Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

1

This document can be searched for individual comments using the “Find” application. Type the letter and comment number (e.g., “letter 279, comment 1” would be 

found by typing 279/1 in the “Find” application window. To determine the number assigned to an individual letter, open the 

“Names_LtrAndCommentNumbers_PublicConcernNumbers” document and scroll through the alphabetical list of names.

1 Public 

Concern 

Number

Public Concern Category and Description Response to Concern Letter#/Comment# 

(Letter numbers are three digit 

numbers, 001 through 611) 

2 1-1 Management Priorities. 1-1 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should improve its stewardship of 

the Black Hills National Forest (BHNF), to 

reduce the damage done to the forest.

The Forest Service has authority to impose road and 

area closures for resource protection, and has used that 

authority in recent years, including after large fires to 

allow revegetation and permit road rehabilitation work

to be completed. Enforcement of closures has been 

difficult but it is expected that enforcement capability 

will improve with the implementation of the motor 

vehicle use map (MVUM) under the 2005 Travel Rule. 

The action alternatives are designed to provide for 

quality recreation experiences for users, and to reduce 

the adverse impacts of unmanaged travel, and they 

would accomplish these aims to varying degrees in 

different ways. Emergency closures can still be imposed 

for resource protection. 

091/1. 279/1. 

3 1-2 Management Priorities. 1-2 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should cease all activity in the 

Black Hill because the Black Hills were unlawfully 

taken from the Lakota/Dakota/Nakota Tribes.

The legal issues surrounding the Black Hills Treaties and 

the 1980 Supreme Court decision to award monetary 

damages for the taking of the Black Hills are beyond the 

scope of this EIS. However, the Black Hills National 

Forest has a legal trust responsibility to actively engage 

in a government to government relationship with 

sovereign tribal nations. This responsibility is articulated 

in laws and executive orders as explained in the Cultural 

Resources section of Chapter 3 of the FEIS. The Forest 

maintains a notification mailing list for sixteen (16) 

federally recognized tribes, and regularly consults with 

Tribal representatives regarding projects authorized 

under the NHPA and the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA). The 16 different Tribes from five 

states have expressed traditional cultural, spiritual, or 

geographical interests in the Black Hills. Each Tribe 

was sent a copy of the Black Hills National Forest 

Travel Management Plan DEIS (USDA Forest Service 

549/1. 549/2.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2

2009) on March 12, 2009, with an invitation to 

comment and a Forest Service contact. Invitations were 

subsequently extended to each of the 16 Tribes to 

attend a formal government-to-government consultation 

meeting hosted by the Forest near Custer, SD, on April 

21, 2009. The primary purpose of that meeting was to 

discuss any questions or issues that Tribal 

representatives may have had pertaining to the Travel 

Management Project. The purpose and need for this 

project includes reducing adverse impacts caused by 

unmanaged route and area usage. We are confident that 

the decision on this project will lead to accomplishing 

this objective. 

4 1-3 Management Priorities. 1-3 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should support responsible 

multiple use of the National Forest to ensure 

consistency with the intent of Congress.

The Black Hills National Forest is managed under the 

principles of sustained multiple use as directed under the 

Multiple-use Sustained-Yield Act and other legislation 

relating to the National Forests. In carrying out this task 

the Forest Service strives to manage timber, livestock 

grazing, mining, and outdoor recreation in a manner 

that is environmentally sustainable over the long term. 

The purpose and need for this project includes elements 

of developing a transportation system to meet increasing 

demand for recreational opportunities and providing a 

range of quality experiences; reducing adverse impacts 

caused by unmanaged uses; and aligning travel and 

recreation opportunities with the management 

capabilities of the Forest. By meeting these objectives 

we hope to satisfy our mandate of multiple use 

management. However, we realize that parties with 

competing interests may feel they don't get everything 

they request, and may perceive the decision in different 

ways. 

126/26. 

5 1-3 Management Priorities. 1-3 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should support responsible 

multiple use of the National Forest to ensure 

consistency with the intent of Congress to be 

consistent with the original purpose of the 

National Forests.

The Black Hills National Forest is managed under the 

principles of sustained multiple use as directed under the 

Multiple-use Sustained-Yield Act and other legislation 

relating to the National Forests. In carrying out this task 

the Forest Service strives to manage timber, livestock 

grazing, mining, and outdoor recreation in a manner 

that is environmentally sustainable over the long term. 

The purpose and need for this project includes elements 

126/6. 304/4.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3

of developing a transportation system to meet increasing 

demand for recreational opportunities and providing a 

range of quality experiences; reducing adverse impacts 

caused by unmanaged uses; and aligning travel and 

recreation opportunities with the management 

capabilities of the Forest. By meeting these objectives 

we hope to satisfy our mandate of multiple use 

management. However, we realize that parties with 

competing interests may feel they don't get everything 

they request, and may perceive the decision in different 

ways. 

6 1-3 Management Priorities. 1-3 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should support responsible 

multiple use of the National Forest to be 

consistent with Federal law and the will of 

Congress.

The Black Hills National Forest is managed under the 

principles of sustained multiple use as directed under the 

Multiple-use Sustained-Yield Act and other legislation 

relating to the National Forests. In carrying out this task 

the Forest Service strives to manage timber, livestock 

grazing, mining, and outdoor recreation in a manner 

that is environmentally sustainable over the long term. 

The purpose and need for this project includes elements 

of developing a transportation system to meet increasing 

demand for recreational opportunities and providing a 

range of quality experiences; reducing adverse impacts 

caused by unmanaged uses; and aligning travel and 

recreation opportunities with the management 

capabilities of the Forest. By meeting these objectives 

we hope to satisfy our mandate of multiple use 

management. However, we realize that parties with 

competing interests may feel they don't get everything 

they request, and may perceive the decision in different 

ways. 

126/141. 126/142.

7 1-3 Management Priorities. 1-3 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should support responsible 

multiple use of the National Forest to be 

consistent with the will of the users.

The Black Hills National Forest is managed under the 

principles of sustained multiple use as directed under the 

Multiple-use Sustained-Yield Act and other legislation 

relating to the National Forests. In carrying out this task 

the Forest Service strives to manage timber, livestock 

grazing, mining, and outdoor recreation in a manner 

that is environmentally sustainable over the long term. 

The purpose and need for this project includes elements 

of developing a transportation system to meet increasing 

demand for recreational opportunities and providing a 

002/1. 126/40. 126/143. 251/3. 

304/3. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4

range of quality experiences; reducing adverse impacts 

caused by unmanaged uses; and aligning travel and 

recreation opportunities with the management 

capabilities of the Forest. By meeting these objectives 

we hope to satisfy our mandate of multiple use 

management. However, we realize that parties with 

competing interests may feel they don't get everything 

they request, and may perceive the decision in different 

ways. 

8 1-4 Management Priorities. 1-4 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should support sustainable 

practices in the management of the forest for 

multiple use for future generations.

The Black Hills National Forest is managed under the 

principles of sustained multiple use as directed under the 

Multiple-use Sustained-Yield Act and other legislation 

relating to the National Forests. In carrying out this task 

the Forest Service strives to manage timber, livestock 

grazing, mining, and outdoor recreation in a manner 

that is environmentally sustainable over the long term. 

The purpose and need for this project includes elements 

of developing a transportation system to meet increasing 

demand for recreational opportunities and providing a 

range of quality experiences; reducing adverse impacts 

caused by unmanaged uses; and aligning travel and 

recreation opportunities with the management 

capabilities of the Forest. By meeting these objectives 

we hope to satisfy our mandate of multiple use 

management. However, we realize that parties with 

competing interests may feel they don't get everything 

they request, and may perceive the decision in different 

ways. 

456/1.

9 1-5 Management Priorities. 1-5 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should better balance the 

management of renewable surface resources and 

other multiple uses with motorized recreation to 

better meet the needs of the public.

The comprehensive balancing of multiple uses on a 

national forest, as requested by this comment, is 

designed to occur during the forest planning process as 

outlined in the National Forest Management Act of 

1976. The Black Hills National Forest is currently 

managed under the broad direction in the Revised 

Forest Plan as Amended. The decision on this project, 

as on any project, must fit within that broad direction, 

which provides for areas open to more and less 

intensive uses. The analysis presented in Chapter 3 of 

the FEIS discloses the effects of motorized recreation 

under the alternatives on other resources and on non458/5. 458/6. 461/12.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

5

motorized recreation experiences. The effects disclosed 

for each resource consider the cumulative effects of 

motorized recreation when added to other past, present 

and reasonably foreseeable actions. 

10 1-6 Management Priorities. 1-6 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should prioritize active 

management of motorized recreation to avoid 

eliminating motorized recreation from public 

lands.

The Forest also believes that a consciously designed or 

“active” motorized travel system would improve on the 

current “passive” unmanaged system, which has evolved 

in an unplanned manner over time. An active system 

would meet a variety of motorized and non-motorized 

recreation needs and desires while reducing effects of 

motorized recreation on natural and cultural resources, 

as well as minimizing conflicts among uses. The Forest 

will provide access for both motorized and nonmotorized users in a manner that is environmentally 

sustainable over the long term. The forest is not 

reserved for the exclusive use of any one group, nor 

must every use be accommodated on every acre. It is 

entirely appropriate for different areas of the forest to 

provide different opportunities for recreation. The 

Forest believes such choices and evaluations are best 

made with full involvement of Federal, tribal, State, and 

local governments, motorized and non-motorized users, 

and other interested parties, as provided for in the final 

rule. National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

use. These uses must be balanced, rather than one given 

preference over another. Our intent is to provide for a 

variety of recreational experiences within the 

management and resource capabilities of the Forest. We 

will comply with the 2005 Travel Rule as well as other 

applicable laws, regulations, policies and executive 

orders. 

461/17. 

11 1-7 Management Priorities. 1-7 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should better balance motorized 

and non-motorized uses to better support nonmotorized dispersed recreation.

The Travel Management Rule requires the Forest, 

working with the public, to designate which roads, trails, 

and areas are available for motor vehicle use. The rule 

prohibits use off the designated system. In developing 

Alternative D, the Forest considered minimization of 

conflicts among uses of NFS lands. The Forest also 

considered compatibility of motor vehicle use with 

existing conditions in populated areas, taking into 

account sound, emissions, and other factors. A system 

434/1. 465/18.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

6

of walk-in areas established outside the designation 

process is outside the scope of this decision. Effects of 

motorized use under each alternative on non-motorized 

recreation experience is analyzed and disclosed in the 

Recreation section of Chapter 3 of the FEIS. 

12 1-8 Management Priorities. 1-8 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should avoid too strict an 

interpretation of the national off-highway vehicle 

(OHV) criteria and standards because the national 

policy may not fit the site-specific conditions in 

the Black Hills.

The Forest will provide access for both motorized and 

non-motorized users in a manner that is 

environmentally sustainable over the long term. The 

forest is not reserved for the exclusive use of any one 

group, nor must every use be accommodated on every 

acre. It is entirely appropriate for different areas of the 

forest to provide different opportunities for recreation. 

The Forest believes such choices and evaluations are 

best made with full involvement of Federal, tribal, State, 

and local governments, motorized and non-motorized 

users, and other interested parties, as provided for in the 

final rule. National Forests are managed by law for 

multiple use. These uses must be balanced, rather than 

one given preference over another. Our intent is to 

provide for a variety of recreational experiences within 

the management and resource capabilities of the Forest. 

We will comply with the 2005 Travel Rule as well as 

other applicable laws, regulations, policies and executive 

orders. 

126/53. 126/54.

13 1-9 Management Priorities. 1-9 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should recognize that some 

consideration of non-motorized uses in the plan 

is appropriate.

The Travel Management Rule requires the Forest, 

working with the public, to designate which roads, trails, 

and areas are available for motor vehicle use. The rule 

prohibits use off the designated system. This current 

effort is focused on planning and designating routes and 

areas for motorized use, but this is done within the 

context of the effects of motorized use on other 

resources and non-motorized recreation under any of 

the alternatives are considered and disclosed in the 

Recreation section of Chapter 3 of the FEIS. The 

Forest will provide access for both motorized and nonmotorized users in a manner that is environmentally 

sustainable over the long term. The forest is not 

reserved for the exclusive use of any one group, nor 

must every use be accommodated on every acre. It is 

entirely appropriate for different areas of the forest to 

456/11. 458/18.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

7

provide different opportunities for recreation. The 

Forest believes such choices and evaluations are best 

made with full involvement of Federal, tribal, State, and 

local governments, motorized and non-motorized users, 

and other interested parties, as provided for in the final 

rule. National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

use. These uses must be balanced, rather than one given 

preference over another. Our intent is to provide for a 

variety of recreational experiences within the 

management and resource capabilities of the Forest. We 

will comply with the 2005 Travel Rule as well as other 

applicable laws, regulations, policies and executive 

orders. 

14 1-10 Management Priorities. 1-10 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should avoid using the 

motorized travel planning process for designating 

non-motorized uses because doing so is an 

inappropriate use of the process.

The Forest Service agrees that site-specific analyses and 

decisions designating routes and areas for motor vehicle 

use are best made at the local level, with full 

involvement of Federal, tribal, State, and local 

governments, motorized and non-motorized users, and 

other interested parties, as provided for in this final rule. 

The focus of this effort is designation of motorized 

routes and areas, as required by the 2005 Travel Rule. 

This effort fits within the comprehensive direction for 

motorized and non-motorized recreation provided by 

the Revised Forest Plan. 

126/15.

15 1-11 Management Priorities. 1-11 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should acknowledge that the 

public opposes further reductions in recreational 

access.

Thank you for your comment. The Forest Service will 

rely heavily on public involvement for this project in 

making this decision. 

126/90.

16 1-12 Management Priorities. 1-12 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should ensure that the plan is 

successful for recreational users of the forest.

Thank you for your comment. 047/5. 545/1.

17 1-13 Management Priorities. 1-13 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should provide for biological 

diversity along with other multiple uses of the 

forest to comply with the multiple-use-sustained 

yield act of 1960 (MUSYA) and National Forest 

Management Act (NFMA).

As the comment points out, national forests including 

the Black Hills National Forest are managed under the 

principles of sustained multiple use as described under 

the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act, the National 

Forest Management Act, and other legislation relating to 

the National Forests. The Revised Forest Plan as 

Amended provides the overarching direction for 

management of lands on the Forest. The decision on 

this project including any Forest Plan amendments will 

458/2. 458/3.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

8

be consistent with the Forest Plan, as required. The 

effects of motorized use under any of the alternatives on 

other resources and non-motorized recreation are

disclosed in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. 

18 1-14 Management Priorities. 1-14 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should prioritize preservation 

of the environment, cultural resources, and fish 

and wildlife habitat when making travel 

management decisions.

