canada thistle, hoary cress, leafy spurge, and Russian knapweed (South Dakota Department of Agriculture 2016). Lyman County noxious weeds include bull thistle and nodding plumeless thistle (a.k.a. musk thistle). Examples of undesirable non-native or invasive species include: crested wheatgrass, Kentucky bluegrass, sickleweed, smooth brome, and sulfur cinquefoil. DESIRED CONDITIONS: Increase the amount of forests and grasslands restored to or maintained in a healthy condition with reduced risk and damage from fires, insects and diseases, and invasive species. (LRMP p. 1-3). Within 5 years, develop and implement cooperative noxious weeds and undesirable nonnative or invasive species management plans in consultation with appropriate partners and agencies. (LRMP p. 1-4). Within 10 years, limit further expansion of areas affected by noxious weeds. (LRMP p. 1-4). Within 10 years, implement an integrated prevention and pest control management program for noxious weeds and undesirable non-native or invasive plant species. (LRMP p. 1-4). Within 10 years, support native and desirable non-native plant, fish, and wildlife populations by meeting or making measurable progress towards desired vegetative composition and structure, as described in Geographic Area direction. (LRMP p. 1-7). Improve the knowledge base provided through research, inventory, and monitoring to enhance scientific understanding of ecosystems, including humans to support decisionmaking and sustainable management of the Nation s Forests and grasslands. (LRMP p. 1-7). Implement inventory and monitoring systems to provide scientific information and decision support across all land ownerships. (LRMP p. 1-7). 44

45 Work in cooperation with federal, state, and county agencies, individuals, Indian tribes, and non-government organizations for control of noxious weeds and invasive species and animal damage. (LRMP p. 1-9). The desired condition is to perpetuate diverse and healthy mixed-grass communities. This includes both cool-season and warm-season species, such as western wheatgrass, green needlegrass, buffalograss, side-oats grama, big bluestem, little bluestem, and blue grama. (LRMP p. 2-66). The desired landscape condition is to maintain open, scenic plains. Recreationists should perceive that they are visiting an expansive native mixed-grass prairie. (LRMP p. 2-67). The desired plant species composition objective across the geographic area is as follows: Late seral 20 to 40%; late intermediate seral 30 to 50%, early intermediate seral 10 to 30 %, early seral 1 to 20%. (LRMP p. 2-68). EXISTING CONDITION & DISCUSSION: The Stony Butte Project Area is known to contain both noxious and non-native non-desirable plant species. The most common of these are: Canada thistle, Kentucky bluegrass, nodding plumeless thistle, and smooth brome. Noxious weeds on the Fort Pierre National Grassland are treated each year by the Central South Dakota Cooperative Grazing District and by Forest Service staff and/or contractors. In recent years, treatments have averaged about 1,000 acres across the entire Grassland. In summer 2016 contractors will also be used to map noxious weed infestations. Past and current efforts to reduce non-native non-desirable plant species on the Fort Pierre National Grassland (including in the Stony Butte Project Area) have mostly entailed intensive grazing on smooth brome in early spring. Where applied, such management seems effective at decreasing smooth brome density (Darrin Jons and Kelly Fuoss unpubl. data), at least in the short-term. Besides reducing noxious and non-native non-desirable plant species, the LRMP s desired conditions that are related to vegetative composition focus on achieving and maintaining a diversity of seral stages. Seral stages can be monitored using a variety of techniques. Peterson (1998, p. 6) called for the establishment and monitoring of permanent seral plots across the Fort Pierre National Grassland. This technique focuses on changes in key plant species to determine seral stage (Uresk 1990, Uresk 2013, Uresk and Mergan 2013, Uresk et al. undated). District staff and researchers from the USDA Forest Service s Rocky Mountain Research Station established and read permanent seral plots in the Stony Butte Project Area from ; four were reread in 2014 by District staff (Figure 19). Three out of the four plots regressed in seral stage between the two monitoring periods (Table 9). That regression was believed to be due to 45

46 the influence of the rapidly increasing exotic grasses and forbs, rather than from prolonged drought, severe fire, or heavy grazing (none of which occurred in the pastures monitored). To better describe the Stony Butte Project Area s current vegetative composition, District staff also used the similarity index technique, which compares current vegetative composition (measured by species weight) to that of a reference state. Similarity index values range from 0 to 1, with higher values indicating a greater similarity to the reference state (in this case, the climax plant communities). Similarity index data was collected along 14 transects scattered among 8 pastures (Figure 19) in the Stony Butte Project Area during summer 2014 (Table 10). Similarity index values ranged from.03 to.80, averaging.47, indicating moderate to high departures from reference states. The similarity index data collected in summer 2014 showed a high incidence of exotic (i.e. nonnative) grasses (Table 10). Some transects (such the ones in the Chester ½ Section N and Stony Butte Home Pastures) were almost entirely vegetated with exotic species, primarily smooth brome (Figure 20). Furthermore, 2014 exhibited the largest bloom of yellow sweetclover (Figure 21) in recent memory (note: such sites were explicitly excluded as sample sites in 2014 due to the overwhelming influence of that exotic forb). As a general rule of thumb, sites dominated by >30% to 40% exotic species have crossed the ecological threshold (Figure 9) into an invaded state (Stan Boltz, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, pers. comm.). Plant communities in an invaded state tend to need intensive management (meaning high investments of money, resources, and time) to substantially reduce the influence of the exotic species. Management options include use of herbicide or plowing and reseeding, but the most practical options for the Project Area entail manipulation of rest and defoliation events (i.e. adjusting intensities and intervals of prescribed fire, haying, grazing, and mowing). The dominance of exotic vegetation in the Stony Butte Project Area is a relatively recent phenomenon. This is illustrated by comparing the 2014 similarity index data to earlier range suitability survey data (Table 11). The percentage of the Project Area s herbaceous growth comprised of native grasses declined from an average of 90% in 1988/1989 to an average of 46% in Conversely, the percentage of the Project Area s herbaceous growth comprised of exotic grasses increased from an average of 6% in 1988/1989, to an average of 47% in The biggest changes in native/exotic grass ratios occurred in the Camp Flat ES, Chester ½ Section N, and Stony Butte Home Pastures (Table 11). 46

47 RECOMMENDATIONS: Continue efforts to map and reduce noxious weeds. Use combination of rest and prescribed fire, grazing, haying, and mowing to better achieve LRMP objectives regarding vegetative composition diversity, specifically by reducing invasive grasses and forbs. This will require carrying forward for detailed NEPA analysis proposals for prescribed fire, haying, and mowing. Table 9. Monitoring results from four permanent seral plots read during two different time periods ( and 2014) in the Stony Butte Project Area SERAL STAGE----- PASTURE ECOLOGICAL SITE Camp Flat ES Clayey Early Intermediate Early Intermediate Ditch Creek WN Shallow Clay Late Intermediate Early Intermediate Medicine Creek Winter Clayey Late Early Intermediate Sioux E Clayey Late Late Intermediate 47

48 Figure 19. Location of vegetative composition and woody draw monitoring plots in the Stony Butte Project Area. Map by Kelly Fuoss. 48

49 Table 10. Similarity Index (SI) value and percentage of total herbaceous weight contributed by native and exotic grasses along Similarity Index transects read in the Stony Butte Project Area, summer PASTURE ECOLOGICAL SITE SI NATIVE (%) 1 EXOTIC (%) 1 Camp Flat ES Clayey Camp Flat ES Thin Upland Chester ½ Section N Thin Upland Chester ½ Section N Clayey Chester ½ Section S Dense Clay Ditch Creek WN Clayey Ditch Creek WN Shallow Clay Dry Hole NE Thin Claypan Dry Hole NE Clayey Medicine Creek #3 Thin Upland Medicine Creek #3 Clayey Sioux E Clayey (#2) Sioux E Clayey (#1) Stony Butte Home Shallow Clay AVERAGE % rows will not necessarily add to 100% as some sample sites also had forbs contributing to total herbaceous weight. Table 11. Comparison of range condition survey data (collected in 1988 and 1989) and similarity index data (collected in 2014) regarding percentages (%) of native vs. exotic grasses in the Stony Butte Project Area PASTURE ECOLOGICAL SITE NATIVE EXOTIC NATIVE EXOTIC Camp Flat ES Clayey 94% 1% 22% 58% Chester ½ Section N Clayey 96% 2% 32% 50% Chester ½ Section N Thin Upland 92% 2% 0% 95% Ditch Creek WN Clayey 99% 0% 78% 15% Dry Hole NE Clayey 86% 10% 89% 11% Medicine Creek #3 Clayey 78% 18% 94% 6% Sioux E Clayey (#2) 82% 16% 68% 21% Stony Butte Home Shallow Clay 89% 1% 1% 95% AVERAGE 90% 6% 46% 47% 49