The alternatives considered different ways of meeting 

the purpose and need, and addressed the issues 

including effects on natural resources in different ways. 

The effects of motorized use under any of the 

alternatives on other resources and non-motorized 

recreation are disclosed in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. 

027/1. 363/5.

19 1-15 Management Priorities. 1-15 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should promote exercise and 

nonpetroleum-based travel.

Thank you for your comment. 083/3.

20 1-16 Public Involvement. 1-16 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should fully disclose the intent of 

proposed agency actions to help reduce the level 

of mistrust of the agency.

The final rule established a procedural framework for 

local decision making with ample opportunities for 

public involvement. The purpose and need in Chapter 1 

of the FEIS accurately states the intent of the agency 

with respect to this proposal. The decision will be based 

on broad public input gathered over the past six years 

and made in accordance with the criteria in 212.55 of 

the rule. The Forest Service will attempt to balance 

competing needs, desires, and obligations, and will 

explain the decision and its rationale in the Record of 

Decision. We realize that some Forest users may feel 

their needs have not been fully met. 

126/59.

21 1-17 Public Involvement. 1-17 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge the level of 

complexity of the plan and related documents.

The Forest acknowledges the complexity of the travel 

management planning process.

293/3.

22 1-18 Influences on Decision Making. 1-18 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should not use the 

volume of comments to influence its decision 

making to avoid inappropriate bias toward nonmotorized groups and comply with the intent of 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The Forest Service agrees that the travel management 

plan decision is not a vote, and has said so repeatedly. 

However, this is the point in time at which the decision 

will be made on motorized recreation management, and 

it is the time for all affected parties to make their 

interests known to the decision maker. The agency was 

most interested in the substantive points of the 

comments received on the DEIS, and not the number 

of times they were repeated. The Forest Service 

evaluated the content of these public concerns rather 

than the quantity of responses received supporting a 

particular view. Responses to comments will be 

126/222. 126/223.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

9

reflected appropriately in the FEIS. The decision on 

this project will be complex and will rightly consider 

numerous factors. 

23 1-19 Influences on Decision Making. 1-19 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should not use the 

level of effectiveness or participation of a group 

of users as the deciding factor in decision making 

to comply with the intent of NEPA.

The Forest Service agrees that the travel management 

plan decision is not a vote, and has said so repeatedly. 

However, this is the point in time at which the decision 

will be made on motorized recreation management, and 

it is the time for all affected parties to make their 

interests known to the decision maker. The agency was 

most interested in the substantive points of the 

comments received on the DEIS, and not the number 

of times they were repeated. The Forest Service 

evaluated the content of these public concerns rather 

than the quantity of responses received supporting a 

particular view. Responses to comments will be 

reflected appropriately in the FEIS. The decision on 

this project will be complex and will rightly consider 

numerous factors. 

126/224.

24 1-20 Influences on Decision Making. 1-20 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should base 

decisions on public need regardless of the 

economic costs and possibility of legal challenges.

Thank you for your comment. 126/156.

25 1-21 Influences on Decision Making. 1-21 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should listen to all 

public comment not just to special interest 

groups.

The Forest Service agrees that the travel management 

plan decision is not a vote, and has said so repeatedly. 

However, this is the point in time at which the decision 

will be made on motorized recreation management, and 

it is the time for all affected parties to make their 

interests known to the decision maker. The agency was 

most interested in the substantive points of the 

comments received on the DEIS, and not the number 

of times they were repeated. The Forest Service 

evaluated the content of these public concerns rather 

than the quantity of responses received supporting a 

particular view. Responses to comments will be 

reflected appropriately in the FEIS. The decision on 

this project will be complex and will rightly consider 

numerous factors. 

277/4

26 1-22 Influences on Decision Making. 1-22 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should take into 

account the large number of NEPA projects and 

The Forest will provide access for both motorized and 

non-motorized users in a manner that is 

environmentally sustainable over the long term. The 

126/91.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

10

use patterns when evaluating public comment to 

ensure that non-motorized groups do not have 

inordinate influence.

forest is not reserved for the exclusive use of any one 

group, nor must every use be accommodated on every 

acre. It is entirely appropriate for different areas of the 

forest to provide different opportunities for recreation. 

The Forest believes such choices and evaluations are 

best made with full involvement of Federal, tribal, State, 

and local governments, motorized and non-motorized 

users, and other interested parties, as provided for in the 

final rule. National Forests are managed by law for 

multiple use. These uses must be balanced, rather than 

one given preference over another. Our intent is to 

provide for a variety of recreational experiences within 

the management and resource capabilities of the Forest. 

We will comply with the 2005 Travel Rule as well as 

other applicable laws, regulations, policies and executive 

orders. 

271-23 Influences on Decision Making. 1-23 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should avoid giving 

inappropriate authority to the Black Hills 

National Forest Advisory Board (NFAB) because

the NFAB is not an elected body and to ensure 

the process is fair to all stakeholders.

The Forest will provide access for both motorized and 

non-motorized users in a manner that is 

environmentally sustainable over the long term. The 

forest is not reserved for the exclusive use of any one 

group, nor must every use be accommodated on every 

acre. It is entirely appropriate for different areas of the 

forest to provide different opportunities for recreation. 

The Forest believes such choices and evaluations are 

best made with full involvement of Federal, tribal, State, 

and local governments, motorized and non-motorized 

users, and other interested parties, as provided for in the 

final rule. National Forests are managed by law for 

multiple use. These uses must be balanced, rather than 

one given preference over another. Our intent is to 

provide for a variety of recreational experiences within 

the management and resource capabilities of the Forest. 

We will comply with the 2005 Travel Rule as well as 

other applicable laws, regulations, policies and executive 

orders. The National Forest Advisory Board (NFAB) is 

a body of citizens properly chartered under the terms of 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Board 

membership is made up of individuals and groups 

representing a spectrum of interests. The specific 

charter of the Board is to provide advice and 

578/12.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

11

recommendations to the Black Hills National Forest on 

a broad range of issues, and to provide opportunities for 

collaboration with parties interested in or affected by 

management of the Forest. The Board acted entirely 

within its role in offering recommendations on which to 

base a travel management proposal. The Forest Service 

acted entirely within the law in accepting the 

recommendations, and appreciates the work of the 

Board. 

281-24 Influences on Decision Making. 1-24 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should clarify the 

role the NFAB has played in the process to 

remove the appearance that Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations were 

violated.

The Forest will provide access for both motorized and 

non-motorized users in a manner that is 

environmentally sustainable over the long term. The 

forest is not reserved for the exclusive use of any one 

group, nor must every use be accommodated on every 

acre. It is entirely appropriate for different areas of the 

forest to provide different opportunities for recreation. 

The Forest believes such choices and evaluations are 

best made with full involvement of Federal, tribal, State, 

and local governments, motorized and non-motorized 

users, and other interested parties, as provided for in the 

final rule. National Forests are managed by law for 

multiple use. These uses must be balanced, rather than 

one given preference over another. Our intent is to 

provide for a variety of recreational experiences within 

the management and resource capabilities of the Forest. 

We will comply with the 2005 Travel Rule as well as 

other applicable laws, regulations, policies and executive 

orders. The National Forest Advisory Board (NFAB) is 

a body of citizens properly chartered under the terms of 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Board 

membership is made up of individuals and groups 

representing a spectrum of interests. The specific 

charter of the Board is to provide advice and 

recommendations to the Black Hills National Forest on 

a broad range of issues, and to provide opportunities for 

collaboration with parties interested in or affected by 

management of the Forest. The Board acted entirely 

within its role in offering recommendations on which to 

base a travel management proposal. The Forest Service 

acted entirely within the law in accepting the 

578/15.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

12

recommendations, and appreciates the work of the 

Board. 

29 1-25 Influences on Decision Making. 1-25 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should clarify the 

relationship between NFAB‟s decision-making 

process and past public comments, the DEIS 

administrative record, and the appeals process.

The Forest will provide access for both motorized and 

non-motorized users in a manner that is 

environmentally sustainable over the long term. The 

forest is not reserved for the exclusive use of any one 

group, nor must every use be accommodated on every 

acre. It is entirely appropriate for different areas of the 

forest to provide different opportunities for recreation. 

The Forest believes such choices and evaluations are 

best made with full involvement of Federal, tribal, State, 

and local governments, motorized and non-motorized 

users, and other interested parties, as provided for in the 

final rule. National Forests are managed by law for 

multiple use. These uses must be balanced, rather than 

one given preference over another. Our intent is to 

provide for a variety of recreational experiences within 

the management and resource capabilities of the Forest. 

We will comply with the 2005 Travel Rule as well as 

other applicable laws, regulations, policies and executive 

orders. The National Forest Advisory Board (NFAB) is 

a body of citizens properly chartered under the terms of 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Board 

membership is made up of individuals and groups 

representing a spectrum of interests. The specific 

charter of the Board is to provide advice and 

recommendations to the Black Hills National Forest on 

a broad range of issues, and to provide opportunities for 

collaboration with parties interested in or affected by 

management of the Forest. The Board acted entirely 

within its role in offering recommendations on which to 

base a travel management proposal. The Forest Service 

acted entirely within the law in accepting the 

recommendations, and appreciates the work of the 

Board. 

293/4.

30 1-26 Influences on Decision Making. 1-26 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should base 

management decisions on input from a 

management team that is representative of all 

forest users to reduce bias against motorized 

The Forest will provide access for both motorized and 

non-motorized users in a manner that is 

environmentally sustainable over the long term. The 

forest is not reserved for the exclusive use of any one 

group, nor must every use be accommodated on every 

126/198. 126/199.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

13

recreationists. acre. It is entirely appropriate for different areas of the 

forest to provide different opportunities for recreation. 

The Forest believes such choices and evaluations are 

best made with full involvement of Federal, tribal, State, 

and local governments, motorized and non-motorized 

users, and other interested parties, as provided for in the 

final rule. National Forests are managed by law for 

multiple use. These uses must be balanced, rather than 

one given preference over another. Our intent is to 

provide for a variety of recreational experiences within 

the management and resource capabilities of the Forest. 

We will comply with the 2005 Travel Rule as well as 

other applicable laws, regulations, policies and executive 

orders. The National Forest Advisory Board (NFAB) is 

a body of citizens properly chartered under the terms of 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Board 

membership is made up of individuals and groups 

representing a spectrum of interests. The specific 

charter of the Board is to provide advice and 

recommendations to the Black Hills National Forest on 

a broad range of issues, and to provide opportunities for 

collaboration with parties interested in or affected by 

management of the Forest. The Board acted entirely 

within its role in offering recommendations on which to 

base a travel management proposal. The Forest Service 

acted entirely within the law in accepting the 

recommendations, and appreciates the work of the 

Board. Extensive public involvement both during 

development of the proposal (before NEPA), and 

during the NEPA analysis process, solicited and 

considered input from a variety of forest users including 

individuals and groups from the motorized recreation 

community. The decision will consider all input 

received on the project. 

31 1-27 Influences on Decision Making. 1-27 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should establish a 

Multiple-Use Review Board to ensure that the 

decision making reflects multiple-use 

management goals.

The Forest will provide access for both motorized and 

non-motorized users in a manner that is 

environmentally sustainable over the long term. The 

forest is not reserved for the exclusive use of any one 

group, nor must every use be accommodated on every 

acre. It is entirely appropriate for different areas of the 

126/246. 126/247. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

14

forest to provide different opportunities for recreation. 

The Forest believes such choices and evaluations are 

best made with full involvement of Federal, tribal, State, 

and local governments, motorized and non-motorized 

users, and other interested parties, as provided for in the 

final rule. National Forests are managed by law for 

multiple use. These uses must be balanced, rather than 

one given preference over another. Our intent is to 

provide for a variety of recreational experiences within 

the management and resource capabilities of the Forest. 

We will comply with the 2005 Travel Rule as well as 

other applicable laws, regulations, policies and executive 

orders. The National Forest Advisory Board (NFAB) is 

a body of citizens properly chartered under the terms of 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Board 

membership is made up of individuals and groups 

representing a spectrum of interests. The specific 

charter of the Board is to provide advice and 

recommendations to the Black Hills National Forest on 

a broad range of issues, and to provide opportunities for 

collaboration with parties interested in or affected by 

management of the Forest. The Board acted entirely 

within its role in offering recommendations on which to 

base a travel management proposal. The Forest Service 

acted entirely within the law in accepting the 

recommendations, and appreciates the work of the 

Board. The Revised Forest Plan provides the multipleuse management goals for the Forest, and that the 

decision on this project will be consistent with the 

Revised Forest Plan including any Plan amendments. 

32 1-28 Influences on Decision Making. 1-28 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should use an 

adequate peer review plan and process to ensure 

that experts are qualified and neutral about 

motorized recreation.

The analysis for this project was conducted by an 

interdisciplinary team of Forest Service resource 

personnel. The analysis process included review of 

relevant scientific literature. The team members 

included and cited literature as appropriate in arriving at 

their determinations. The analysis and effects 

disclosures are explained in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. 

Public comment was solicited and reviewed, and will be 

considered in the decision on this project. 

126/207. 126/208. 

33 1-29 Influences on Decision Making. 1-29 Public The analysis for this project was conducted by an 126/217. 126/218. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

15

Concern: The Forest Service should include 

independent scientists in the planning and review 

process to ensure that the plan is appropriately 

documented and includes supporting data.

interdisciplinary team of Forest Service resource

personnel. The analysis process included review of 

relevant scientific literature. The team members 

included and cited literature as appropriate in arriving at 

their determinations. The analysis and effects 

disclosures are explained in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. 

Public comment was solicited and reviewed, and will be 

considered in the decision on this project. 

341-30 Influences on Decision Making. 1-30 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should avoid giving 

undue influence to motorized users because they 

are a small percentage of visitors.

The Forest Service agrees that the travel management 

plan decision is not a vote, and has said so repeatedly. 

However, this is the point in time at which the decision 

will be made on motorized recreation management, and 

it is the time for all affected parties to make their 

interests known to the decision maker. The agency was 

most interested in the substantive points of the 

comments received on the DEIS, and not the number 

of times they were repeated. The Forest Service 

evaluated the content of these public concerns rather 

than the quantity of responses received supporting a 

particular view. Responses to comments will be 

reflected appropriately in the FEIS. The decision on 

this project will be complex and will rightly consider 

numerous factors. 

372/1.

351-30 Influences on Decision Making. The Forest 

Service should avoid giving undue influence to 

motorized users because they are a small 

percentage of visitors because more visitors are 

interested in quiet recreation.

The Forest Service agrees that the travel management 

plan decision is not a vote, and has said so repeatedly. 

However, this is the point in time at which the decision 

will be made on motorized recreation management, and 

it is the time for all affected parties to make their 

interests known to the decision maker. The agency was 

most interested in the substantive points of the 

comments received on the DEIS, and not the number 

of times they were repeated. The Forest Service 

evaluated the content of these public concerns rather 

than the quantity of responses received supporting a 

particular view. Responses to comments will be 

reflected appropriately in the FEIS. The decision on 

this project will be complex and will rightly consider 

numerous factors. 

578/1.

361-31 Influences on Decision Making. 1-31 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should avoid giving 

The Forest will provide access for both motorized and 

non-motorized users in a manner that is 

399/11.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

16

undue influence to motorized users and the 

businesses that support motorized recreation 

because population increases will result in greater 

demand for non-motorized recreation.

environmentally sustainable over the long term. The 

forest is not reserved for the exclusive use of any one 

group, nor must every use be accommodated on every 

acre. It is entirely appropriate for different areas of the 

forest to provide different opportunities for recreation. 

The Forest believes such choices and evaluations are 

best made with full involvement of Federal, tribal, State, 

and local governments, motorized and non-motorized 

users, and other interested parties, as provided for in the 

final rule. National Forests are managed by law for 

multiple use. These uses must be balanced, rather than 

one given preference over another. Our intent is to 

provide for a variety of recreational experiences within 

the management and resource capabilities of the Forest. 

We will comply with the 2005 Travel Rule as well as 

other applicable laws, regulations, policies and executive 

orders. 

371-32 Influences on Decision Making. 1-32 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should consider the 

input of the Off-Road Riders Association because 

they expended considerable effort into their 

analysis of the alternatives.

The Forest Service appreciates the participation by all 

parties, and will consider all of the public input received 

on this project. 

216/2.

381-33 Influences on Decision Making. 1-33 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should ensure that 

the needs of motorized users are fairly considered 

to avoid being overly influenced by non-

motorized groups.

The Forest will provide access for both motorized and 

non-motorized users in a manner that is 

environmentally sustainable over the long term. The 

forest is not reserved for the exclusive use of any one 

group, nor must every use be accommodated on every 

acre. It is entirely appropriate for different areas of the 

forest to provide different opportunities for recreation. 

The Forest believes such choices and evaluations are 

best made with full involvement of Federal, tribal, State, 

and local governments, motorized and non-motorized 

users, and other interested parties, as provided for in the 

final rule. National Forests are managed by law for 

multiple use. These uses must be balanced, rather than 

one given preference over another. Our intent is to 

provide for a variety of recreational experiences within 

the management and resource capabilities of the Forest. 

We will comply with the 2005 Travel Rule as well as 

other applicable laws, regulations, policies and executive 

126/70.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

17

orders. 

39 1-33 Influences on Decision Making. 1-33 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should ensure that 

the needs of motorized users are fairly considered 

including the cumulative impacts of road and trail 

closures.

The Forest will provide access for both motorized and 

non-motorized users in a manner that is 

environmentally sustainable over the long term. The 

forest is not reserved for the exclusive use of any one 

group, nor must every use be accommodated on every 

acre. It is entirely appropriate for different areas of the 

forest to provide different opportunities for recreation. 

The Forest believes such choices and evaluations are 

best made with full involvement of Federal, tribal, State, 

and local governments, motorized and non-motorized 

users, and other interested parties, as provided for in the 

final rule. National Forests are managed by law for 

multiple use. These uses must be balanced, rather than 

one given preference over another. Our intent is to 

provide for a variety of recreational experiences within 

the management and resource capabilities of the Forest. 

We will comply with the 2005 Travel Rule as well as 

other applicable laws, regulations, policies and executive 

orders. 

126/29.

40 1-34 Influences on Decision Making. 1-34 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should avoid giving 

undue weight to the needs of motorized 

recreationists because while they are a vocal and 

aggressive group, they are a small minority of 

users.

The Forest will provide access for both motorized and 

non-motorized users in a manner that is 

environmentally sustainable over the long term. The 

forest is not reserved for the exclusive use of any one 

group, nor must every use be accommodated on every 

acre. It is entirely appropriate for different areas of the 

forest to provide different opportunities for recreation. 

The Forest believes such choices and evaluations are 

best made with full involvement of Federal, tribal, State, 

and local governments, motorized and non-motorized 

users, and other interested parties, as provided for in the 

final rule. National Forests are managed by law for 

multiple use. These uses must be balanced, rather than 

one given preference over another. Our intent is to 

provide for a variety of recreational experiences within 

the management and resource capabilities of the Forest. 

We will comply with the 2005 Travel Rule as well as 

other applicable laws, regulations, policies and executive 

orders. Add that the Forest Service has broadly solicited 

public involvement on this project a number of times. 

424/3. 456/7. 456/8. 456/9.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

18

Members of the public were responsible for their own 

decisions on whether and how to respond. The meeting 

alluded to in the comment was held during the 

development of the proposal, prior to scoping, and was 

designed in part to educate the public on motorized 

recreation and on the then-new Travel Rule. The Forest 

Service will consider all public input received in making 

the decision on this project. 

41 1-35 Influences on Decision Making. 1-35 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should identify and 

disclose the influence of groups with annual 

budgets of greater than $100,000 to remove 

political influences that obscure the public 

benefit.

The Forest will provide access for both motorized and 

non-motorized users in a manner that is 

environmentally sustainable over the long term. The 

forest is not reserved for the exclusive use of any one 

group, nor must every use be accommodated on every 

acre. It is entirely appropriate for different areas of the 

forest to provide different opportunities for recreation. 

The Forest believes such choices and evaluations are 

best made with full involvement of Federal, tribal, State, 

and local governments, motorized and non-motorized 

users, and other interested parties, as provided for in the 

final rule. National Forests are managed by law for 

multiple use. These uses must be balanced, rather than 

one given preference over another. Our intent is to 

provide for a variety of recreational experiences within 

the management and resource capabilities of the Forest. 

We will comply with the 2005 Travel Rule as well as 

other applicable laws, regulations, policies and executive 

orders. 

126/14.

42 1-36 Influences on Decision Making. 1-36 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should avoid giving 

undue influence to moneyed groups who are 

smaller in number.

The Forest will provide access for both motorized and 

non-motorized users in a manner that is 

environmentally sustainable over the long term. The 

forest is not reserved for the exclusive use of any one 

group, nor must every use be accommodated on every 

acre. It is entirely appropriate for different areas of the 

forest to provide different opportunities for recreation. 

The Forest believes such choices and evaluations are 

best made with full involvement of Federal, tribal, State, 

and local governments, motorized and non-motorized 

users, and other interested parties, as provided for in the 

final rule. National Forests are managed by law for 

multiple use. These uses must be balanced, rather than 

126/224. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

19

one given preference over another. Our intent is to 

provide for a variety of recreational experiences within 

the management and resource capabilities of the Forest. 

We will comply with the 2005 Travel Rule as well as 

other applicable laws, regulations, policies and executive 

orders. 

43 1-37 Influences on Decision Making. 1-37 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should acknowledge 

that one ranger should not be able to affect so 

many users.

The Forest Service has broadly solicited public 

involvement on this project a number of times. The 

Forest Service will consider all public input received in 

making the decision on this project. By law the decision 

is reserved to a line officer within the Forest Service, 

which is the steward of the Federal lands administered 

by the Black Hills National Forest. 

230/11. 424/8.

44 1-38 DEIS Accessibility, Comment Period & 

Commenting Process. 1-38 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that problems 

with the website reduced access to the 

documents.

Due to technical problems with the FS web site and 

formal requests for extension, the DEIS comment 

period was extended by 14 days. 

293/6.

45 1-39 DEIS Accessibility, Comment Period & 

Commenting Process. 1-39 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should extend the comment period 

by 30 days.

The Forest Service does not agree that the Forest Plan 

amendments proposed as a part of each action 

alternative rise to the level of significant amendments. 

Their significance will be assessed and explained as part 

of the decision. Due to technical problems with the FS 

web site and formal requests for extension, the DEIS 

comment period was extended by 14 days. 

293/9. 578/2.

46 1-39 DEIS Accessibility, Comment Period & 

Commenting Process. 1-39 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should extend the comment period 

because the Forest's website was down for 

approximately two weeks.

Due to technical problems with the FS web site and 

formal requests for extension, the DEIS comment 

period was extended by 14 days. 

136/2.

47 1-39 DEIS Accessibility, Comment Period & 

Commenting Process. 1-39 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should extend the comment period 

to give the public and agencies enough time to 

review the document.

Due to technical problems with the FS web site and 

formal requests for extension, the DEIS comment 

period was extended by 14 days. 

293/5. 

48 1-39 DEIS Accessibility, Comment Period & 

Commenting Process. 1-39 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should extend the comment period 

because the size of the project warrants a longer 

comment period.

Due to technical problems with the FS web site and 

formal requests for extension, the DEIS comment 

period was extended by 14 days. 

136/1. 432/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

20

49 1-39 DEIS Accessibility, Comment Period & 

Commenting Process. 1-39 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should extend the comment period 

because the original timeframe was too short, 

winter weather has precluded field checking of 

the document, the BHNF websites was down, 

and there were delays in receiving the complete 

DEIS.

Due to technical problems with the FS web site and 

formal requests for extension, the DEIS comment 

period was extended by 14 days. 

238/1.

50 1-40 DEIS Accessibility, Comment Period & 

Commenting Process. 1-40 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should extend the comment period 

to 90 days to comply with 36 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) Section 219.8.

The regulation at 36 CFR 219 implements the 

provisions of the National Forest Management Act with 

respect to forest planning. The commenter was unclear 

as to which version of the regulation they cite, but the 

direction cited does appear in the version of 2000 as 

amended and clarified. Specifically, Section 219.8(b) 

states in part: "A proposed amendment that may create a 

significant environmental effect and thus require preparation of an 

environmental impact statement is considered to be a significant 

change in the plan. If a proposal for amendment requires the 

preparation of an environmental impact statement, the responsible 

official must give public notice and an opportunity to comment on 

the draft environmental impact statement for at least 90 calendar 

days." This version of the regulation is currently in 

effect. However, we point out that the Travel 

Management Plan was not proposed solely to amend the 

Forest Plan, but rather to comply with direction in the 

2005 Travel Rule. The proposal is to designate routes 

and areas for motorized travel. Thus this is a project 

decision, not a forest planning decision, and the portion 

of the regulation cited in the comment does not apply. 

Due to technical problems with the FS web site and 

formal requests for extension, the DEIS comment 

period was extended by 14 days. 

580/1. 581/1.

51 1-41 DEIS Accessibility, Comment Period & 

Commenting Process. 1-41 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should accept all comments sent 

on the final day of the comment period rather 

than only accepting those received by that day.

Responses postmarked on or before the comment 

period closure date were considered timely submissions 

and accepted.

580/2. 581/2.

52 1-41 DEIS Accessibility, Comment Period & 

Commenting Process. 1-41 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should accept all comments sent 

Responses postmarked on or before the comment 

period closure date were considered timely submissions 

and accepted.

580/3. 581/3.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

21

on the final day of the comment period to comply 

with 36 CFR 215.6(a)(4)(1).

531-42 DEIS Accessibility, Comment Period & 

Commenting Process. 1-42 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should ensure that public comment 

can be received as advertised because the email 

address and fax number did not work on March 

11.

The Forest Service regrets that the commenter 

experienced problems in transmitting their comments. 

It is the commenter's responsibility to ensure timely 

receipt of their comments. Due to technical problems 

with the FS web site and formal requests for extension, 

the DEIS comment period was extended by 14 days. 

048/1.

541-43 Scoping Process. 1-43 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that the 

nature of the scoping process may have confused 

the public thereby skewing the resulting 

comments.

The Forest acknowledges the complexity of the travel 

management planning process. Travel analysis is a 

necessary step in the Route Designation Process as 

outlined in the Travel Management Rule. The travel 

analysis conducted in 2007 was a broad-scale analysis 

that resulted in a travel management proposal, to be 

evaluated through the NEPA process. This proposal 

was then formally carried into the NEPA process 

through scoping. The Notice of Intent and scoping 

letters speak for themselves. 

578/13.

551-44 Scoping Process. 1-44 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should clarify what role the pre-

scoping activities played in the planning process 

and explain what parts of that process will be 

included in the administrative record.

The Forest Service understood the travel planning 

process would be complex and would be of interest to 

many parties, so the agency worked closely with the 

National Forest Advisory Board (NFAB) to better 

understand the issues and some possible approaches 

before entering the NEPA process. The Forest Service 

believes this work was valuable in focusing the NEPA 

analysis, and it is documented in the administrative 

record. 

578/11.

561-45 Scoping Process. 1-45 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should explain how public 

comment received during scoping was used in 

alternative development.

The Forest Service developed the proposed action (PA) 

based on NFAB recommendations and agency data and 

knowledge. The PA was modified to correct data errors 

and to refine routes, but the intent remained the same. 

The PA became Alternative B, which is explained in the 

EIS in Chapter 2, along with Alternatives C, D and E. 

The analysis of scoping comments and development of 

issues is explained in the DEIS in Appendix D, and in 

Chapter 1. This information is carried over to the FEIS. 

578/17.

571-46 Scoping Process. 1-46 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should explain how the modified 

proposed action alternative was influenced by 

scoping comments.

Administrative corrections were made due to database 

errors discovered by the Forest Service during the 

development of alternatives to the Proposed Action. 

Mapping errors were also brought to our attention by 

578/14.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

22

comments received during the scoping period.

58 1-47 Public Outreach. 1-47 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should revise its approach to 

public outreach to ensure that motorized users are 

more fairly included.

The Forest Service solicited comments from the public 

in several ways and forums including open houses, 

meetings and mailings. All of these are legitimate means 

of soliciting public comment. Over 700 responses were 

received at scoping including over 400 Black Hills OHV 

forms; and over 1200 responses were received on the 

DEIS. All comments were considered in the analysis. 

See FEIS Appendixes D and I for more information. 

126/126.

59 1-48 Public Outreach. 1-48 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should improve outreach to nonmotorized users because the plan was marketed as 

a motorized plan but will impact all users.

A significant number of comments were received at 

scoping and at the DEIS stage expressing concerns for 

both motorized and non-motorized recreation 

opportunity. All of these comments were considered in 

the analysis. Please see response to Public Concern 1-

47. 

141/2.

60 1-49 Public Outreach. 1-49 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should improve outreach to 

motorized users because many no longer trust the 

process.

Please see response to Public Concerns 1-47 and 1-48. 126/95. 126/221. 

61 1-49 Public Outreach. 1-49 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should improve outreach to 

motorized users to reduce the appearance of bias.

Please see response to Public Concerns 1-47 and 1-48. 322/11.

62 1-50 Public Outreach. 1-50 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should get OHV user buy-in to the 

program to reduce violations and problems.