50 Figure 20. Smooth brome-dominated site, Chester ½ Section North Pasture. Photo August 2014 by Ruben Mares. Figure 21. Yellow sweetclover-dominated site, Medicine Creek #1 Pasture. Photo July 2014 by Dan Svingen. 50

51 VEGETATION STRUCTURE: As used in this document, vegetative structure refers to height-densities of graminoids. The type of vegetative structure produced on the Fort Pierre National Grassland is a function of how much vegetation is grown versus how much forage is removed. Factors such as soils, precipitation, and species composition all affect how much grass is grown. Livestock grazing (or the lack thereof) is the primary factor affecting how much forage is removed. DESIRED CONDITIONS: Within 10 years, support native and desirable non-native plant, fish, and wildlife populations by meeting or making measurable progress towards desired vegetative composition and structure, as described in Geographic Area direction. (LRMP p. 1-7). Improve the knowledge base provided through research, inventory, and monitoring to enhance scientific understanding of ecosystems, including humans to support decisionmaking and sustainable management of the Nation s Forests and grasslands. (LRMP p. 1-7). Implement inventory and monitoring systems to provide scientific information and decision support across all land ownerships. (LRMP p. 1-7). Grass of moderate height and density will provide adequate habitat for many birds, mammals and other classes of wildlife. Over a significant area, high, dense cover will be left after the grazing season for birds that require more cover and nest on the ground early in the spring, such as sharp-tailed grouse, prairie chickens, and some species of ducks. Controlled livestock grazing will provide a variety of different grass structures for various wildlife species that depend on both tall and short grass structure. (LRMP p. 2-67). Tall and dense grass cover also improves the hunting experience by acting as holding cover for sharp-tailed grouse and prairie chickens. Upland game birds find security in such cover and will be less apt to flush beyond shooting range. Upland bird hunting is an important and growing activity in this geographic area. A significant percent of the area should display these conditions, in which bird hunters will perceive that their efforts can be successful. (LRMP p. 2-67). Manage the geographic area to meet the vegetation structure objectives identified below: High 30 to 50%; Moderate 30 to 50%; Low 10 to 30%. (LRMP p. 2-69). EXISTING CONDITIONS & DISCUSSION: For the past several decades, District staff have monitored vegetative structure across the Fort Pierre National Grassland using the visual obstruction reading (VOR) method (Figures 22 & 23). In general, vegetative structure has varied little by ecological site, but has by grazing treatment 51

52 and year (yearly variation is primarily due to differing precipitation amounts). Higher VOR values have been more abundant in ungrazed areas and during years with above-normal precipitation. Lower VOR values have been more abundant in heavily grazed areas and during years with below-normal precipitation. Table 12 displays data from the Stony Butte Project Area collected The mix of VOR readings on the Fort Pierre National Grassland has changed during the last 20 years (Table 13). Specifically, VOR readings less than 2 and VOR readings 4 to 5.9 have increased, while VOR readings between 2 and 3.9 have declined and VOR readings 6 and above have remained relatively static. Compared to the Fort Pierre National Grassland as a whole in recent years, the Stony Butte Project Area has had more vegetative structure under 3 and less vegetative structure between 4 and 5.9 (Table 13). The LRMP did not define vegetative structural classes for the Fort Pierre Ranger District. The definition of high structure vegetation used for this analysis was any transect with an average VOR reading equal to or more than 75% of the average VOR found in pastures rested for 1 year. This approach recognizes that more grass will be grown in wet years and that less grass will be grown in dry years. It also recognizes that some grazing, albeit of light intensity, is compatible with retention of high structure (USDA Forest Service 2001, pp. B-104 to B-105). Low structure vegetation was defined as VOR transects less than 2 (this is the vegetative structure typically found in prairie dog colonies, LRMP p. H-6). Moderate structure vegetation was defined as those VOR transects that did not otherwise qualify as high or low structure vegetation. Using these definitions, the Fort Pierre National Grassland as a whole, and the Stony Butte Project Area itself, has generally shown an overabundance of moderate structure vegetation, and modest shortfalls of short and high structure vegetation (Table 14). RECOMMENDATIONS: Use combination of rest and prescribed fire, grazing, haying, and mowing to better achieve LRMP objectives regarding vegetative structural diversity. This will require carrying forward for detailed NEPA analysis proposals for prescribed fire, haying, and mowing. 52

53 Figure 22. District staff demonstrating Visual Obstruction Reading technique. Photo February 2015 by Carol Erickson. Figure 23. Visual obstruction reading of 7. Photo February 2015 by Carol Erickson. 53

54 Table 12. Visual Obstruction Reading (VOR) transect averages (in inches) from the Stony Butte Project Area, autumns and the dates each pasture was grazed. Note: this list contains both randomly selected and non-randomly (*) selected transects. PASTURE YEAR AVERAGE GRAZING DATES Camp Flat EN /26 to 8/25 Chester ½ Section S /26 to 8/9 Chester ½ Section N /1 to 9/26 Chester ½ Section S /26 to 7/14 Cut Off Spring /2 to 6/18 Cut Off Spring year rest Cut Off Winter /30 to 10/18 Ditch Creek S /11 to 8/31 Ditch Creek WN /8 to 10/16 Ditch Creek WS /1 to 11/16 Dry Hole NE /1 to 10/19 Dry Hole SN /1 to 6/5 Dry Hole SN /1 to 6/24 Dry Hole SS /20 to 10/29 Medicine Creek # /15 to 8/25 Medicine Creek # /15 to 8/25 Medicine Creek # /22 to 7/30 Medicine Creek # year rest Medicine Creek Winter /8 to 6/25 Medicine Creek Winter /2 to 9/15 Stony Butte Butte year rest* Stony Butte Butte year rest* Stony Butte Home /1 to 5/13 54

55 Table 13. Average percentage of autumn visual obstruction reading (VOR) transects by height class, in inches, and time period on the Fort Pierre National Grassland (FPNG) and , and in the Stony Butte Project Area TRANSECT AVERAGE VOR AREA AND TIME PERIOD < FPNG % 26% 38% 15% 7% 11% FPNG % 20% 23% 25% 14% 12% PROJECT AREA % 33% 25% 13% 4% 13% 1 From Table 3-105, p USDA Forest Service 2001b. Note: this data was reported as percent area, not percent of transects as is the case for FPNG and PROJECT AREA Table 14. Number (n) and average Visual Obstruction Readings transects, in inches ( ), of 1 year rest pastures across the Fort Pierre National Grassland (FPNG) and resulting amount of high, moderate, and low structure vegetation (see text for definitions) on the FPNG and in the Stony Butte Project Area among randomly chosen transects. AVE. = simple average, MOD. = moderate. 1 YEAR REST FPNG PROJECT AREA YEAR n AVE. ( ) n HIGH MOD. LOW n HIGH MOD. LOW % 86% 2% 1 0% 100% 0% % 83% 2% 10 0% 98% 2% % 60% 21% 8 13% 82% 5% % 59% 0% 4 25% 75% 0% % 75% 0% 1 100% 0% 0% AVE % 73% 5% 5 28% 71% 1% 1 Field season truncated by protocol-ending snow event. 2 Estimated from 2-year rest data. 55

56 VEGETATION - WOODY DRAWS: A wooded draw is a type of habitat found along some drainage ways in grasslands settings. It is characterized by the presence of an overstory of woody vegetation (LRMP p. G-63). The most prominent woody vegetation in the Stony Butte Project Area s wooded draws are: chokecherry, cottonwood, peachleaf willow, sandbar willow, and western snowberry. DESIRED CONDITIONS: Implement management practices that will move at least 80 percent of riparian areas and woody draws toward self-perpetuating tree and shrub regeneration within site capability. (LRMP p. 1-2). Improve the knowledge base provided through research, inventory, and monitoring to enhance scientific understanding of ecosystems, including humans to support decisionmaking and sustainable management of the Nation s Forests and grasslands. (LRMP p. 1-7). Implement inventory and monitoring systems to provide scientific information and decision support across all land ownerships. (LRMP p. 1-7). Create and foster partnerships with other agencies, accredited educational and research institutions, tribal colleges, and other appropriate public and private sector organizations to further the goals of research, education, protection, and interpretation. (LRMP p. 1-9). Hardwood draws will be managed to perpetuate multiple layers and age classes of herbaceous plants, shrubs, and trees. Cottonwood, wild plum, chokecherry, willow, and western snowberry will grow in suitable draws. Streams and riparian areas will maintain soil moisture to perpetuate riparian plant communities with root masses. Prairie cordgrass, bulrush, spikerush, and cattail will line suitable drainages. Streams and riparian areas should function properly or be in an upward trend. (LRMP 2-66). EXISTING CONDITIONS & DISCUSSION: Peterson (1998) directed (p. 3) that potential and existing woody draws shall not be grazed between June 15 and September 30, but clarified (p. 5) that if monitoring showed no sign of woody plant regeneration or if existing woody vegetation was declining, those guideline dates could be adjusted. Peterson (1998) did not designate woody and potential woody draws. That was done administratively, based on an IDT review (Moravek 1995, 2000, 2002). Note: USDA Forest Service 2003 states (Table 4) that potential woody draws are not restricted to a specific season of use. This discrepancy with Peterson (1998) has caused confusion in design of past grazing rotations. In cases of a conflict between a NEPA decision and range allotment management plan, however, the former takes precedence. 56

57 In the Stony Butte Project Area, the only designated woody draw is along Stony Butte Creek in the Medicine Creek #3 Pasture (USDA Forest Service 2003, p. 4). The only designated potential woody draw is along Stony Butte Creek in the Dry Hole South-South Pasture (ibid). These designations were made based on an assessment of soils, water table, presence of raw banks (which provide seed establishment sites), and the presence of an occasional peachleaf willow or cottonwood seedling (Moravek 2000). It should also be noted, however, that the Stony Butte drainage was not considered to be one of the important drainages for woody vegetation (Moravek 1995) and furthermore that determining woody draw site capability was recognized as not an absolute yes/no exercise (Moravek 2002). Woody regeneration surveys were conducted along Stony Butte Creek in the Medicine Creek #3 Pasture in 1992 and 2014 using the same methodology (Uresk et al. undated). Survey results during both periods were the same; no trees or shrubs were found in the monitoring plot. Field notes regarding the entire pasture also showed similar conditions during both time periods, as does an examination of aerial photographs from the 1980s, 1990s, and currently. In short, the Medicine Creek #3 Pasture s reach of Stony Butte Creek is mostly heavily grassed with the exception of some naturally eroding cut banks (Figure 24). Very few tree seedlings are present, and those do not persist. The lack of seedling persistence is not due to livestock grazing, as no cattle have been present during the seedlings most vulnerable periods. Rather, trees appear to be eliminated by poor site location (too low and so ice-scoured during spring runoff, or too high and so unable to reach the summer water table), or wildlife (beaver and deer) browsing. Small, widely scattered patches of western snowberry and sandbar willow exist and appear stable in size and vigor, From these observations, as well as a field visit with USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service specialists (Figure 25), it was concluded that not only has the past 15 years of restricting the season of grazing use in the Medicine Creek #3 Pasture has been ineffective for woody species recruitment, but that local, natural site potential is low. The potential for woody draw establishment in Dry Hole South-South Pasture was also deemed by the IDT to be naturally very low. The lack of woody recruitment in these pastures was in contrast to the north end of the Stony Butte Butte Pasture (Figure 26), which does support trees and shrubs and yet is not now, and has not been, designated as a woody draw. Despite not being designated as an existing or potential woody draw, however, when Stony Butte Butte Pasture was been grazed, it has typically had livestock present outside of the June 15 to September 30 period (Kelly Fuoss, review of District grazing files). RECOMMENDATIONS: Administratively remove the woody draw designation from Medicine Creek #3 Pasture and administratively remove the potential woody draw designation from Dry Hole South-South Pasture; continue current management practices that are maintaining woody draw habitat in the Stony Butte Butte Pasture. 57

58 Figure 24. Stony Butte Creek in Medicine Creek #3 Pasture. Note lack of trees and shrubs and mostly well vegetated banks. Photo July 2014 by Dan Svingen. Figure 25. District staff discussing local natural site potential for woody species establishment with USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service s Stan Boltz (far left) and Nathan Jones (far right) in Medicine Creek #3 Pasture. Photo July 2014 by Dan Svingen. 58

59 Figure 26. North end of Stony Butte Butte Pasture. Note trees and shrubs. Photo July 2014 by Dan Svingen. 59

60 WILDLIFE - BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG: The black-tailed prairie dog is one of the most controversial animals in the Northern Great Plains (Cooper and Gabriel 2005). Management of this species was the focus of much of the public discussion during and after development of the LRMP. Note: The black-tailed prairie dog is designated as both a management indicator species and as a sensitive species. DESIRED CONDITIONS: Provide ecological conditions to sustain viable populations of native and desired nonnative species and to achieve objectives for Management Indicator Species. (LRMP p. 1-3). Within 15 years, demonstrate positive trends in population viability, habitat availability, habitat quality, population distribution throughout the species range within the planning area, and other factors affecting threatened, endangered, sensitive species and MIS. (LRMP p. 1-3). Develop and implement conservation strategies for Forest Service sensitive species, as technical information becomes available. (LRMP p. 1-3). Within 15 years, conserve populations of species at risk and rare communities by demonstrating positive trends in habitat availability and quality, or any other applicable factors affecting species at risk. (LRMP p. 1-3). Identify rare plant and animal communities, inventory them and develop associated management strategies to conserve them. Support the development and implementation of state and regional conservation plans as they apply to the grassland or forest units. (LRMP p. 1-3). Within 10 years, provide sufficient habitat for Management Indicator Species to reduce adverse impacts on populations during droughts. (LRMP p. 1-3). Establish scientifically credible monitoring programs, develop survey methods and initiate baseline and trend surveys for populations, habitat, and/or ecological conditions to contribute to viability of threatened and endangered species, species at risk, and MIS. (LRMP p. 1-3). Within 10 years, support native and desirable non-native plant, fish, and wildlife populations by meeting or making measurable progress towards desired vegetative composition and structure, as described in Geographic Area direction. (LRMP p. 1-7). Improve the knowledge base provided through research, inventory, and monitoring to enhance scientific understanding of ecosystems, including humans to support decisionmaking and sustainable management of the Nation s Forests and grasslands. (LRMP p. 1-7). 60

61 Implement inventory and monitoring systems to provide scientific information and decision support across all land ownerships. (LRMP p. 1-7). Assess potential habitat capability at the local level for management indicator species by identifying existing or establishing new reference areas and implementing long-term monitoring. Some reference areas will need to be managed for multiple-year accumulation of vegetation and litter for those management indicator species of high structure grasslands and sagebrush habitats. (LRMP p. 1-7). To provide habitat for viable populations of all wildlife species, a mixture of vegetation composition and structure will be provided. Vegetation structure plays a very important role in determining habitat suitability for various species. (LRMP p. 2-67). A relatively small percent of the area will be maintained in low composition and structure to support viable black-tailed prairie dog populations. Prairie dog colonies serve as important habitat for other species of wildlife, some of whose low region-wide populations are of concern. (LRMP p. 2-67). Apply adaptive management strategies to provide objectives for 1,000 minimum and 3,500 maximum acres of active prairie dog colonies within the interior-colony management zones. If maximum acreage objective is exceeded, refer to Chapter I, H Animal Damage Control for management direction. (LRMP p. 2-70). EXISTING CONDITIONS & DISCUSSION: Since the LRMP was adopted in 2002, plague has become established in central South Dakota. As a result, prairie dog populations on the Fort Pierre National Grassland and neighboring landownerships, including on the adjacent Lower Brule Sioux Reservation, have declined. On the Fort Pierre National Grassland, unwanted prairie dog encroachments from the border management zone of National Forest System lands are poisoned each autumn (Bright 2005) in conjunction with adjacent land owners (and often in conjunction with South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks personnel (Cooper and Gabriel 2005). Every two years, Fort Pierre Ranger District staff map all prairie dog colonies on the Fort Pierre National Grassland using standardized protocols. The most recent mapping of prairie dog colonies on the Fort Pierre National Grassland was completed in summer A total of 1,362 acres of active prairie dog colony was found in 2014, of which 1,072 acres were in the interior management zone. This latter value is within the range of LRMP objectives. Additional prairie dog surveys are scheduled for summer In 2014, there was one active black-tailed prairie dog colony (Figure 27) in the Stony Butte Project Area. That colony (which is in the Stony Butte Home Pasture) was in 4 segments, 61