We agree that compliance with any travel management 

plan will be greater with wider user acceptance. The 

Forest Service has sought to consult with a range of 

Forest users through various means including open 

houses, meetings and mailings. Comments from a range 

of users were considered in developing the range of 

alternatives considered in the EIS, and these will also be 

considered in the decision. 

593/14. 606/14.

63 1-51 Public Outreach. 1-51 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should avoid using meeting 

facilitators who use manipulative techniques as 

part of the public participation process to 

preserve trust in the process.

The aim of the open houses and meetings held by the 

Forest Service for this effort was not to achieve 

consensus, but rather to identify a variety of concerns, 

and to tap the knowledge of users about routes and 

preferences. The information gained from all parties at 

these events was considered in the analysis and will be 

considered in the decision. 

126/225. 126/226.

64 1-52 Public Outreach. 1-52 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should coordinate directly with 

affected landowners.

This comment pertains to an individual situation, and a 

request for a meeting with Forest leadership. The 

Forest Supervisor responded directly to this party. No 

038/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

23

further response is required here. 

651-53 Public Outreach. 1-53 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should improve communication 

with communities, counties, and affected 

businesses because the trail system will have a 

significant impact on them.

The Forest Supervisor met with representatives from 

counties containing lands managed by the Black Hills 

National Forest at the scoping stage of the project. 

Copies of the DEIS were mailed to county 

commissioners for Crook, Weston and Campbell 

Counties in Wyoming; and Lawrence, Meade, 

Pennington, Custer and Fall River Counties in South 

Dakota, as well as numerous municipalities in the area. 

As the comment period ended, the Forest Supervisor 

contacted these counties and municipalities by letter of 

May 7, 2009, to request information on their plans to 

allow access from the Forest into their jurisdictions. An 

additional 30 days were allowed for response to these 

comments. All comments from these entities, 

businesses and the public at large were considered in the 

analysis and will be considered in the decision. 

247/12.

661-54 Coordination with Other Agencies & 

Governments. 1-54 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should consult with Native American 

tribes to ensure treaty rights and economic justice 

issues are addressed.

The National Historic Preservation Act, especially

Section 106; and, the NHPA implementing regulations 

at 36 CFR 800, direct the Forest Service to consult with 

State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), Indian 

tribes, and the public prior to implementing any 

undertaking which could affect historic properties. In 

addition, Federal agencies must provide Indian tribes 

the opportunity to comment on undertakings that could 

affect historic properties including those of traditional 

religious and cultural importance. During the analysis 

for this project the Black Hills NF has formally 

consulted with SHPOs from the States of South Dakota 

and Wyoming. Representatives from Indian tribal 

groups with historic interests in the Black Hills, and 

several other Indian tribal entities were contacted and 

invited to comment on the project, and meetings were 

held to facilitate that involvement. More information 

on the Government-to-Government consultation that 

took place can be found in the Cultural Resources 

section of Chapter 3 of the FEIS. Concerns with 

respect to treaties with Indian tribes are of a larger scale 

that is beyond the scope of this document. The effects 

of this project have been evaluated and no effects were 

578/44.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

24

identified that might disproportionately affect lowincome or minority groups. See Chapter 3 of the FEIS 

for more information on this subject. 

67 1-55 Coordination with Other Agencies & 

Governments. 1-55 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should coordinate with State and local 

officials and the NFAB as part of a mixed-use 

analysis.

The preamble to the Travel Management Rule states 

that designations by vehicle class will be made at the 

local level, and anticipated the need to mix highway-legal 

and non-highway-legal traffic on some NFS roads. The 

preamble states that these designations "will be advised 

by engineering judgment or an engineering study, as 

appropriate." (70FR68275). This motorized mixed-use 

analysis is a process subject to rules which include 

judgment of a licensed engineer. The Forest conducted 

and documented a motorized mixed-use analysis in 

2009. The findings were signed by a licensed engineer 

as required. That document informs the analysis in the 

FEIS, and is located in the project file. 

461/28.

68 1-56 Coordination with Other Agencies & 

Governments. 1-56 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should allow reciprocity between 

Wyoming and South Dakota users through a 

memorandum of understanding.

The Forest Service is reviewing a number of options for 

implementation once the decision is issued, including 

cooperation to the extent possible and where mutually 

beneficial. 

545/11.

69 1-57 Coordination with Other Agencies & 

Governments. 1-57 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should work with the Wyoming State 

Trails Program to maintain trails in the Wyoming 

portion of the national forest.

We acknowledge the offer of assistance from the 

Wyoming State Trails Program, and look forward to 

cooperating with the State of Wyoming in implementing 

the travel management decision. 

128/4. 546/10.

70 1-58 Coordination with Other Agencies & 

Governments. 1-58 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should consult with the Wyoming Game 

and Fish Department because hunters are the 

largest single user group in the Wyoming portion 

of the forest.

It is true that the Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

(WGF) did not sit on the NFAB when that Board's 

recommendations were drafted. The State game and 

fish position was then held by a representative from the 

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. 

The NFAB recommendations were broad statements 

intended to guide the development of a travel 

management plan on the Forest. Forest personnel 

subsequently met with WGF and solicited and 

considered comments from WGF at scoping and at the 

Draft EIS stages, to understand the Department's views. 

We believe these have been incorporated into the range 

of alternatives. 

346/6.

71 1-59 Coordination with Other Agencies & The Forest has collaborated with the South Dakota 105/14.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

25

Governments. 1-59 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should work with the South Dakota 

Game, Fish and Parks Department to develop a 

trail system to allow for motorized trail systems 

that connect to adjacent State lands.

Department of Game, Fish and Parks, both in the early 

development of this proposal and through comments 

provided at the scoping and Draft EIS stages. The 

Forest Service is willing to cooperate with the State on 

access proposals where mutual objectives can be 

achieved. 

72 1-60 Coordination with Other Agencies & 

Governments. 1-60 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should include Meade County as a 

coordinating partner in the planning process to 

comply with NEPA.

The Forest believes that coordination with local 

governments is critical to the success of the Forest‟s 

travel management planning process. To that extent, on 

July 14, 2004, the Black Hills National Forest Advisory 

Board held the first formal public meeting on Travel 

Management. Since that beginning, the Forest and the 

Advisory Board have conducted numerous meetings 

with local governments, community organizations and 

the public. Both Forest Supervisor Craig Bobzien and 

Northern Hills District Ranger Rhonda O'Byrne have 

met with Meade County. The County also was given an 

opportunity to comment at scoping for the Proposed 

Action. The County was sent a copy of the DEIS and 

asked to comment. In a formal letter dated May 7, 2009, 

Craig Bobzien also gave the County an additional 30 

days to comment after the DEIS comment period 

closed.

241/2.

73 1-61 Coordination with Other Agencies & 

Governments. 1-61 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should coordinate with Fall River County 

to comply with federal regulations.

The Forest believes that coordination with local 

governments is critical to the success of the Forest‟s 

travel management planning process. On May 5, 2009, 

Hell Canyon District Ranger Lynn Kolund and Forest 

Travel Management Planner Tom Willems met with the 

Fall River County Commissioners to provide 

information on the Travel Management Plan DEIS and 

discuss the County‟s related concerns. A public meeting 

focusing on the Travel Management Plan DEIS was also 

scheduled for May 15, 2009. The meeting was 

conducted from 6 – 8 p.m. at the Senior Center in the 

Fall River County community of Edgemont.

289/1. 

74 1-62 Coordination with Other Agencies & 

Governments. 1-62 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should ensure that the counties review all 

changes to forest road access with the county 

borders to be consistent with past management 

The Forest Supervisor met with representatives from 

counties containing NFS lands managed by the Black 

Hills NF at the scoping stage of the project. Copies of 

the DEIS were mailed to county commissioners for the 

counties of Crook, Weston and Campbell counties in 

472/1. 562/13.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

26

and federal law. Wyoming; and Lawrence, Meade, Pennington, Custer 

and Fall River counties in South Dakota. As the 

comment period came to a close the Forest Supervisor 

contacted counties, cities and towns in the Black Hills to 

request information on their plans to allow access from 

the Forest into their jurisdictions. The Forest 

Supervisor allowed another 30 days for these comments. 

The Forest Service will respond to comments received 

from these entities, and they will be considered in the 

Record of Decision. 

75 1-63 Coordination with Other Agencies & 

Governments. 1-63 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should consider the 1998 Crook County 

Land Use Plan and the land use plans for other 

counties in the travel management plan.

The Forest Service consulted with Crook County prior 

to issuing the Draft EIS, and provided a copy of that 

document to the County to solicit comments on the 

travel management plan project. The Forest Service 

continues to be willing to involve Crook County in the 

planning process and during implementation. 

477/6. 614/6.

76 1-64 Coordination with Organizations, Communities 

& Other Groups. 1-64 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should plan for a managed system 

and work with all groups to comply with Forest 

Service directives, the Travel Management Rule, 

and the policies behind the Rule.

The purpose and need for this project as stated in the 

DEIS, Chapter 1, includes the elements of identifying an 

official travel system, developing a transportation system 

to meet increasing demand and provide a range of 

quality experiences for a range of users, reduce adverse 

impacts caused by unmanaged motorized use, and to 

align the opportunities offered with the management 

capability of the Forest. The alternatives offer a range 

of motorized recreation opportunity including varying 

mileages of roads and trails and limited cross-country 

use. The Forest has made many efforts to involve the 

public in developing the proposal and in the NEPA 

process. These efforts are described in Chapter 1 of the 

FEIS in the Public Involvement section. 

461/1.

77 1-65 Coordination with Organizations, Communities 

& Other Groups. 1-65 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should continue to work with the 

NFAB.

The Forest Service fully intends to continue to work 

with the NFAB and a variety of other entities in various 

ways as we complete and implement the travel 

management plan. 

461/16.

78 1-66 Coordination with Organizations, Communities 

& Other Groups. 1-66 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should coordinate with local 

communities to facilitate development of funding 

sources.

The Forest Service has reached out to local communities 

in developing the travel management plan. The agency 

solicited input from communities in developing the 

proposal, at scoping and again at the Draft EIS stage. 

The Forest Supervisor contacted communities at the 

end of the DEIS comment period and provided an 

230/13. 230/16.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

27

additional 30 days for input on community desires to 

connect to the travel system. The Forest Service is 

willing to allow the system to connect to communities, 

but realizes that each community must appropriately

determine suitable access points based on their 

individual situations. 

79 1-67 Coordination with Organizations, Communities 

& Other Groups. 1-67 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should work with logging groups 

to reroute OHV trails to eliminate potential 

conflicts.

The Forest Service realizes that there may be challenges 

to compatibility of uses in some areas, and supports a 

cooperative approach to addressing these challenges. 

We believe that the NEPA planning process for 

individual future projects can serve as a valuable forum 

to initiate this cooperation. 

546/10. 548/7. 

80 1-68 Coordination with Organizations, Communities 

& Other Groups. 1-68 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should work with the lodging and 

camping industry to enlist their help in plan 

implementation.

We acknowledge the comment, and we believe there will 

be room for much cooperation in implementing the 

travel management plan. The Forest Service will make 

copies of the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) 

available to the public and local businesses. 

548/12.

81 1-69 Coordination with Organizations, Communities 

& Other Groups. 1-69 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should coordinate with motorized 

users because they are willing to volunteer time to 

help guide the activities.

The Forest Service looks forward to working with 

individuals and groups in partnerships of various kinds 

to operate and maintain both motorized and nonmotorized recreation opportunities. 

196/5. 338/12.

82 1-70 Coordination with Organizations, Communities 

& Other Groups. 1-70 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should consider partnerships with 

motorized recreation groups in order to fund 

construction and maintenance of motorized trails.

The Forest Service acknowledges that partnerships of 

various kinds can be very useful in developing and 

maintaining a motorized recreational travel system. We 

appreciate the suggestion and offer of assistance. If an 

action alternative is selected we will explore and pursue 

partnerships as appropriate as we enter the 

implementation stage. 

182/5. 183/5. 609/23. 

83 1-70 Coordination with Organizations, Communities 

& Other Groups. 1-70 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should consider partnerships with 

motorized recreation groups to improve the trail 

system and ensure that unauthorized trails are 

kept in the inventory.

The Forest Service recognizes that available funding 

could limit system buildout options and will consider 

partnerships, grants and other means to implement any 

motorized travel system. Inventoried unauthorized 

routes are being evaluated in this analysis. 

215/10. 216/12. 225/14. 

449/12. 451/6. 460/15. 511/16. 

594/6. 602/6. 607/7. 

84 1-70 Coordination with Organizations, Communities 

& Other Groups. 1-70 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should consider partnerships with 

motorized recreation groups to help reduce 

budgetary shortfalls.

The Forest Service recognizes that available funding 

could limit system buildout options and will consider 

partnerships, grants and other means in the 

implementation of any motorized travel system. 

094/4.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

28

851-70 Coordination with Organizations, Communities 

& Other Groups. 1-70 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should consider partnerships with 

motorized recreation groups to help with grant 

applications.

The Forest Service recognizes that available funding 

could limit system buildout options and will consider 

partnerships, grants and other means in the 

implementation of any motorized travel system. 

126/42.

861-71 Coordination with Organizations, Communities 

& Other Groups. 1-71 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should work with motorized offroad

clubs to continuously improve the trail system 

and keep unauthorized trails in the inventory.

The Forest Service recognizes that available funding 

could limit system buildout options and will consider 

partnerships, grants and other means to implement any 

motorized travel system. Inventoried unauthorized 

routes are being evaluated in this analysis. 

393/16.

871-72 Coordination with Organizations, Communities 

& Other Groups. 1-72 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should work with local clubs on 

trail system design.

The Forest Service expects to work cooperatively with 

local clubs and other volunteer groups with expertise 

and interest as appropriate in implementing any 

motorized travel system. 

351/18.

881-73 Coordination with Organizations, Communities 

& Other Groups. 1-73 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should partner with volunteers to 

identify problem areas where enforcement or 

closure is needed.

The Forest Service expects to work cooperatively with 

local clubs and other volunteer groups with expertise 

and interest as appropriate in implementing any 

motorized travel system. 

292/3.

891-74 Coordination with Organizations, Communities 

& Other Groups. 1-74 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should initiate a Trail Ranger 

Volunteer Program as a public-private partnership 

to manage the BHNF.

The Forest Service expects to work cooperatively with 

local clubs and other volunteer groups with expertise 

and interest as appropriate in implementing any 

motorized travel system. A trail ranger program is one 

option that could be considered. 

461/31.

901-75 Coordination with Organizations, Communities 

& Other Groups. 1-75 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should collaborate with the Black 

Hills Sportsmen‟s Club and the South Dakota 

Wildlife Federation in support of quiet recreation.

The Forest Service values its existing partnerships and is 

willing to consider other cooperative ventures as 

appropriate in implementing and improving programs. 

465/23.