62 encompassing a total of 6 acres. In 2012 and 2010 the single, unfractured colony at this site covered 20 acres and 21 acres, respectively. The reason for this colony s rapid decline and splintering are unclear, although both plague and the extensive bloom of yellow sweetclover in 2013 and 2014 were likely contributors (Ruben Mares, prof. opin.). Overall, prairie dog management on the Fort Pierre National Grassland is consistent with LRMP desired conditions (including those regarding monitoring), with the exception of the impacts deriving from the arrival of plague. Habitat quality could be further improved by increasing the availability of early sere and short structure vegetation. For additional discussion related to this topic, see the VEGETATION - COMPOSITION and VEGETATION - STRUCTURE portions of this document. Note: the Stony Butte Home Pasture s prairie dog colony (Figure 27) is, and has been, within the border management zone (i.e. the zone designated for control of black-tailed prairie dogs to prevent or correct unwanted encroachment onto neighboring lands). Because of its location, this colony is a poor candidate for active management to increase its current extent. RECOMMENDATIONS: Continue to monitor this colony. If it causes, or is about to cause, unwanted encroachment onto neighboring lands, initiate control efforts. 62

63 Figure 27. Outline (2010, 2012, and 2014) of the black-tailed prairie dog colony at the south end of the Stony Butte Home Pasture. Map by Kelly Fuoss. 63

64 WILDLIFE - BUTTERFLIES: One hundred seventy-seven species of butterflies have been recorded in South Dakota; 70 have been documented in the counties that contain the Fort Pierre National Grassland (Marrone 2002). Two sensitive butterfly species were of particular conservation concern for this analysis. These were the Ottoe skipper and the regal fritillary. Both butterflies (Figure 28) are associated with native mixed grass and tallgrass prairies and nectar from a wide variety of wildflowers, such as black samson echinacea and dotted gayfeather (Figure 29). The Ottoe skipper uses prairie grasses such as big bluestem, little bluestem, and sideoats grama as larval host plants, whereas the regal fritillary uses violets. Ottoe skipper have not been found on the Fort Pierre National Grassland despite repeated surveys (Gary Marrone, pers. comm.). Regal fritillaries are uncommon but widespread on the Fort Pierre National Grassland, including in the Project Area itself. DESIRED CONDITIONS: Provide ecological conditions to sustain viable populations of native and desired nonnative species and to achieve objectives for Management Indicator Species. (LRMP p. 1-3). Within 15 years, demonstrate positive trends in population viability, habitat availability, habitat quality, population distribution throughout the species range within the planning area, and other factors affecting threatened, endangered, sensitive species and MIS. (LRMP p. 1-3). Develop and implement conservation strategies for Forest Service sensitive species, as technical information becomes available. (LRMP p. 1-3). Within 15 years, conserve populations of species at risk and rare communities by demonstrating positive trends in habitat availability and quality, or any other applicable factors affecting species at risk. (LRMP p. 1-3). Within 10 years, implement management practices, including prescribed fire that will move all affected landscapes toward desired vegetation composition and structure as described in Geographic Area direction. (LRMP p. 1-3). Establish scientifically credible monitoring programs, develop survey methods and initiate baseline and trend surveys for populations, habitat, and/or ecological conditions to contribute to viability of threatened and endangered species, species at risk, and MIS. (LRMP p. 1-3). Within 10 years, support native and desirable non-native plant, fish, and wildlife populations by meeting or making measurable progress towards desired vegetative composition and structure, as described in Geographic Area direction. (LRMP p. 1-7). 64

65 To provide habitat for viable populations of all wildlife species, a mixture of vegetation composition and structure will be provided. Vegetation structure plays a very important role in determining habitat suitability for various species. (LRMP p. 2-67). EXISTING CONDITIONS & DISCUSSION: For additional discussion related to this topic, see the VEGETATION - COMPOSITION and VEGETATION - STRUCTURE portions of this document. The Project Area was surveyed for butterflies in mid-june, mid-july and mid-august 2014 (Marrone 2014). Twenty-seven butterfly species were documented, including the regal fritillary; no Ottoe skippers were found. Habitat management recommendations derived from those surveys stressed the need to: 1. reduce non-native grasses (especially smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, and crested wheatgrass) and yellow sweetclover; 2. use a combination of prescribed fire, grazing, and mowing to favor native grasses and forbs; and interseed native forbs to increase availability of nectar plants (Marrone 2014). In summary, the LRMP s desired conditions regarding butterfly monitoring are being met in the Stony Butte Project Area. The LRMP s desired conditions regarding habitat quality, however, are only being partially met due to the extensive exotic grasses and forbs, and the generally low density of preferred nectar species. RECOMMENDATION: Use combination of rest and prescribed fire, grazing, haying, and mowing to better achieve LRMP objectives regarding vegetative compositional diversity. This will require carrying forward for detailed NEPA analysis proposals for prescribed fire, haying, and mowing. In addition, carry forward for detailed NEPA analysis a proposal to increase the abundance and distribution of preferred butterfly nectar sources. 65

66 Figure 28. Left: regal fritillary, Right: Ottoe skipper. Photos August 2014 by Dan Svingen. Figure 29. Left: black samson echinacea, photo August 2014 by Dan Svingen. Right: dotted gayfeather, photo July 2008 by Carol Erickson. 66

67 WILDLIFE - GAME SPECIES: Public commenters on past land management projects on the Fort Pierre National Grassland have asked for information on game species. The Grassland (and the Stony Butte Project Area itself) contains several game species (Higgins et al. 2000). Past commenters have specified interest in mountain lion, mule deer, pronghorn, and white-tailed deer. We have no mountain lion records from the Stony Butte Project Area (nor from the Fort Pierre National Grassland as a whole). Mule deer, pronghorn, and white-tailed deer, however, do occur across the Fort Pierre National Grassland, including in the Stony Butte Project Area. The South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks Department monitors these species annually, and has found recent population declines for mule deer and pronghorn. DESIRED CONDITIONS: Provide ecological conditions to sustain viable populations of native and desired nonnative species and to achieve objectives for Management Indicator Species. (LRMP p. 1-3). Within 10 years, support native and desirable non-native plant, fish, and wildlife populations by meeting or making measurable progress towards desired vegetation composition and structure, as described in Geographic Area direction. (LRMP p. 1-7). Provide research results and tools through technology transfer to support effective management, and restoration of ecosystems and sustainability of natural resources. (LRMP p. 1-7). Create and foster partnerships with other agencies, accredited educational and research institutions, tribal colleges, and other appropriate public and private sector organizations to further the goals of research, education, protection, and interpretation. (LRMP p. 1-9). Cooperate with the appropriate state and federal agencies in balancing desired wildlife and fish population objectives with desired habitat conditions. (LRMP p. 1-9). To provide habitat for viable populations of all wildlife species, a mixture of vegetation composition and structure will be provided. Vegetation structure plays a very important role in determining habitat suitability for various species. (LRMP p. 2-67). EXISTING CONDITIONS & DISCUSSION: For additional discussion related to this topic, see the VEGETATION - COMPOSITION and VEGETATION - STRUCTURE portions of this document. 67

68 There are likely multiple factors contributing to local declines in mule deer, including predation and disease. The South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks Department has initiated a study on and near the Fort Pierre National Grassland (including the Project Area) to determine and evaluate home ranges, seasonal movements, and survival rates. District staff (Figure 30) have assisted with that effort. Study results and habitat management recommendations will be available sometime in the future. There are also likely multiple factors contributing to local declines of pronghorns, including weather, predation, and perhaps fence design. The Lower Brule Sioux Tribe has initiated a study on and near the Fort Pierre National Grassland (but outside of the Project Area) to determine pronghorn resource selection patterns, survival rates, and causes of mortality. Study results and habitat management recommendations will be available sometime in the future. RECOMMENDATIONS: Continue to cooperate with South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks as well as Lower Brule Sioux Tribe on game species research. Once current research is completed, coordinate with these partners regarding habitat management recommendations. Figure 30. District staff collaring white-tailed deer fawn on the Fort Pierre National Grassland as part of a research study led by South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks Department. Photo June 2014 by Ruben Mares. 68

69 WILDLIFE - GRASSLAND BIRDS: Grassland birds as a group have declined more than any other bird guild (Knopf 1994). Species in decline that occur in the Project Area include, but are not limited to: bobolink (Figure 31), horned lark, dickcissel (Figure 31), upland sandpiper (Figure 31), and western meadowlark (Figure 31). Habitat management for grassland birds varies by taxa. Some species require low structure grassland vegetation, whereas others need high structure vegetation. Several species require a mix of grassland vegetative structure to fulfill different needs (e.g. high structure vegetation for nest concealment but low structure vegetation for foraging). The LRMP s strategy to maintain a diversity of grassland birds is to provide a diversity of grassland vegetative composition and structure (see LRMP p to 2-69 for details). This approach is consistent with several published recommendations (e.g. Fuhlendorf et al. 2006). This approach is also consistent with the findings of Fritcher et al. (2004) who studied the relationship of grassland birds to the Fort Pierre National Grassland s vegetative composition. Those researchers found that some species (such as horned lark and upland sandpiper) preferred early seral vegetative communities, while other species (e.g. bobolink and dickcissel) preferred late seral vegetative communities. DESIRED CONDITIONS: Provide ecological conditions to sustain viable populations of native and desired nonnative species and to achieve objectives for Management Indicator Species. (LRMP p. 1-3). Within 10 years, support native and desirable non-native plant, fish, and wildlife populations by meeting or making measurable progress towards desired vegetation composition and structure, as described in Geographic Area direction. (LRMP p. 1-7). To provide habitat for viable populations of all wildlife species, a mixture of vegetation composition and structure will be provided. Vegetation structure plays a very important role in determining habitat suitability for various species. (LRMP p. 2-67). Grass of moderate height and density will provide adequate habitat for many birds, mammals and other classes of wildlife. Over a significant area, high, dense cover will be left after the grazing season for birds that require more cover and nest on the ground early in the spring, such as sharp-tailed grouse, prairie chickens, and some species of ducks. Controlled livestock grazing will provide a variety of different grass structures for various wildlife species that depend on both tall and short grass structure. (LRMP p. 2-67). 69

70 EXISTING CONDITIONS & DISCUSSION: For additional discussion related to this topic, see the VEGETATION - COMPOSITION and VEGETATION - STRUCTURE portions of this document. Overall, current management in the Stony Butte Project Area is beneficial to grassland birds and supportive of LRMP desired conditions in that it preserves large blocks of grassland habitat, with a diversity of grassland compositions and structures. However, habitat quality for several species would improve by further increasing that diversity. RECOMMENDATIONS: Use combination of rest and prescribed fire, grazing, haying, and mowing to better achieve LRMP objectives regarding the diversity of vegetative structure and composition. This will require carrying forward for detailed NEPA analysis proposals for prescribed fire, haying, and mowing. 70

71 Figure 31. Some of the grassland birds that occur in the Stony Butte Project Area. Clockwise from upper left: dickcissel (photo by Kelly Krabbenhoft), western meadowlark (photo by USDI Fish and Wildlife Service), bobolink (photo by Kelly Krabbenhoft), upland sandpiper (photo May 2013 by Dan Svingen). 71

72 WILDLIFE - PRAIRIE GROUSE: The Fort Pierre National Grassland is widely known for its gamebird populations. Each spring, about people use the Grassland s observation blinds to observe and photograph greater prairie-chickens (Figure 32) and sharp-tailed grouse (Figure 33). Each autumn, several hundred people (Figure 34) hunt the Grassland for these same species. Of particular interest to this assessment were the greater prairie-chicken and sharp-tailed grouse (hereafter collectively referred to as prairie grouse ). Both species are designated as management indicator species by the LRMP; the greater prairie-chicken is also designated as a sensitive species. DESIRED CONDITIONS: Provide ecological conditions to sustain viable populations of native and desired nonnative species and to achieve objectives for Management Indicator Species. (LRMP p. 1-3). Within 15 years, demonstrate positive trends in population viability, habitat availability, habitat quality, population distribution throughout the species range within the planning area, and other factors affecting threatened, endangered, sensitive species and MIS. (LRMP p. 1-3). Develop and implement conservation strategies for Forest Service sensitive species, as technical information becomes available. (LRMP p. 1-3). Within 15 years, conserve populations of species at risk and rare communities by demonstrating positive trends in habitat availability and quality, or any other applicable factors affecting species at risk. (LRMP p. 1-3). Within 10 years, provide sufficient habitat for Management Indicator Species to reduce adverse impacts on populations during droughts. (LRMP p. 1-3). Establish scientifically credible monitoring programs, develop survey methods and initiate baseline and trend surveys for populations, habitat, and/or ecological conditions to contribute to viability of threatened and endangered species, species at risk, and MIS. (LRMP p. 1-3). Within 10 years, implement management practices, including prescribed fire that will move all affected landscapes toward desired vegetation composition and structure as described in Geographic Area direction. (LRMP p. 1-3). Within 10 years, support native and desirable non-native plant, fish, and wildlife populations by meeting or making measurable progress towards desired vegetative composition and structure, as described in Geographic Area direction. (LRMP p. 1-7). Improve the knowledge base provided through research, inventory, and monitoring to enhance scientific understanding of ecosystems, including humans to support decisionmaking and sustainable management of the Nation s Forests and grasslands. (LRMP p. 1-7). 72

73 Implement inventory and monitoring systems to provide scientific information and decision support across all land ownerships. (LRMP p. 1-7). Assess potential habitat capability at the local level for management indicator species by identifying existing or establishing new reference areas and implementing long-term monitoring. Some reference areas will need to be managed for multiple-year accumulation of vegetation and litter for those management indicator species of high structure grasslands and sagebrush habitats. (LRMP p. 1-7). Create and foster partnerships with other agencies, accredited educational and research institutions, tribal colleges, and other appropriate public and private sector organizations to further the goals of research, education, protection, and interpretation. (LRMP p. 1-9). Cooperate with the appropriate state and federal agencies in balancing desired wildlife and fish population objectives with desired habitat conditions. (LRMP p. 1-9). Grass of moderate height and density will provide adequate habitat for many birds, mammals and other classes of wildlife. Over a significant area, high, dense cover will be left after the grazing season for birds that require more cover and nest on the ground early in the spring, such as sharp-tailed grouse, prairie chickens, and some species of ducks. Controlled livestock grazing will provide a variety of different grass structures for various wildlife species that depend on both tall and short grass structure. (LRMP p. 2-67). To provide habitat for viable populations of all wildlife species, a mixture of vegetation composition and structure will be provided. Vegetation structure plays a very important role in determining habitat suitability for various species. (LRMP p. 2-67). Provide diverse and quality grassland habitat across this geographic area at levels that, in combination with habitat on adjoining lands, help support stable to increasing sharptailed grouse populations (long-term trends) and viable populations of other wildlife species with similar habitat needs. (LRMP p. 2-70). Establish and maintain quality nesting and brooding habitat for sharp-tailed grouse (Appendix H) and associated wildlife by meeting vegetation objectives for high structure within 10 years. (LRMP p. 2-70). Provide diverse and quality grassland habitat across this geographic area at levels that, in combination with habitat on adjoining lands, help support stable to increasing prairie chicken populations (long-term trends) and viable populations of other wildlife species with similar habitat needs. (LRMP p. 2-70). Establish and maintain quality nesting and brooding habitat for prairie chickens (Appendix H) and associated wildlife by meeting vegetation objectives for high structure within 10 years. (LRMP p. 2-70). 73