911-76 Coordination with Organizations, Communities 

& Other Groups. 1-76 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should inform the public of 

volunteer opportunities.

The Forest Service expects to work cooperatively with 

local clubs and other volunteer groups with expertise 

and interest as appropriate in implementing any 

motorized travel system. 

279/5.

921-77 Coordination with Organizations, Communities 

& Other Groups. 1-77 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should retain private law firms to 

ensure sufficient staff to defend multiple use land 

management decisions.

A primary objective of agency public involvement 

efforts is to raise and consider a variety of public 

concerns about management of NFS lands. It is hoped 

that stakeholders in public land management can 

promote their interests while understanding those of 

other stakeholders. 

126/71.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

29

93 1-78 Coordination with Organizations, Communities 

& Other Groups. 1-78 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should partner with mountain 

biking groups to decrease maintenance expenses.

The Forest Service values its existing partnerships and is 

willing to consider other cooperative ventures as 

appropriate in implementing and improving programs. 

428/3. 433/3. 

94 1-78 Coordination with Organizations, Communities 

& Other Groups. 1-78 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should partner with mountain 

biking groups to create improved access.

The Forest Service values its existing partnerships and is 

willing to consider other cooperative ventures as 

appropriate in implementing and improving programs. 

434/2. 463/4. 502/16. 507/16.

95 1-79 Coordination with Organizations, Communities 

& Other Groups. 1-79 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should coordinate with 

AmeriCorps and Job Corps to do trail and 

environmental mitigation work.

This is a good suggestion, and could be considered 

consistent with the missions and capabilities of those 

entities. 

126/197.

96 1-80 Final Decision-Making Process. 1-80 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should issue an 

interim order closing cross-country use and 

limiting motorized travel to allow for sufficient 

time to engage in a thorough planning process.

The commenters request that interim orders be imposed 

to protect forest resources until the Travel Plan decision 

is issued. The Forest has issued special closure orders in 

the past to protect resources where serious harm was 

imminent to specific areas. The Forest Service may 

continue to issue such orders if and when specific 

circumstances arise but we believe the broad orders 

requested in these comments are not called for at this 

time, pending the Travel Plan decision. Of course, 

routes and areas could also be closed for resource 

protection purposes if necessary after the decision to

select an action alternative on this project. 

357/12.

97 1-80 Final Decision-Making Process. 1-80 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should issue an 

interim order closing cross-country use and 

limiting motorized travel to ensure a sustainable 

plan while protecting the forest and its wildlife.

The commenters request that interim orders be imposed 

to protect forest resources until the Travel Plan decision 

is issued. The Forest has issued special closure orders in 

the past to protect resources where serious harm was 

imminent to specific areas. The Forest Service may 

continue to issue such orders if and when specific 

circumstances arise but we believe the broad orders 

requested in these comments are not called for at this 

time, pending the Travel Plan decision. Of course, 

routes and areas could also be closed for resource 

protection purposes if necessary after the decision to 

select an action alternative on this project. 

456/143.

98 1-81 Final Decision-Making Process. 1-81 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should ensure that if 

a new preferred alternative is identified that the 

The regulations implementing the NEPA law require 

that a preferred alternative be identified in the DEIS if

one exists (40 CFR 1502.14). The Forest Supervisor did 

319/37. 357/11. 414/25. 

456/115. 458/91. 462/26.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

30

impacts of that alternative are fully analyzed to 

comply with NEPA.

not identify a preferred alternative in the DEIS for this 

project because none was preferred. We recognize that 

a selected action combining elements of two or more 

alternatives could generate a synthesis of effects 

different from any one of the component alternatives. 

The effects of the selected action will be analyzed and 

disclosed as required by law. 

991-82 Final Decision-Making Process. 1-82 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should ensure that 

the Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(FEIS) is available for public comment at least 30 

days before the Record of Decision.

We recognize the option of publishing the FEIS for 30-

day comment prior to decision. This is not required 

since the Forest Service has an appeal process applicable 

to this decision, but we will provide the extra 

opportunity if we believe it is warranted. 

461/11.

1001-83 Plan Development & Revision. 1-83 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should delay 

development of the travel management plan.

As was stated in the DEIS, Chapter 1, and will be stated 

in the FEIS (Travel Management Rule and Purpose and 

Need sections), the Rule requires the designation of any 

roads, trails and areas that are to be open to motor 

vehicle use on the Forest. Agency policy directs Forests 

to complete the required analysis and issue Motor 

Vehicle Use Maps (MVUMs) by the end of Fiscal Year 

2010. Unmanaged recreation including motorized 

recreation was identified by the agency as one of four 

threats to the health of the nation's forests and 

grasslands. Resource damage from such use has been 

identified on the Black Hills National Forest. Levels of 

motorized recreation use are increasing yearly. It is timely to propose this action now. The Forest will issue 

the required MVUM after the decision is issued on this 

project. 

247/11.

1011-84 Plan Development & Revision. 1-84 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should develop 

separate plans for the Wyoming and South 

Dakota portions of the forest because the use 

patterns in the two states differ significantly.

The Forest recognizes that some differences exist 

between uses and conditions in those portions of the 

Forest lying in South Dakota and Wyoming. This has 

also been pointed out by other commenters including 

the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Recreational 

use patterns, objectives related to game management 

and hunting experience, and State policies on licensing 

and use of OHV's on roads differ between the States. 

The DEIS recognized these differences. See for 

example Chapter 2, Table 6, Consistency with State 

Traffic Law; and, Chapter 3, Recreation section, 

Applicable Laws (discussing variation in State laws for 

161/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

31

motorized activities, dispersed camping and hunting.) 

The decision on this project will effectively consider the 

relevant differences between the States. 

102 1-85 Plan Development & Revision. 1-85 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should allow for 

modifications of the Forest Plan as a result of 

site-specific planning during plan development.

Each action alternative would amend the Forest Plan to 

update figures such as road and trail mileages, and to 

conform to the Travel Management Rule. Any decision 

to select an action alternative would include a Plan 

amendment as appropriate. 

461/19.

103 1-86 Plan Development & Revision. 1-86 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should clarify how 

future changes and amendments to the plan will 

be implemented to ensure the process is 

expeditious.

The Forest recognizes that some unforeseen 

consequences or circumstances may arise during 

implementation. We intend to monitor implementation 

including for user safety, route conditions and effects to 

natural resources. Our intent is that this system be 

dynamic. Changes can and will be made through 

individual project decisions focused on recreation use or 

more broadly on natural resource conditions. 

183/4. 475/14.

104 1-87 Plan Development & Revision. 1-87 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should revisit the 

proposed restrictions after a trial period at which 

time changes could be made.

Our intent is that the travel system be dynamic. We 

intend to monitor implementation including for user 

safety, route conditions and effects to natural resources. 

Changes can and will be made through subsequent 

project decisions. 

420/4.

105 1-88 Plan Development & Revision. 1-88 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should use the Idaho 

Trail Ranger Program as a model to ensure that 

sufficient motorized access is provided.

The purpose and need as stated in the EIS includes 

developing a transportation system to meet the 

increasing demand for recreational travel opportunities 

and to provide a range of quality experiences for a wide 

variety of Forest users. The alternatives show a range of 

possible systems that could meet this objective. After a 

decision is made we will explore ways to efficiently 

implement the chosen system. We believe cooperation 

and partnerships will be important in accomplishing 

this. 

126/115.

106 1-89 Plan Development & Revision. 1-89 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should look to other 

National Forests for examples of good OHV trail 

systems.

The commenter cited several trail systems in Idaho, 

Oregon and Utah as good examples but did not identify 

the characteristics of these that they felt should be 

adopted. We appreciate the references and seek to 

develop a system appropriate to this area that can offer a 

variety of quality user experiences within the Forest's 

management capability. 

009/3. 126/140.

107 1-90 Plan Development & Revision. 1-90 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should avoid 

The decision on motorized travel management on the 

Black Hills NF will consider local circumstances, issues 

212/3.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

32

comparisons to other National Forests. and resource information, as shown in the Final EIS. 

1081-91 Plan Development & Revision. 1-91 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should review the 

Telegraph Project DEIS because it conflicts with 

the non-motorized status of the Swede/Tillson 

area.

The comment expresses concern that the Telegraph 

Project decision on the Northern Hills Ranger District 

could affect the non-motorized character of the Swede 

Gulch/Tillson area, even if an alternative with more 

non-motorized areas is selected in the Travel 

Management Plan decision. The comment refers to the 

Telegraph Project DEIS. A decision has since been 

issued on the Telegraph Project. Among other issues 

that decision carefully considered the effects of road 

construction on non-motorized recreation opportunities 

and scenery in Swede Gulch and other areas with a 

Management Area 4.1 prescription. The Telegraph 

Project decision approved road management in that 

project area for the duration of that project; after it has 

been implemented motorized travel will be managed as 

approved in the Travel Management Plan decision. The 

effects of the Telegraph Project have been considered in 

the cumulative effects analysis for this project.

358/2.

1091-92 Plan Development & Revision. 1-92 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should engage in 

adequate site-specific planning to ensure adequate 

identification of trails and their consideration as 

designated routes.

The analysis and decision on this project will encompass 

lands on the entire Black Hills NF. This decision will be 

a site-specific project decision. The decision will be 

based on analysis of route and area information 

including that solicited from and provided by individuals 

and groups participating in the process. Ranger District 

personnel familiar with the routes collaborated with 

other agency resource specialists in conducting the 

analysis. We are confident that this site-specific decision 

is based on site-specific analysis. 

126/127.

1101-93 Plan Development & Revision. 1-93 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should evaluate use 

patterns in high-violation areas to identify and 

address the unmet user needs.

The Forest Service has provided a number of 

opportunities for the public to identify routes of interest 

to them, and to explain why they believe these should be 

included in the motorized travel system. The FS hosted 

meetings with the public to develop the proposed 

action, and at the DEIS stage; and invited public 

comment at scoping and the DEIS. The public 

responded with lively interest and a tremendous amount 

of information, which will be considered in the decision. 

We believe we have provided the opportunities 

requested in this comment, and we do not see a need to 

126/249.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

33

undertake the initiative requested. 

111 1-94 Plan Development & Revision. 1-94 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should address the 

issue that non-motorized groups engage in 

lawsuits more often than motorized groups to 

directly address the inequality and environmental 

justice issues this creates.

The Forest Service has no control over what avenues 

individuals or groups might use to challenge a decision. 

The purpose and need for this project as stated in 

Chapter 1 of the EIS is to comply with the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule and designate a motorized travel 

system to meet increasing demand for recreational travel 

opportunities within the Forest's management capability, 

and to reduce adverse impacts caused by unmanaged 

cross-country and route usage. Effects relative to 

environmental justice will be evaluated as required. 

126/171.

112 1-95 Plan Development & Revision. 1-95 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should monetarily 

compensate motorized users for the loss of 

recreation opportunities resulting from 

endangered species protection efforts to be 

consistent with current case law.

Motorized recreation use on Federal lands is not legally 

the same as a water right. And, there are no Federallylisted species on the Black Hills NF. This comment 

does not appear to apply to this project. 

126/211. 126/212. 

113 1-96 Plan Development & Revision. 1-96 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should provide 

assurances that greater restrictions will not occur 

in the future.

The incremental effects of this project when added to 

other past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions 

have been considered in the cumulative effects analysis 

by resource. Future decisions regarding motorized 

travel management will be guided by circumstances and 

resource conditions existing at that time. It is difficult 

to speculate on what those might be. 

419/9.

114 1-97 Plan Development & Revision. 1-97 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should ensure that 

Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 and their 

language regarding use conflicts don‟t overly 

influence the process to ensure equitable 

management of public lands for multiple uses.

Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 speak for 

themselves. Together with other executive orders, laws, 

regulations and policy, they form the legal framework 

within which the decision on this project must fit. The 

effects of the alternatives on motorized and nonmotorized forms of recreation have been evaluated, and 

are disclosed in Chapter 3 of the EIS. 

126/255. 126/256.

115 1-98 Plan Development & Revision. 1-98 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should evaluate the 

impacts caused by Executive Orders 11644 and 

11989 to motorized recreationists.

We agree with this comment insofar as all public lands 

visitors should respect each other and come with 

reasonable expectations. The effects of the alternatives 

on motorized and non-motorized recreation have been 

evaluated and are disclosed in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. 

126/258. 126/259.

116 1-99 User Surveys. 1-99 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should conduct new user surveys because 

previous surveys used faulty methodologies.

The commenter believes that visitor use surveys often 

do not reflect the importance of motorized access to 

typical visitors. They believe that a high percentage of 

trail users are motorized users and that this percentage 

126/88. 126/179.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

34

of public lands should be managed for multiple uses 

including motorized access and recreation. Forest Plan 

goals relevant to this project include Goal 1, which 

states in part to protect basic soil and water resources; 

and Goal 4, which states in part to provide a range of 

recreational opportunities. Elements of the purpose and 

need for this project include developing a transportation 

system to meet increasing demand and provide a range 

of quality user experiences; to reduce adverse impacts of 

unmanaged use; and, to align travel and recreation

opportunities with the Forest's management capability. 

The Forest Service has solicited public involvement on 

this project on a number of occasions, and many groups 

and individuals have made their desires known. The 

decision on this project will consider all of this public 

involvement and will strive to meet broad management 

goals, and the Travel Rule, appropriately. 

1171-99 User Surveys. 1-99 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should conduct new user surveys because 

motorized access is hidden and dispersed across 

categories resulting in inaccurate numbers.

The commenter believes that visitor use surveys often 

do not reflect the importance of motorized access to 

typical visitors. They believe that a high percentage of 

trail users are motorized users and that this percentage 

of public lands should be managed for multiple uses 

including motorized access and recreation. Forest Plan 

goals relevant to this project include Goal 1, which 

states in part to protect basic soil and water resources; 

and Goal 4, which states in part to provide a range of 

recreational opportunities. Elements of the purpose and 

need for this project include developing a transportation 

system to meet increasing demand and provide a range 

of quality user experiences; to reduce adverse impacts of 

unmanaged use; and, to align travel and recreation 

opportunities with the Forest's management capability. 

The Forest Service has solicited public involvement on 

this project on a number of occasions, and many groups 

and individuals have made their desires known. The 

decision on this project will consider all of this public 

involvement and will strive to meet broad management 

goals, and the Travel Rule, appropriately. 

126/96.

1181-99 User Surveys. 1-99 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should conduct new user surveys to 

The commenter believes that visitor use surveys often 

do not reflect the importance of motorized access to 

126/86.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

35

ensure more accurate data regarding multiple use. typical visitors. They believe that a high percentage of 

trail users are motorized users and that this percentage 

of public lands should be managed for multiple uses 

including motorized access and recreation. Forest Plan 

goals relevant to this project include Goal 1, which 

states in part to protect basic soil and water resources; 

and Goal 4, which states in part to provide a range of 

recreational opportunities. Elements of the purpose and 

need for this project include developing a transportation 

system to meet increasing demand and provide a range 

of quality user experiences; to reduce adverse impacts of 

unmanaged use; and, to align travel and recreation 

opportunities with the Forest's management capability. 

The Forest Service has solicited public involvement on 

this project on a number of occasions, and many groups 

and individuals have made their desires known. The 

decision on this project will consider all of this public 

involvement and will strive to meet broad management 

goals, and the Travel Rule, appropriately. 

1191-99 User Surveys. 1-99 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should conduct new user surveys to 

ensure that motorized and mechanized users are 

accurately accounted for.

The commenter believes that visitor use surveys often 

do not reflect the importance of motorized access to

typical visitors. They believe that a high percentage of 

trail users are motorized users and that this percentage 

of public lands should be managed for multiple uses 

including motorized access and recreation. Forest Plan 

goals relevant to this project include Goal 1, which 

states in part to protect basic soil and water resources; 

and Goal 4, which states in part to provide a range of 

recreational opportunities. Elements of the purpose and 

need for this project include developing a transportation 

system to meet increasing demand and provide a range 

of quality user experiences; to reduce adverse impacts of 

unmanaged use; and, to align travel and recreation 

opportunities with the Forest's management capability. 

The Forest Service has solicited public involvement on 

this project on a number of occasions, and many groups 

and individuals have made their desires known. The 

decision on this project will consider all of this public 

involvement and will strive to meet broad management 

goals, and the Travel Rule, appropriately. 

126/85.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

36

120 1-100 User Surveys. 1-100 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should recalculate the visitor use data to 

ensure that public lands are being managed for 

those who actually visit them.

The Forest Service agrees that motorized recreation 

including driving for pleasure and OHV use are popular 

and such use is growing on the national forests. That is 

one of the reasons that the 2005 Travel Rule was 

promulgated. To manage Federal lands by simply 

counting votes or types of users, as suggested by this 

comment, would ignore the values of the lands in 

question, Forest Plan guidance, and applicable laws, 

regulations and policy. The decision on this project will 

attempt to provide for the needs and desires of a variety 

of Forest users in a balanced way, within the 

management and resource capabilities of the Forest. 

126/67. 126/68. 126/69.

121 1-101 User Surveys. 1-101 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should acknowledge that motorized use 

may be under reported because there are no selfreporting opportunities for those users.

There are inherent shortcomings in any means of 

sampling. Ultimately the decision on this project will 

not be based on a simple vote or tally, but will provide 

for a balance of uses in a sustainable manner. The 

Forest Service has used the data available, and has 

undertaken extensive public involvement for this project 

to try to better gauge the needs and desires of a variety 

of Forest users. 

126/94.

122 1-102 User Surveys. 1-102 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should include the full results of the 

National Visitor Use Monitoring Survey as an 

appendix to the DEIS.

The results of the 2004 National Visitor Use Monitoring 

Survey can be found at the following Internet site: 

<http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/>

586/1.

123 1-103 Compliance with Other Regulations. 1-103 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

comply with regulations governing environmental 

justice to ensure that motorized users are not 

unfairly discriminated against.

We do not believe that a diverse group such as the 

entire motorized recreation community was the focus of 

EO12898, whose title is, "Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-income Populations." We believe that interests of 

groups that recreate on Federal lands are best met 

through public participation in decisions such as this 

one. The Forest Service has provided a number of 

opportunities for public involvement in this analysis. 

Public concerns will be considered in the decision on 

this project. 

126/161. 126/162.

124 1-104 Compliance with Other Regulations. 1-104 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should ensure 

that the proposed action complies with the CEQ 

recommendations to address the issue of 

disproportionately significant impacts on 

EO12898 concerning environmental justice speaks for 

itself. The decision on this project will determine 

compliance with that and other relevant direction. This 

proposal is designed to respond to the requirements of 

the 2005 Travel Rule, as explained in Chapter 1. The 

126/163. 126/164.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

37

motorized recreation. cumulative effects of this proposal on recreation 

opportunity are addressed in the recreation section in 

Chapter 3. 

125 1-105 Compliance with Other Regulations. 1-105 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should revisit 

the assumptions about ecology and sustainability 

that inform the development of the proposed 

alternative to comply with the intent of Congress, 

MUSYA, and NFMA.

The purpose and need as stated in the EIS includes 

developing a transportation system to meet the 

increasing demand for recreational travel opportunities 

and to provide a range of quality experiences for a wide 

variety of Forest users within the management 

capabilities of the Forest, as well as to reduce adverse 

impacts of unmanaged use and to conserve the 

condition of ecosystems and watersheds. The decision 

on this project will thus attempt to balance needs of 

resources and various users. The decision will be 

consistent with the Forest Plan, and comply with 

applicable law and regulation as intended by Congress 

and as interpreted by the courts. 

126/144. 126/145. 126/146. 

126/147.

126 1-106 Compliance with Other Regulations. 1-106 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

conduct sufficient research and consultation 

regarding potential Revised Statute (RS) 2477 

routes to ensure compliance with the intent of RS 

2477.

The Forest Service has solicited input and participation 

by area counties throughout the development of the 

proposed action and the analysis. Forest Service 

personnel have met with county officials and reviewed 

written input on a number of issues. The decision on 

this project will consider input from county 

involvement. 

126/108.

127 1-107 Other Considerations. 1-107 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should ensure that private 

property is not negatively affected by the plan 

unlike other recent projects in the Forest.

Some citizens living adjacent to National Forest System 

lands find intrinsic value in the solitude and quiet, others 

in being able to quickly access the Forest. The Forest 

Service does not include heavy development as a part of 

this proposal, but reasonable access to NFS lands will be 

important to facilitate any transportation system which 

may be adopted. Measures have been incorporated into 

alternatives to identify increased likelihood of dust and 

noise near adjacent lands. The effects of the alternatives 

with respect to these elements are disclosed in the FEIS, 

Chapter 3, Engineering and Transportation section. All 

comments on the project will be considered in the 

decision. 

254/2.

128 1-108 Other Considerations. 1-108 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should acknowledge that 

NEPA should apply to the activities of wellfunded environmental groups to support the 

Thank you for your comment. The National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 speaks for 

itself. 

126/155.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

38

intent of the law.

129 1-109 Amendment to Alternative C. 1-109 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should reconsider 

the amendment to Alternative C because the 

timing and presentation of the change gives the 

appearance of impropriety.

Due to an administrative error, a correction (erratum) 

was requested by the responsible District Ranger to 

remove a short section of road that was erroneously 

included in the DEIS alternatives and replaced it with 

the intended trail in the correct location. 

099/1.

130 1-110 Amendment to Alternative C. 1-110 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should clarify who 

reviewed the amendment and request a second 

opinion.

Due to an administrative error, a correction (erratum) 

was requested by the responsible District Ranger to 

remove a short section of road that was erroneously 

included in the DEIS alternatives and replaced it with 

the intended trail in the correct location. The intended

trail location was reviewed by IDT resource specialists 

and determined to be within the scope of the effects 

analysis as described for Alternative C in the DEIS. 

125/3.

131 2-1 General (Chapter 2: DEIS, Alternatives and 

Analysis). 2-1 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should be commended for their good 

work on the DEIS.

Thank you for your comment. 461/3.

132 2-2 General. 2-2 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should acknowledge that it may not be possible to 

provide sufficient analysis because it is too 

difficult to analyze the entire Forest at the same 

time.

The Forest has conducted a sufficient Forest-wide 

analysis of the effects of designating roads, trails and 

areas for motorized use. The results of this analysis can 

be found in Chapter 3 of the EIS. 

357/3.

133 2-3 General. 2-3 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement because an environmental assessment 

would not sufficiently address the significant 

impacts and cumulative effects on motorized 

users.

The Forest is preparing an EIS. The current document 

available for review and comment is the Draft EIS. The 

DEIS was posted in the Federal Register and on our 

Forest web page in March 2009.

126/56.

134 2-4 Purpose & Need. 2-4 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should not move forward with the 

travel management plan because it is not needed 

and is unconstitutional.

The Black Hills National Forest is not overstepping its 

authority by moving forward with the Travel 

Management Plan. As stated in the Travel Management 

Rule, Congress established the Forest Service to provide 

reasonable regulation of National Forests so that future 

generations can continue to enjoy them.

095/1.

135 2-5 Purpose & Need. 2-5 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that the intent 

of the Travel Management Rule is not to reduce 

motorized access.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to 

provide access for both motorized and non-motorized 

users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. As stated in the Travel Management 

Rule, National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

324/4.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

39

use. However, the magnitude and intensity of motor 

vehicle use have increased to the point that the purpose 

and need cannot be met while still allowing unrestricted 

cross-country travel. Soil erosion, water quality, and 

wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. A 

designated and actively managed system of roads, trails, 

and areas for motor vehicle use is needed. Alternative C 

would provide the largest motorized system of roads 

and trails. It would provide 2,878 miles of roads and 771 

miles of trails, most of which would be open to ATVs as 

well as other types of OHVs.

136 2-6 Purpose & Need. 2-6 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include an initial assessment 

of the need for motorized access before drafting 

alternatives that restrict access to avoid the 

appearance of bias.

The effects analysis of travel planning on recreational 

opportunities is addressed in the Recreation and the 

Socio-Economic sections of Chapter 3 in the DEIS.

126/116.

137 2-7 Purpose & Need. 2-7 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should reevaluate the Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum and Scenery Management 

System to meet the stated purpose and need.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and Scenery Integrity 

Objectives have been completed for the Black Hills 

National Forest Management Plan and was used in the 

development of the DEIS for the Travel Management 

Plan. Reanalyzing the ROS and SIO is beyond the scope 

of this project and does not address the purpose and 

need stated in the DEIS.

587/1.

138 2-8 Purpose & Need. 2-8 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that reducing 

access does not meet the purpose and need to 

meet increased demand for recreational travel 

opportunities.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to 

provide access for both motorized and non-motorized 

users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. As stated in the Travel Management 

Rule, National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

use. However, the magnitude and intensity of motor 

vehicle use have increased to the point that the purpose 

and need cannot be met while still allowing unrestricted 

cross-country travel. Soil erosion, water quality, and 

wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. A 

designated and actively managed system of roads, trails, 

and areas for motor vehicle use is needed.

536/3.

139 2-9 Purpose & Need. 2-9 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should clarify that while 

designating motorized routes may be part of the 

process it is not part of the purpose and need for 

this action because this confusion resulted in the 

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to 

provide access for both motorized and non-motorized 

users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. As stated in the Travel Management 

Rule, National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

456/10. 458/17.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

40

elimination of proposed walk-in-only areas from 

the plan.

use. However, the magnitude and intensity of motor 

vehicle use have increased to the point that the purpose 

and need cannot be met while still allowing unrestricted 

cross-country travel. Soil erosion, water quality, and 

wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. A 

designated and actively managed system of roads, trails, 

and areas for motor vehicle use is needed.

140 2-10 Range of Alternatives. 2-10 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should only include alternatives 

that are generated by the local public.

The range of alternatives was developed based on public 

scoping and the results of the forest-wide effects 

analysis for the DEIS.

277/6.

141 2-11 Range of Alternatives. 2-11 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should develop a true No Action 

Alternative to comply with NEPA and other 

regulations.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to 

provide access for both motorized and non-motorized 

users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. As stated in the Travel Management 

Rule, National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

use. However, the magnitude and intensity of motor 

vehicle use have increased to the point that the purpose 

and need cannot be met while still allowing unrestricted 

cross-country travel. Soil erosion, water quality, and 

wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. A 

designated and actively managed system of roads, trails, 

and areas for motor vehicle use is needed. Alternative C 

would provide the largest motorized system of roads 

and trails. It would provide 2,878 miles of roads and 771 

miles of trails, most of which would be open to ATVs as 

well as other types of OHVs.

126/121. 459/15. 611/15.

142 2-11 Range of Alternatives. 2-11 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should develop a true No Action 

Alternative to accurately describe the current 

condition relative to motorized access.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to 

provide access for both motorized and non-motorized 

users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. As stated in the Travel Management 

Rule, National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

use. However, the magnitude and intensity of motor 

vehicle use have increased to the point that the purpose 

and need cannot be met while still allowing unrestricted 

cross-country travel. Soil erosion, water quality, and 

wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. A 

designated and actively managed system of roads, trails, 

and areas for motor vehicle use is needed. Alternative C 

would provide the largest motorized system of roads 

and trails. It would provide 2,878 miles of roads and 771 

459/16. 611/16.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

41

miles of trails, most of which would be open to ATVs as 

well as other types of OHVs.

143 2-12 Range of Alternatives. 2-12 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should develop an alternative other 

than the no action alternative that allows for the 

existing level of access to balance the needs of the 

motorized users and the environment.

An alternative allowing for the existing level of access 

does not meet the stated purpose and need.

126/38. 126/65.

144 2-13 Range of Alternatives. 2-13 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should seek out a compromise plan 

that protects the forest from destructive users 

while still allowing reasonable ATV access.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to 

provide access for both motorized and non-motorized 

users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. As stated in the Travel Management 

Rule, National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

use. However, the magnitude and intensity of motor 

vehicle use have increased to the point that the purpose 

and need cannot be met while still allowing unrestricted 

cross-country travel. Soil erosion, water quality, and 

wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. A 

designated and actively managed system of roads, trails, 

and areas for motor vehicle use is needed. Alternative C 

would provide the largest motorized system of roads 

and trails. It would provide 2,878 miles of roads and 771 

miles of trails, most of which would be open to ATVs as

well as other types of OHVs.

292/1.

145 2-14 Range of Alternatives. 2-14 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should provide an alternative that 

does not close so many trails to ATV users.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to 

provide access for both motorized and non-motorized 

users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. As stated in the Travel Management 

Rule, National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

use. However, the magnitude and intensity of motor 

vehicle use have increased to the point that the purpose 

and need cannot be met while still allowing unrestricted 

cross-country travel. Soil erosion, water quality, and 

wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. A 

designated and actively managed system of roads, trails, 

and areas for motor vehicle use is needed. Alternative C 

would provide the largest motorized system of roads 

and trails. It would provide 2,878 miles of roads and 771 

miles of trails, most of which would be open to ATVs as 

well as other types of OHVs.

045/4.

146 2-15 Range of Alternatives. 2-15 Public Concern: The It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to 126/64.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

42

Forest Service should include an alternative to 

increase motorized access to address the desires 

of most users.

provide access for both motorized and non-motorized 

users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. As stated in the Travel Management 

Rule, National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

use. However, the magnitude and intensity of motor 

vehicle use have increased to the point that the purpose 

and need cannot be met while still allowing unrestricted 

cross-country travel. Soil erosion, water quality, and 

wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. A 

designated and actively managed system of roads, trails, 

and areas for motor vehicle use is needed.