74 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DISCUSION: For additional discussion related to this topic, see VEGETATION - COMPOSITION and VEGETATION - STRUCTURE portions of this document. Note: prairie grouse also make heavy use of waste grain from private cropland that is interspersed throughout the Project Area. Several research projects have been conducted on the Fort Pierre National Grassland s prairie grouse populations. Rice and Carter (1982) evaluated habitat management on the Fort Pierre National Grassland, concluding that at least 1,000 pounds of residual herbaceous cover was necessary for successful prairie grouse reproduction. Under the management scenarios examined at the time, such levels of residual cover were retained by rest-rotation, winter grazing, and lightlivestock-use-bull pasture grazing regimes, but not by deferred-rotation. Fredrickson (1995) assessed prairie grouse survival rates and home range use. Recommendations stressed the need to leave adequate vegetative structure. Norton (2005) studied reproductive success and brood habitat use of prairie grouse on the Fort Pierre National Grassland. He found that greater prairie-chicken broods selected habitat composed of the native western wheatgrass and green needlegrass (this habitat also had the exotic Japanese brome present), but avoided habitats composed of smooth brome (an exotic grass) and porcupine grass. Sharp-tailed grouse broods selected for habitats with sweet clover, native forbs, and green needlegrass, avoiding habitats with the exotic Japanese and smooth bromes. Norton concluded that the high nesting success and survival rates were likely attributable to the large grassland blocks and rotational grazing regime that provided a mosaic of habitats. He also noted that although use of habitats with exotic plant species occurred, management should focus on increasing the dominance of native plant species. Kirschenmann (2008) assessed the consequences of dog training on prairie grouse, concluding that such impacts were minimal. Other results from that study included observation that prairie grouse hens selected for pastures where no grazing occurred during the prior year or current nesting season. The South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks Department is currently studying prairie grouse distribution across the state; one of the sample sites falls within the Stony Butte Project Area. District staff are assisting on this research; results will be available sometime in the future. District staff monitor prairie grouse populations each spring by tallying the number of males attending leks (i.e. dancing grounds) in the Cedar Creek Monitoring Unit; that unit is adjacent to the Stony Butte Project Area. Note: staff from the South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks Department do similar annual monitoring in the SW corner of the Fort Pierre National Grassland. Data from the Cedar Creek Monitoring Unit is presented in Figure 35 (data from the Grassland s SW corner show similar trends). Overall, greater prairie-chicken populations have increased 74

75 under recent management, while sharp-tailed grouse populations have remained stable over the last several years. These results are consistent with the LRMP s desired conditions. District staff conducted extensive prairie grouse surveys in the Stony Butte Project Area during the early morning hours of March to early May The purpose of this survey was to assess prairie grouse distribution in the Project Area. Field procedures consisted of driving through the Project Area and stopping at regular intervals to look and listen for vocalizing male grouse. Fifteen display grounds were located. These leks were distributed throughout the Project Area and contained a total of 121 male greater prairie-chickens and 11 male sharp-tailed grouse. Overall, prairie grouse densities in the Stony Butte Project Area during spring 2014 were lower than those in the adjacent Cedar Creek Monitoring Unit (Table 15). The reasons for this density difference are unclear, though the larger grassland patches characteristic of the Cedar Creek Monitoring Unit may be relevant. The most important habitat feature for prairie grouse on the Fort Pierre National Grassland (and in the Stony Butte Project Area) is the availability of residual cover. Although overall current management is supportive of the LRMP s desired conditions regarding prairie grouse (including monitoring and research), habitat quality could be further improved by reducing exotic grasses and diversifying vegetative structure and composition. RECOMMENDATIONS: Use combination of rest and prescribed fire, grazing, haying, and mowing to better achieve LRMP objectives regarding the diversity of vegetative structure and composition. This will require carrying forward for detailed NEPA analysis proposals for prescribed fire, haying, and mowing. Table 15. Comparison of prairie grouse lek and male density between the Cedar Creek Monitoring Unit and Stony Butte Project Area in spring GRPC=greater prairie-chicken, STGR=sharp-tailed grouse. CEDAR CREEK 1 STONY BUTTE 2 GRPC STGR GRPC STGR LEK DENSITY (# 1000 ACRES) MALE DENSITY (# 1000 ACRES) Density calculation based on 32,320 total acres surveyed, all ownerships combined. 2 Density calculation based on 19,188 total acres surveyed, all ownerships combined. 75

76 Figure 32. Greater prairie-chicken male displaying. Photo courtesy of Bob Gress. Figure 33. Sharp-tailed grouse male displaying. Photo courtesy of Bob Gress. 76

77 Total Number of Males Figure 34. Prairie grouse hunters on the Fort Pierre National Grassland. Photo courtesy of Paul Drayton. Figure 35. Number of displaying male greater prairie-chicken and sharp-tailed grouse tallied in the Cedar Creek Monitoring Unit, Fort Pierre National Grassland, Greater Prairie-chicken y = x R² = Sharp-tailed Grouse y = x R² = Survey Year 77

78 WILDLIFE RAPTORS: Public commenters on past land management projects have asked for information on raptors (i.e. birds of prey). Seventeen raptor species have been found on the Fort Pierre National Grassland (Svingen et al. 2016). Species known or suspected to nest in or near the Project Area include: American kestrel, ferruginous hawk, Northern harrier (Figure 36), Swainson s hawk (Figure 36), and red-tailed hawk (Figure 36). DESIRED CONDITIONS: Provide ecological conditions to sustain viable populations of native and desired nonnative species and to achieve objectives for Management Indicator Species. (LRMP p. 1-3). Within 10 years, support native and desirable non-native plant, fish, and wildlife populations by meeting or making measurable progress towards desired vegetation composition and structure, as described in Geographic Area direction. (LRMP p. 1-7). To provide habitat for viable populations of all wildlife species, a mixture of vegetation composition and structure will be provided. Vegetation structure plays a very important role in determining habitat suitability for various species. (LRMP p. 2-67). EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DISCUSSION: For additional discussion related to this topic, see the VEGETATION - COMPOSITION and VEGETATION - STRUCTURE portions of this document. District staff map raptor nests each summer on an ad hoc basis. Typically the Stony Butte Project Area contains 2-4 Swainson s hawk breeding territories and 0-1 red-tailed hawk breeding territories (Ruben Mares, unpubl. data), though active nests are not necessarily placed on National Forest System lands. In years of particularly high vole populations, 1 or 2 Northern harrier breeding territories are usually also present in the Project Area. Since 2009, District staff, in conjunction with staff from the South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks Department, have surveyed wintering raptors on the Fort Pierre National Grassland along three routes each January and February. One such route ( Route 3 ) passes through the Stony Butte Project Area. Total raptor diversity and numbers have varied widely year-to-year (Table 16), at least in part due to changes in weather. The primary factor affecting raptor numbers, however, has likely been changes in prey (especially vole) populations, particularly as regards roughlegged hawk (Figure 36) numbers. 78

79 Current land management in the Project Area seems compatible with raptor management. Overall habitat quality would likely increase if a greater diversity of vegetative composition and structure was achieved. Habitat suitability for American kestrel, red-tailed hawk, and Swainson s hawk (all tree nesters) may be declining as large mature trees established during the homestead era of the late 19 th and early 20 th century die. New nest trees are difficult to recruit without active management. It should be noted, however, that such management is comparatively common in the Project Area on the intermingled private lands (such as at farmsteads and in field shelterbelts). RECOMMENDATIONS: Use combination of rest and prescribed fire, grazing, haying, and mowing to better achieve LRMP objectives regarding the diversity of vegetative structure and composition. This will require carrying forward for detailed NEPA analysis proposals for prescribed fire, haying, and mowing. Table 16. High count of winter raptors tallied during winter surveys along Route #3, Fort Pierre National Grassland, for sample points inside the Stony Butte Project Area. Note: complete 2010 data not collected due to snow-blocked roads. SPECIES TOTAL Bald eagle Ferruginous hawk Golden Eagle Northern harrier Prairie falcon Red-tailed hawk Rough-legged hawk Unknown raptor TOTAL

80 Figure 36. Clockwise from upper left: Swainson s hawk (photo by Gary Foli), red-tailed hawk (photo by Dan Svingen), Northern harrier (photo by Larry Jones), rough-legged hawk (photo by Dave Herr). 80

81 WILDLIFE - SENSITIVE SPECIES: Although there are no federally-listed endangered, proposed, or threatened species in the Stony Butte Project Area, there are several taxa known or suspected to occur in the Project Area for which population viability has been identified as a management concern. These sensitive species (LRMP p. G-51) include the black-tailed prairie dog, greater prairie-chicken, Ottoe skipper, and regal fritillary that are addressed above. The remaining sensitive species are discussed below (Table 17). DESIRED CONDITIONS: Provide ecological conditions to sustain viable populations of native and desired nonnative species and to achieve objectives for Management Indicator Species. (LRMP p. 1-3). Within 15 years, demonstrate positive trends in population viability, habitat availability, habitat quality, population distribution throughout the species range within the planning area, and other factors affecting threatened, endangered, sensitive species and MIS. (LRMP p. 1-3). Develop and implement conservation strategies for Forest Service sensitive species, as technical information becomes available. (LRMP p. 1-3). Within 15 years, conserve populations of species at risk and rare communities by demonstrating positive trends in habitat availability and quality, or any other applicable factors affecting species at risk. (LRMP p. 1-3). Identify rare plant and animal communities, inventory them and develop associated management strategies to conserve them. Support the development and implementation of state and regional conservation plans as they apply to the grassland or forest units. (LRMP p. 1-3). Establish scientifically credible monitoring programs, develop survey methods and initiate baseline and trend surveys for populations, habitat, and/or ecological conditions to contribute to viability of threatened and endangered species, species at risk, and MIS. (LRMP p. 1-3). Within 10 years, support native and desirable non-native plant, fish, and wildlife populations by meeting or making measurable progress towards desired vegetative composition and structure, as described in Geographic Area direction. (LRMP p. 1-7). Create and foster partnerships with other agencies, accredited educational and research institutions, tribal colleges, and other appropriate public and private sector organizations to further the goals of research, education, protection, and interpretation. (LRMP p. 1-9). 81