147 2-15 Range of Alternatives. 2-15 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include an alternative to 

increase motorized access to avoid the perception 

of unfairness towards motorized users.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to 

provide access for both motorized and non-motorized 

users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. As stated in the Travel Management 

Rule, National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

use. However, the magnitude and intensity of motor 

vehicle use have increased to the point that the purpose 

and need cannot be met while still allowing unrestricted 

cross-country travel. Soil erosion, water quality, and 

wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. A 

designated and actively managed system of roads, trails, 

and areas for motor vehicle use is needed.

126/19. 126/119. 459/12. 

611/12.

148 2-15 Range of Alternatives. 2-15 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include an alternative to 

increase motorized access to accommodate 

increasing motorized recreational use.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to 

provide access for both motorized and non-motorized 

users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. As stated in the Travel Management 

Rule, National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

use. However, the magnitude and intensity of motor 

vehicle use have increased to the point that the purpose 

and need cannot be met while still allowing unrestricted 

cross-country travel. Soil erosion, water quality, and 

wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. A 

designated and actively managed system of roads, trails, 

and areas for motor vehicle use is needed.

126/18. 126/120.

149 2-15 Range of Alternatives. 2-15 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include an alternative to 

increase motorized access to comply with NEPA, 

the CEQ, and the Forest Service Handbook.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to 

provide access for both motorized and non-motorized 

users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. As stated in the Travel Management 

Rule, National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

126/17.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

43

use. However, the magnitude and intensity of motor 

vehicle use have increased to the point that the purpose 

and need cannot be met while still allowing unrestricted 

cross-country travel. Soil erosion, water quality, and 

wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. A 

designated and actively managed system of roads, trails, 

and areas for motor vehicle use is needed. Alternative C 

would provide the largest motorized system of roads 

and trails. It would provide 2,878 miles of roads and 771 

miles of trails, most of which would be open to ATVs as 

well as other types of OHVs.

150 2-16 Range of Alternatives. 2-16 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should develop an alternative that 

mitigates for the cumulative loss of motorized 

recreational access to comply with NEPA and 

CEQ guidance.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to 

provide access for both motorized and non-motorized 

users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. As stated in the Travel Management 

Rule, National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

use. However, the magnitude and intensity of motor 

vehicle use have increased to the point that the purpose 

and need cannot be met while still allowing unrestricted 

cross-country travel. Soil erosion, water quality, and 

wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. A 

designated and actively managed system of roads, trails, 

and areas for motor vehicle use is needed. Alternative C 

would provide the largest motorized system of roads 

and trails. It would provide 2,878 miles of roads and 771 

miles of trails, most of which would be open to ATVs as 

well as other types of OHVs.

126/1. 126/35.

151 2-17 Range of Alternatives. 2-17 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should reinstate the pro-recreation 

alternative because the cost issues can be 

addressed through grants and appropriate use of 

the gas tax.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to 

provide access for both motorized and non-motorized 

users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. As stated in the Travel Management 

Rule, National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

use. However, the magnitude and intensity of motor 

vehicle use have increased to the point that the purpose 

and need cannot be met while still allowing unrestricted 

cross-country travel. Soil erosion, water quality, and 

wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. A 

designated and actively managed system of roads, trails, 

and areas for motor vehicle use is needed. Alternative C 

would provide the largest motorized system of roads 

126/7.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

44

and trails. It would provide 2,878 miles of roads and 771 

miles of trails, most of which would be open to ATVs as 

well as other types of OHVs.

152 2-18 Range of Alternatives. 2-18 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should create a new alternative that 

allows trail sharing, single-track trail creation, 

ATV trail creation, and creation of 4x4 challenge 

routes.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to 

provide access for both motorized and non-motorized 

users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. As stated in the Travel Management 

Rule, National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

use. However, the magnitude and intensity of motor 

vehicle use have increased to the point that the purpose 

and need cannot be met while still allowing unrestricted 

cross-country travel. Soil erosion, water quality, and 

wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. A 

designated and actively managed system of roads, trails, 

and areas for motor vehicle use is needed. Alternative C 

would provide the largest motorized system of roads 

and trails. It would provide 2,878 miles of roads and 771 

miles of trails, most of which would be open to ATVs as 

well as other types of OHVs.

126/8.

153 2-19 Range of Alternatives. 2-19 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include an alternative that 

closes trails to motorized travel.

Alternative E only includes 36 miles of existing trails 

currently open to motorized travel, while closing 

864,000 acres of the Forest currently open to crosscountry motorized travel. 

280/2.

154 2-20 Range of Alternatives. 2-20 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should develop an alternative that 

identifies areas of high, medium, or low road 

densities to simplify regulation development while 

improving protection for forest and wildlife 

resources.

At this time, the Forest Service has not identified a 

preferred alternative. All the action alternatives will be 

considered in developing a selected alternative. The 

project is very complex, and the decision-maker may 

adopt points from different alternatives. The selected 

alternative will be based on public comments and the 

results of the forest-wide effects analysis for the DEIS. 

346/1.

155 2-21 Range of Alternatives. 2-21 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select an alternative that 

manages the Forest for multiple use and equal 

recreational opportunities for both motorized and 

non-motorized users.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to 

provide access for both motorized and non-motorized 

users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. As stated in the Travel Management 

Rule, National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

use. However, the magnitude and intensity of motor 

vehicle use have increased to the point that the purpose 

and need cannot be met while still allowing unrestricted 

cross-country travel. Soil erosion, water quality, and 

wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. A 

126/2. 126/92. 126/93.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

45

designated and actively managed system of roads, trails, 

and areas for motor vehicle use is needed.

156 2-22 Range of Alternatives. 2-22 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should combine Alternatives B and 

D.

At this time, the Forest Service has not identified a 

preferred alternative. All the action alternatives will be 

considered in developing a selected alternative. The 

selected alternative will be based on public comments 

and the results of the forest-wide effects analysis for the 

DEIS.

479/1.

157 2-23 Range of Alternatives. 2-23 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include elements of 

Alternatives B, C, and D in the final decision.

At this time, the Forest Service has not identified a 

preferred alternative. All the action alternatives will be 

considered in developing a selected alternative. The 

selected alternative will be based on public comments 

and the results of the forest-wide effects analysis for the 

DEIS.

326/1.

158 2-24 Alternative Selection. 2-24 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative A (No 

Action) because the information provided 

regarding affected roads and trails is insufficient 

for making an informed decision.

An interdisciplinary process was used to identify routes 

suitable for public motorized use designation, including 

all identified non-system routes, in the range of 

alternatives. The analysis process included identifying 

natural and cultural resource concerns, recreation, access 

needs, and other related considerations consistent with 

the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule to develop the range of 

alternatives. The results of this analysis can be found in 

Chapter 3 of the DEIS. 

010/3. 086/3. 

159 2-24 Alternative Selection. 2-24 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative A (No

Action) because all the other alternatives are not 

acceptable.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to 

provide access for both motorized and non-motorized 

users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. As stated in the Travel Management 

Rule, National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

use. However, the magnitude and intensity of motor 

vehicle use have increased to the point that the purpose 

and need cannot be met while still allowing unrestricted 

cross-country travel. Soil erosion, water quality, and 

wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. As 

proposed in the action Alternatives B through E, a 

designated and actively managed system of roads, trails, 

and areas for motor vehicle use is needed.

241/1. 447/9. 483/13.

160 2-24 Alternative Selection. 2-24 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative A (No

Action) because it allows for multiple use.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to 

provide access for both motorized and non-motorized 

users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. As stated in the Travel Management 

277/3. 435/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

46

Rule, National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

use. However, the magnitude and intensity of motor 

vehicle use have increased to the point that the purpose 

and need cannot be met while still allowing unrestricted 

cross-country travel. Soil erosion, water quality, and 

wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. As 

proposed in the action Alternatives B through E, a 

designated and actively managed system of roads, trails, 

and areas for motor vehicle use is needed.

161 2-24 Alternative Selection. 2-24 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative A (No 

Action) because access to and use of the National 

Forest should not be limited.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to 

provide access for both motorized and non-motorized 

users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. As stated in the Travel Management 

Rule, National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

use. However, the magnitude and intensity of motor 

vehicle use have increased to the point that the purpose 

and need cannot be met while still allowing unrestricted 

cross-country travel. Soil erosion, water quality, and 

wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. As 

proposed in the action Alternatives B through E, a 

designated and actively managed system of roads, trails, 

and areas for motor vehicle use is needed.

114/1. 203/1. 

162 2-24 Alternative Selection. 2-24 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative A (No 

Action) because it does not change existing access 

opportunities.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to 

provide access for both motorized and non-motorized 

users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. As stated in the Travel Management 

Rule, National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

use. However, the magnitude and intensity of motor 

vehicle use have increased to the point that the purpose 

and need cannot be met while still allowing unrestricted 

cross-country travel. Soil erosion, water quality, and 

wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. As 

proposed in the action Alternatives B through E, a 

designated and actively managed system of roads, trails, 

and areas for motor vehicle use is needed.

167/1. 201/4. 240/3. 277/1. 

327/3. 403/2. 449/2. 548/2. 

565/5.

163 2-24 Alternative Selection. 2-24 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative A (No 

Action) because the BHNF is rich in human 

history and should remain open to all users.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to 

provide access for both motorized and non-motorized 

users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. As stated in the Travel Management 

Rule, National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

144/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

47

use. However, the magnitude and intensity of motor 

vehicle use have increased to the point that the purpose 

and need cannot be met while still allowing unrestricted 

cross-country travel. Soil erosion, water quality, and 

wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. As 

proposed in the action Alternatives B through E, a 

designated and actively managed system of roads, trails, 

and areas for motor vehicle use is needed.

164 2-24 Alternative Selection. 2-24 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative A (No 

Action) because it provides access for persons 

with disabilities.

Special provisions aimed at providing people with 

disabilities motorized opportunities not available to all 

forest users have not been included in the DEIS. In the 

comments and responses on the 2005 Motorized Travel 

Rule published on November 9, 2005 in the Federal 

Register, the agency states, “Under section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, no person with a disability 

can be denied participation in a Federal program that is 

available to all other people solely because of his or her 

disability. In conformance with section 504, wheelchairs 

are welcome on all National Forest System lands that 

are open to foot travel and are specifically exempt from 

the definition of motor vehicle in § 212.1 of the final 

rule, even if they are battery-powered. However, there is 

no legal requirement to allow people with disabilities to 

use OHVs or other motor vehicles on roads, trails, and 

areas closed to motor vehicle use because such an 

exemption could fundamentally alter the nature of the 

Forest Service‟s travel management program (7 CFR 

12e.103). Reasonable restrictions on motor vehicle use, 

applied consistently to everyone, are not 

discriminatory”. This concept also applies to providing 

special provisions for aging populations that may have 

limited mobility.

240/3. 

165 2-24 Alternative Selection. 2-24 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative A (No 

Action) because it is the only alternative that 

allows for ATVs over 50 inches wide.

Forest Service guidance allows for the designation of 

three standard types of motorized trails: those that are 

open to all vehicles (including ATVs greater than 50 

inches wide), those open to vehicles less than or equal to 

50 inches wide, and those open only to motorcycles. 

Action Alternatives B, C and D propose designating 

trails open to all vehicles.

286/4.

166 2-24 Alternative Selection. 2-24 Public Concern: The The magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 211/3. 483/14.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

48

Forest Service should select Alternative A (No 

Action) because the maintenance costs would be 

lower than for Alternatives C or D.

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot 

be met while still allowing the unrestricted cross-country 

travel that currently exists, as reflected in the No Action 

Alternative - Alternative A. Soil erosion, water quality, 

and wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. A 

designated and actively managed system of roads, trails, 

and areas for motor vehicle use is needed. It is true that 

the Forest is unlikely to have sufficient funding to 

maintain to standard all of the proposed routes in the 

action Alternatives C or D for the foreseeable future. As 

a result, the Forest will need to prioritize maintenance 

work and apply for additional/supplemental funding to 

increase the number of miles of road and trail 

maintenance routinely completed. Partnerships, grants 

and volunteer work could also play a significant role in 

maintaining the forests roads and trails.

167 2-24 Alternative Selection. 2-24 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative A (No 

Action) because the other Alternatives would 

result in increased taxation.

The magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot 

be met while still allowing the unrestricted cross-country 

travel that currently exists, as reflected in the No Action 

Alternative - Alternative A. Soil erosion, water quality, 

and wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. A 

designated and actively managed system of roads, trails, 

and areas for motor vehicle use is needed. It is true that 

the Forest is unlikely to have sufficient funding to 

maintain to standard all of the proposed routes in the 

action alternatives for the foreseeable future. As a result, 

the Forest will need to prioritize maintenance work and 

apply for additional/supplemental funding to increase 

the number of miles of road and trail maintenance 

routinely completed. Partnerships, grants and volunteer 

work could also play a significant role in maintaining the 

forests roads and trails.

483/16.

168 2-24 Alternative Selection. 2-24 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative A (No 

Action) because most of the problems could be 

solved with improved enforcement.

The magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot 

be met while still allowing the unrestricted cross-country 

travel that currently exists, as reflected in the No Action 

Alternative - Alternative A. Soil erosion, water quality, 

and wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. A 

designated and actively managed system of roads, trails, 

253/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

49

and areas for motor vehicle use is needed. As stated in 

the DEIS, the enforcement of motorized-travel 

restrictions is an important part of the successful 

implementation of the Travel Management Rule. 

Enforcement of the new travel management rules will 

likely be more efficient and effective after 

implementation. A motor vehicle use map will be 

available. Route identification signs corresponding to 

which roads are designated for travel should be on the 

ground. Off-route motorized travel in non-designated 

areas will be prohibited. There are a large percentage of 

motorized users, including individuals, motorized and 

non-motorized groups, landowners and businesses that 

are knowledgeable and concerned that the Forest is 

protected and that access to the Forest be preserved. 

The conscious efforts of this large group may aid 

significantly in informing the relatively small group that 

is either uninformed or unwilling to recreate in a manner 

that is legal and responsible.

169 2-25 Alternative Selection. 2-25 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should not select Alternative A 

because it would cause resource damage and 

conflicts with non-motorized users.

We agree. The magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle 

use have increased to the point that the purpose and 

need cannot be met while still allowing the unrestricted 

cross-country travel that currently exists, as reflected in 

the No Action Alternative - Alternative A. Soil erosion, 

water quality, and wildlife habitat are being adversely 

affected. As proposed in the action alternatives, a 

designated and actively managed system of roads, trails, 

and areas for motor vehicle use is needed. 

158/1. 354/1.

170 2-25 Alternative Selection. 2-25 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should not select Alternative A 

because it would not allow for enforcement.