82 To provide habitat for viable populations of all wildlife species, a mixture of vegetation composition and structure will be provided. Vegetation structure plays a very important role in determining habitat suitability for various species. (LRMP p. 2-67). EXISTING CONDITIONS & DISCUSSION: For additional discussion related to this topic, see the VEGETATION - COMPOSITION and VEGETATION - STRUCTURE portions of this document. Overall, American bittern (Figure 37) and black tern habitat quality seems little effected by current land management, while Northern leopard frog habitat quality seems to have been enhanced (see Table 17 for details). The situation for the other sensitive species, however, is similar to the grassland birds and prairie grouse discussed above, i.e. management is complicated by the diversity of habitat needs. In brief, current management seems very favorable to grasshopper sparrows (Figure 37). Species such as burrowing owl, chestnut-collared longspur (Figure 37), long-billed curlew, and Sprague s pipit, however, would benefit from heavier (or more concentrated) livestock grazing and use of prescribed fire, haying, and mowing. Conversely, habitat quality would improve for Northern harriers (Figure 37) and short-eared owls if more area was rested from livestock grazing and remained unburned, unhayed, and unmown. It was in part due to these species varied habitat needs that the LRMP established an objective for creation of diverse vegetative structure. RECOMMENDATIONS: Use combination of rest and prescribed fire, grazing, haying, and mowing to better achieve LRMP objectives regarding the diversity of vegetative structure and composition. This will require carrying forward for detailed NEPA analysis proposals for prescribed fire, haying, and mowing. 82

83 Table 17. Sensitive species (other than black-tailed prairie dog, greater prairie-chicken, Ottoe skipper, and regal fritillary) known or suspected to occur in the Stony Butte Project Area. FPNG=Fort Pierre National Grassland. Status for bird species taken from Svingen et al SPECIES STATUS & HABITAT ON THE FPNG EXISTING CONDITION American bittern Black tern Burrowing owl Chestnutcollared longspur Uncommon but irregular spring & fall migrant & summer resident; known to nest on the FPNG. No sightings known of from the Project Area. Uses large wetlands with abundant emergent vegetation. Uncommon spring & fall migrant, rare but irregular summer resident; suspected to nest on the FPNG. No sightings known of from the Project Area. Uses large wetlands with abundant emergent vegetation. In a study in eastern South Dakota, Naugle et al. (2000) found that the average size of ponds used for nesting was about 47 acres. Fairly common spring and fall migrant & summer resident; known to nest on the FPNG. Has been found in the Project Area. On the FPNG, this species occurs almost exclusively on black-tailed prairie dog colonies, preferring large colonies with little or no nearby high structure vegetation. Fairly common spring & fall migrant, uncommon summer resident; known to nest on the FPNG. Has been found in the Project Area. Uses mixed-grass prairie; during nesting season prefers sites with short to medium vegetation, little vegetative litter and at least moderate amounts of bare ground. In productive areas (such as on the FPNG) this habitat structure is created by moderate-heavy to heavy livestock or prairie dog grazing and/or recent fire. Potential habitat in Project Area is limited to the largest playas (such as the one in the Medicine Winter Pasture) when flooded; suitable habitat likely absent most years. Current management likely has little effect on habitat quality. Potential habitat in Project Area is limited to the largest playas (such as the one in the Medicine Winter Pasture) when flooded; suitable habitat likely absent most years. Current management likely has little effect on habitat quality. Potential habitat is determined by extent of black-tailed prairie dog colonies which in the Project Area is limited to 1 colony that is currently fragmented and subject to large blooms of yellow sweetclover (which produces very high structure vegetation during the growing season). Current management is limiting additional establishment of black-tailed prairie dog colonies by producing little low-structure vegetation. Potential habitat is widespread in Project Area, but suitable habitat is limited due to current management resulting in little low-structure vegetation (and few prairie dog colonies). Note: the US Forest Service and Lower Brule Sioux Tribe are conducting research on this species, including in the project area. 83

84 SPECIES STATUS & HABITAT ON THE FPNG EXISTING CONDITION Ferruginous hawk Grasshopper sparrow Loggerhead shrike Long-billed curlew Northern leopard frog Rare spring and fall migrant, rare but irregular summer resident, uncommon winter resident; known to nest on the FPNG. Has been found in the Project Area. Uses large blocks of shortgrass and mixed grass prairie and shrubland with abundant small mammal populations. In productive areas (such as on the FPNG), preferred habitat structure created by moderate-heavy to heavy livestock or prairie dog grazing and/or recent fire. Abundant spring & fall migrant & summer resident; known to nest on the FPNG. Numerous sightings known of from the Project Area. Uses large patches of mixed-grass and tallgrass prairie with moderatly dense, moderate to tall vegetation. In areas such as the FPNG, this habitat structure is created by moderate livestock grazing and no recent (i.e. last year) fire. On the FPNG, grasshopper sparrows prefer sites dominated by native grasses (Fritchner 1998). Rare spring and fall migrant and summer resident; known to nest on the FPNG. Has been found in the Project Area. Uses small trees and large shrubs surrounded by grassland or shrubland. In productive areas such as the FPNG prefers areas with a mix of vegetative structure (i.e. some short grasses, some moderate grasses, and some tall grasses). Rare spring migrant & summer visitor or resident; suspected to nest on or near the FPNG. No sightings known of from the Project Area. Uses large patches of short and mixed grass prairie with vegetation less than 4 tall. In areas such as the FPNG such habitat structure is created by heavy livestock or prairie dog grazing and/or recent fire. Common & widespread permanent resident on the FPNG; known to successfully breed there. Has been found Potential habitat is widespread in Project Area, but suitable habitat very limited due to current management resulting in little low-structure vegetation. Suitable habitat also limited due to limited extent of black-tailed prairie dog colonies in the Project Area. Widespread and abundant suitable habitat throughout the Project Area. Current management is very favorable to this species, though the increasing extent of exotic grasses may be of concern. Potential habitat (particularly for nesting) is very limited due to natural absence of small trees and large shrubs. Habitat suitability is further limited by lower-thandesired diversity of vegetative structure. Potential habitat widespread in Project Area, but suitable habitat very limited or even absent due to current management resulting in little low structure vegetation. Suitable habitat also limited due to limited extent of black-tailed prairie dog colonies in the Project Area. Potential habitat is naturally limited in Project Area due to paucity of wetlands. Current 84

85 SPECIES STATUS & HABITAT ON THE FPNG EXISTING CONDITION in the Project Area. Uses wetlands, particularly those with abundant emergent vegetation (such as cattails, bulrush, or sedges) and no fish; uses deeper wetlands (stock ponds) for hibernation. Adults often forage in surrounding grasslands. management seems very favorable to this species, particularly in regards to creation of stockponds, which provide additional hibernacula sites. Northern harrier Peregrine falcon Short-eared owl Sprague s pipit Fairly common spring & fall migrant, uncommon summer resident, uncommon but irregular winter resident or visitor; known to nest on the FPNG. Uses expansive marsh and grassland habitats with relatively dense and tall vegetation with abundant vole populations. In areas such as the FPNG, this habitat structure is created by little to no livestock grazing and no recent (i.e. 3 or more years) fire. Rare spring and fall migrant, casual winter visitor; not known or suspected to nest on or near the FPNG. Has been recorded in the Project Area. Uses a wide variety of habitat for foraging. Uncommon but irregular year-round visitor or resident; known to nest on the FPNG. Uses expansive marsh and grassland habitats with relatively dense and tall vegetation with abundant vole populations. In areas such as the FPNG, this habitat structure is created by little to no livestock grazing and no recent (i.e. within last 3 years) fire. Rare spring & fall migrant, extirpated summer resident; not known to nest on the FPNG. No sightings known of from the Project Area. Uses large patches of mixed-grass prairie; during nesting season prefers sites with vegetation 4-12 tall. In much of its range, this pipit often co-occurs with chestnut-collared longspurs, but the pipit generally uses those micro sites with denser vegetation and more vegetative litter. This pipit s preferred habitat structure is usually Potential and suitable habitat is widespread in Project Area. The highest quality habitat is limited by current management to those sites rested from livestock grazing. Potential and suitable habitat is widespread in Project Area. Current management appears to be providing good quality habitat which could be further improved by increases in vegetative compositional & structural diversity. Potential and suitable habitat is widespread in Project Area. The highest quality habitat is limited by current management to those sites rested from livestock grazing. Potential habitat (at least for migrating birds) widespread in Project Area, but suitable habitat limited due to current management resulting in little lower-structure vegetation. Suitable habitat also limited due to limited extent of black-tailed prairie dog colonies in the Project Area. 85

86 SPECIES STATUS & HABITAT ON THE FPNG EXISTING CONDITION maintained by light to moderately-light livestock grazing, but in productive areas (such as on the FPNG) such habitat structure would require moderate-heavy livestock grazing, prairie dog colonies, and/or more recent fire. Figure 37. Clockwise from upper left: American bittern (photo by Bob Gress), chestnut-collared longspur (photo by Doug Backlund), Northern harrier (photo by Sharon Watson), grasshopper sparrow (photo by David Lambeth). 86

87 WILDLIFE - WETLANDS & WATERFOWL: Commenters on past land management projects on the Fort Pierre National Grassland have asked for information on wetlands and waterfowl. DESIRED CONDITIONS: Provide ecological conditions to sustain viable populations of native and desired nonnative species and to achieve objectives for Management Indicator Species. (LRMP p. 1-3). Identify rare plant and animal communities, inventory them and develop associated management strategies to conserve them... (LRMP p. 1-3). Identify opportunities for partnerships to provide new recreational fisheries and/or waterfowl and wetlands habitat. (LRMP p. 1-8). Create and foster partnerships with other agencies, accredited educational and research institutions, tribal colleges, and other appropriate public and private sector organizations to further the goals of research, education, protection, and interpretation. (LRMP p. 1-9). To provide habitat for viable populations of all wildlife species, a mixture of vegetation composition and structure will be provided. Vegetation structure plays a very important role in determining habitat suitability for various species. (LRMP p. 2-67). Grass of moderate height and density will provide adequate habitat for many birds, mammals and other classes of wildlife. Over a significant area, high, dense cover will be left after the grazing season for birds that require more cover and nest on the ground early in the spring, such as sharp-tailed grouse, prairie chickens, and some species of ducks. Controlled livestock grazing will provide a variety of different grass structures for various wildlife species that depend on both tall and short grass structure. (LRMP p. 2-67). EXISTING CONDITIONS & DISCUSSION: For additional discussion related to this topic, see the VEGETATION - COMPOSITION and VEGETATION - STRUCTURE portions of this document. Across the Fort Pierre National Grassland and in the Stony Butte Project Area itself, wetlands encompass about 2% of the land area. The Project Area s natural wetlands (Figure 38) are all classified as palustrian. Most are further characterized as being dominated by emergent vegetation (such as bulrushes, cattails, sedges, smartweed, spikerushes, etc.). The only exception is the wetland at the north end of the Stony Butte Butte Pasture (Figure 38); that wetland is a shallow drainage way with scattered trees and shrubs (Figure 26). 87

88 The majority of the Project Area s natural wetlands are, at most, seasonally flooded. Those wetlands (Figure 39) are colloquially referred to as playas. Relatively large playas are present in Medicine Creek Winter and Dry Hole NW pastures (Figure 38). Much smaller playas are present in Bower South Butte, Camp Flat East South, Medicine Creek #1, Medicine Creek #2, and Stony Butte Home pastures (Figure 38). The Project Area also contains 48 created (or modified) freshwater ponds. Those stock ponds (Figure 40) were made by damming (and in some cases pitting) drainage ways. Construction activities occurred in or before the 1980s, with most such construction occurring in or before the 1960s. Rumble and Flake (1982) conducted research on waterfowl use of stock ponds in and near the Stony Butte Project Area. They found that pond size, shallow water areas with submerged vegetation, the number of natural wetlands in a 1 mile radius, and emergent vegetation (specifically smartweed and spikerush) were associated with increased use of ponds by duck broods. Based on these findings, they suggested that managers build larger ponds, maximize shallow water areas for the production of submergent and emergent vegetation, and manage livestock to permit persistence of submergent and emergent vegetation. Field reviews in spring, summer, and fall 2014 assessed the amount of emergent vegetation present at Project Area stockponds. Ponds with 10% of more of their perimeter or surface area dominated by emergents were classified as having well-developed emergent vegetation (Svingen and Anderson 1998; see also LRMP p. 1-14). Approximately one-half of all stock ponds and all of the natural wetlands that were reviewed had well-developed emergents (Dan Svingen, pers. obs.). In a separate survey effort, a random examination of Project Area stock pond photographs taken in July and August 2009 showed that 80% of those ponds showed welldeveloped emergent cover (Dan Svingen, Ryan Cumbow, pers. obs.). Photos examined were of stock ponds in the: Camp Flat East North, Cut Off East, Cut Off Winter, Ditch Creek NW, Medicine Creek #1, #2, and #3; Sioux East, and Stony Butte Home pastures. Based on incidental observations, all stock ponds with sufficient water on the Fort Pierre National Grassland contain at least some submergent vegetation (Dan Svingen, Ryan Cumbow, pers. obs.). More intensive submergent vegetation surveys of some of the Project Area s stock ponds will be conducted in summer 2016 by South Dakota State University researchers. Current livestock grazing impacts both playas and stock ponds. Loss of shoreline and aquatic emergent vegetation is the most obvious effect. However, because the National Grassland pastures are managed with a deferred-rotation grazing regime, most Project Area wetlands are subjected to grazing impacts for less than two months annually, with the timing of that grazing typically changing year-to-year. It is in part due to that management that shoreline and aquatic vegetation is relatively common in the Project Area (Dan Svingen, pers. obs.). 88

89 We have no inventory data regarding waterfowl use of playas in the Stony Butte Project Area. In 2014, district staff conducted waterfowl pair and brood surveys following the methodology of Rumble and Flake (1982) on all of Project Area s stock ponds larger than 2.5 acres (1 ha) in surface area. Ponds of that size were chosen due to their particular importance to waterfowl production (Lokemoen 1973, Rumble and Flake 1982, Svingen and Anderson 1998). Seven waterfowl species were found during the surveys in 2014, with blue-winged teal and mallard being the most common. Rumble and Flake (1982) also found blue-winged teal and mallard to be the most common species nesting species. Average pair density of all waterfowl tallied in 2014 was approximately 2.6/acre, whereas average brood density was approximately 2.4/acre. These densities are low compared to similar studies (e.g. Ball et al. 1988, May et al. 2008, Ruwaldt et al. 1979, Svingen and Anderson 1998), though the overall productivity (i.e. total # of all broods/total # of all pairs) of 92%, is comparatively very high. Current management, particularly the use of a deferred grazing rotation, seems compatible with maintenance of sufficient emergent and submergent vegetation on natural wetlands and waterfowl brood ponds. No recent or proposed projects have drained or modified the Project Area s natural wetlands (which are important to waterfowl pairs, and in some cases waterfowl broods). An increase in vegetative structural diversity would likely benefit upland nesting waterfowl. Like other habitats on the Fort Pierre National Grassland, playas are subject to invasion by exotic species. Of particular concern are species such as curly dock and reed canarygrass. We have no inventory data, however, to quantify the extent of that threat. Plant inventory work by South Dakota State University researchers is scheduled to occur on some of the Project Area s playas in summer RECOMMENDATIONS: Use combination of rest and prescribed fire, grazing, haying, and mowing to better achieve LRMP objectives regarding the diversity of vegetative structure and composition. This will require carrying forward for detailed NEPA analysis proposals for prescribed fire, haying, and mowing. 89

90 Figure 38. Map of wetlands and drainages in the Stony Butte Project Area based on National Wetland Inventory and USDI Geological Survey data. Map by Kelly Fuoss. 90

91 Figure 39. Flooded playa. Muller A Pasture, Fort Pierre National Grassland. Photo July 2014 by Dan Svingen. Figure 40. Stock pond with well-developed emergent vegetation (in this case, cattails). Cut Off Winter Pasture, Fort Pierre National Grassland. Photo July 2014 by Dan Svingen. 91