As stated in the DEIS, enforcement of motorized-travel 

restrictions is an important part of the successful 

implementation of the Travel Management Rule. Under 

the current situation reflected in Alternative A, law 

enforcement efforts have been limited by scarce 

resources, an uninformed public, and a complex matrix 

of closure orders. The Forest's inability to actively 

manage the existing transportation system and enforce 

current travel rules have likely contributed to increased 

road and area use violations, user conflicts, and resource 

damage. Enforcement of the new travel management 

rules will likely be more efficient and effective after 

159/2. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

50

implementation of a designated system of roads, trails 

and areas. A motor vehicle use map will be available. 

Route identification signs corresponding to which roads 

are designated for travel should be on the ground. Offroute motorized travel in non-designated areas will be 

prohibited.

171 2-25 Alternative Selection. 2-25 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should not select Alternative A 

because it would not improve the current 

situation.

We agree. The magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle 

use have increased to the point that the purpose and 

need cannot be met while still allowing the unrestricted 

cross-country travel that currently exists, as reflected in 

the No Action Alternative - Alternative A. Soil erosion, 

water quality, and wildlife habitat are being adversely 

affected. A designated and actively managed system of 

roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use as reflected 

in the action alternatives is needed. 

276/2. 280/8. 336/1. 376/1. 

399/1. 

172 2-25 Alternative Selection. 2-25 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should not select Alternative A to 

protect the forest from weed infestations and soil 

and water damage and to reduce user conflicts.

We agree. The magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle 

use have increased to the point that the purpose and 

need cannot be met while still allowing the unrestricted 

cross-country travel that currently exists, as reflected in 

the No Action Alternative - Alternative A. The Forest's 

inability to actively manage the existing transportation 

system and enforce current travel rules have likely 

contributed to increased road and area use violations, 

user conflicts, and resource damage. A designated and 

actively managed system of roads, trails, and areas for 

motor vehicle use as reflected in the action alternatives 

is needed. 

471/3.

173 2-26 Alternative Selection. 2-26 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative A or 

Alternative C.

The magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot 

be met while still allowing the unrestricted cross-country 

travel that currently exists, as reflected in the No Action 

Alternative - Alternative A. Soil erosion, water quality, 

and wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. A 

designated and actively managed system of roads, trails, 

and areas for motor vehicle use as reflected in 

Alternative C and the other action alternatives is needed. 

008/1. 117/1. 446/1. 484/12. 

485/12.

174 2-27 Alternative Selection. 2-27 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should not select Alternative B, D, 

or E.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to 

provide access for both motorized and non-motorized 

users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. As stated in the Travel Management 

359/4.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

51

Rule, National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

use. However, the magnitude and intensity of motor 

vehicle use have increased to the point that the purpose 

and need cannot be met while still allowing unrestricted 

cross-country travel. Soil erosion, water quality, and 

wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. As 

proposed in the action Alternatives B through E, a 

designated and actively managed system of roads, trails, 

and areas for motor vehicle use is needed.

175 2-28 Alternative Selection. 2-28 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative B because 

it is the Forest Service's preferred Alternative.

Thank you for your comment. At this time, the Forest 

Service has not identified a preferred alternative. The 

selected alternative will be developed based on public 

comments and the results of the forest-wide effects 

analysis for the DEIS.

213/1. 

176 2-28 Alternative Selection. 2-28 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative B because 

it allows for a balance between motorized and 

non-motorized recreation.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to 

provide access for both motorized and non-motorized 

users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. As stated in the Travel Management 

Rule, National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

use as reflected in Alternative B. As stated in the Travel 

Management Rule, National Forests are managed not 

only for the purposes of preserving natural values, water 

quality, wildlife habitat, endangered species, biological 

diversity, but also for timber, grazing, mining, and 

outdoor recreation. These uses must be balanced, rather 

than one given preference over another. 

059/1. 061/1. 099/3. 101/1. 

108/2. 269/1. 275/1. 276/3. 

608/5. 

177 2-28 Alternative Selection. 2-28 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative B because 

it is fair to both motorized recreationists and local 

residents.

The magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot 

be met while still allowing the unrestricted cross-country 

travel that currently exists, as reflected in the No Action 

Alternative - Alternative A. It is the intent of the Black 

Hills National Forest to provide access for both 

motorized and non-motorized users in a manner that is 

environmentally sustainable over the long term. As 

stated in the Travel Management Rule, National Forests 

are managed by law for multiple use as reflected in 

Alternative B. These uses must be balanced, rather than 

one given preference over another. 

030/8. 040/1. 102/1. 608/5.

178 2-28 Alternative Selection. 2-28 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative B because 

Thank you for your comment. 035/1. 096/1. 244/1. 372/9. 

536/2. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

52

it allows for a sufficient number of motorized 

trails.

179 2-28 Alternative Selection. 2-28 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative B because 

it has more ATV roads.

Thank you for your comment. 026/1. 

180 2-28 Alternative Selection. 2-28 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative B because 

it provides a buffer from Rapid City to motorized 

areas.

The magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot 

be met while still allowing the unrestricted cross-country 

travel that currently exists, as reflected in the No Action 

Alternative - Alternative A. It is the intent of the Black 

Hills National Forest to provide access for both 

motorized and non-motorized users in a manner that is 

environmentally sustainable over the long term. As 

stated in the Travel Management Rule, National Forests 

are managed by law for multiple use as reflected in 

Alternative B. These uses must be balanced, rather than 

one given preference over another. 

402/2. 431/4. 434/2. 434/4. 

181 2-28 Alternative Selection. 2-28 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative B because 

it provides a 50-inch or smaller trail system in the 

Bearlodge District.

Thank you for your comment. 042/2. 313/1. 

182 2-28 Alternative Selection. 2-28 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative B because 

it increases four-wheel access while limiting crosscountry access.

Thank you for your comment. 042/1. 155/1. 369/2. 

183 2-28 Alternative Selection. 2-28 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative B because 

it allows both dry camping and access for big 

game hunting.

Thank you for your comment. 030/8. 042/3. 

184 2-28 Alternative Selection. 2-28 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative B because 

it provides for fire escape routes.

Thank you for your comment. 487/1.

185 2-29 Alternative Selection. 2-29 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should not select Alternative B 

because it includes too many trails and motorizedmixed routes and allows too much off-road travel 

for game retrieval and camping.

Thank you for your comment. A significant difference 

between the current situation (Alternative A) and 

Alternative B is that Alternative A allows largely 

unrestricted cross country motorized travel on 864,000 

acres that is prohibited in Alternative B. 

280/9. 376/2.

186 2-30 Alternative Selection. 2-30 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should explain how Alternative B 

(Modified Proposed Action) modifies the current 

The transportation system reflected in Alternative B was 

largely based on the 2007 Travel Analysis Report and 

several years of public input. A significant difference 

578/16.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

53

official forest system routes because the 

differences appear minimal or non-existent.

between the current situation (Alternative A) and 

Alternative B is that Alternative A allows largely 

unrestricted cross country motorized travel on 864,000 

acres that is prohibited in Alternative B. 

187 2-31 Alternative Selection. 2-31 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that 

Alternative B would negatively impact wildlife 

and habitat.

The Forest has conducted a sufficient forest-wide 

analysis of the effects of designating roads, trails and 

areas for motorized use proposed in Alternative B. The 

results of this analysis can be found in Chapter 3 of the 

DEIS. 

317/1.

188 2-32 Alternative Selection. 2-32 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that 

Alternative B would be costly to implement 

because of the increased number of trailheads.

The Forest has conducted a sufficient forest-wide 

analysis of the effects of designating roads, trails and 

areas for motorized use. The economic feasibility of 

implementing the action alternatives, including 

Alternative B, was analyzed in the DEIS. The results of 

this analysis can be found in Chapter 3 of the DEIS 

within the Engineering and Transportation section. 

280/10.

189 2-33 Alternative Selection. 2-33 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative B or 

Alternative C because they support two-wheel 

motorized recreation. 

Thank you for your comment. 033/1. 251/1. 292/4. 464/1.

190 2-34 Alternative Selection. 2-34 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should not select Alternatives B or 

C because they prioritize motorized recreation 

over the multiple-use mandate.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to 

provide access for both motorized and non-motorized 

users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. As stated in the Travel Management 

Rule, National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

use. National Forests are not reserved for the exclusive 

use of any one group, nor must every use be 

accommodated on every acre. It is entirely appropriate 

for different areas of the National Forests to provide 

different opportunities for recreation. An 

interdisciplinary process was used to identify routes 

suitable for public motorized use designation, including 

all identified non-system routes, in the range of 

alternatives. The analysis process included identifying 

natural and cultural resource concerns, recreation, access 

needs, and other related considerations consistent with 

the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule to develop the range of 

alternatives. The results of this analysis can be found in 

Chapter 3 of the DEIS. 

105/12. 188/1. 333/2. 399/2.

191 2-35 Alternative Selection. 2-35 Public Concern: The Thank you for your comment. 017/2. 100/1. 354/3.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

54

Forest Service should select Alternative B or 

Alternative D.

192 2-36 Alternative Selection. 2-36 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative C because 

the other alternatives are all flawed.

Thank you for your comment. 483/19. 

193 2-36 Alternative Selection. 2-36 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative C because 

it is the most balanced and allows for multiple 

use.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to 

provide access for both motorized and non-motorized 

users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. As stated in the Travel Management 

Rule, National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

use. However, the magnitude and intensity of motor 

vehicle use have increased to the point that the purpose 

and need cannot be met while still allowing unrestricted 

cross-country travel. Soil erosion, water quality, and 

wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. As 

proposed in the action Alternatives B through E, a 

designated and actively managed system of roads, trails, 

and areas for motor vehicle use is needed.

004/1. 029/1. 093/3. 142/1. 

183/1. 278/1. 304/1. 336/5. 

461/2. 520/1. 593/11. 594/1. 

595/1. 596/1. 598/2. 599/1. 

600/1. 601/1. 602/1. 603/11. 

604/11. 605/11. 606/11. 607/1. 

607/2. 607/3. 611/8. 

194 2-36 Alternative Selection. 2-36 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative C because 

it provides a diverse and sustainable travel system 

while protecting natural resources.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to 

provide access for both motorized and non-motorized 

users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. As stated in the Travel Management 

Rule, National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

use. However, the magnitude and intensity of motor 

vehicle use have increased to the point that the purpose

and need cannot be met while still allowing unrestricted 

cross-country travel. Soil erosion, water quality, and 

wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. As 

proposed in the action Alternatives B through E, a 

designated and actively managed system of roads, trails, 

and areas for motor vehicle use is needed.

046/1. 283/1. 283/2. 287/2. 

322/14. 459/3. 461/13. 611/3. 

195 2-36 Alternative Selection. 2-36 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative C to 

allow for a wide range of access.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to 

provide access for both motorized and non-motorized 

users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. As stated in the Travel Management 

Rule, National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

use. However, the magnitude and intensity of motor 

vehicle use have increased to the point that the purpose 

and need cannot be met while still allowing unrestricted 

cross-country travel. Soil erosion, water quality, and 

002/3. 075/4. 124/4. 192/1. 

196/1. 370/1. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

55

wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. As 

proposed in the action Alternatives B through E, a 

designated and actively managed system of roads, trails, 

and areas for motor vehicle use is needed.

196 2-36 Alternative Selection. 2-36 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative C because 

it is easier to restrict access later on than to reopen areas.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to 

provide access for both motorized and non-motorized 

users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. As stated in the Travel Management 

Rule, National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

use. However, the magnitude and intensity of motor 

vehicle use have increased to the point that the purpose 

and need cannot be met while still allowing unrestricted 

cross-country travel. Soil erosion, water quality, and 

wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. As 

proposed in the action Alternatives B through E, a 

designated and actively managed system of roads, trails, 

and areas for motor vehicle use is needed. It is entirely 

appropriate for different areas of the National Forests to 

provide different opportunities for recreation. An 

interdisciplinary process was used to identify areas and 

routes suitable for public motorized use designation, 

including all identified non-system routes, in the range 

of alternatives. 

055/1. 075/3. 093/1. 

197 2-36 Alternative Selection. 2-36 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative C because 

it allows for the most motorized travel.

Thank you for your comment. 006/1. 011/1. 081/1. 094/1. 

110/2. 124/1. 133/2. 135/1. 

158/3. 159/1. 159/4. 178/5. 

182/1. 190/1. 235/1. 239/12. 

243/1. 263/1. 263/2. 263/3. 

272/1. 276/1. 279/2. 284/1. 

287/1. 314/2. 321/4. 324/5. 

335/1. 339/1. 340/1. 351/11. 

376/3. 426/1. 441/1. 445/4. 

449/3. 451/1. 460/1. 494/11. 

519/1. 522/8. 535/1. 536/1. 

538/13. 609/11.

198 2-36 Alternative Selection. 2-36 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative C because 

it restricts cross-country travel.

Thank you for your comment. 263/4. 

199 2-36 Alternative Selection. 2-36 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative C because 

Thank you for your comment. 033/5. 199/1. 200/1. 259/1. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

56

it allows for motorized game retrieval.

200 2-36 Alternative Selection. 2-36 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative C because 

it allows motorized game retrieval and dispersed 

camping.

Thank you for your comment. 211/4. 435/3. 492/2. 526/2. 

201 2-36 Alternative Selection. 2-36 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative C because 

it would allow non-highway legal vehicles on 

many of the roads.

Thank you for your comment. 491/7. 

202 2-36 Alternative Selection. 2-36 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative C to 

reduce user conflicts.

Thank you for your comment. 336/3. 

203 2-36 Alternative Selection. 2-36 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative C to 

reduce the areas of concentrated use and allow 

greater access.

Thank you for your comment. 065/1. 336/6. 432/4. 534/14.

204 2-36 Alternative Selection. 2-36 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative C because 

it allows for shared maintenance and economic 

benefits to local communities.

Thank you for your comment. 336/4. 

205 2-36 Alternative Selection. 2-36 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative C because 

it would benefit local economies.

Thank you for your comment. 094/2. 263/5. 283/3. 

206 2-36 Alternative Selection. 2-36 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative C because 

it is the only alternative to address the growing 

demand for motorized recreation.

Alternative C does propose the largest transportation 

system. However, all the action alternatives propose 

opportunities for motorized recreation. They vary only 

in the amount and location of those opportunities. See 

Table 7 on page 37 in Chapter 2 for a comparison of the 

recreational opportunities proposed for the range of 

alternatives.

075/2. 477/1. 

207 2-36 Alternative Selection. 2-36 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative C because 

it would provide the greatest amount of trails and 

motorized riding areas in the Wyoming portion of 

the Forest.

Thank you for your comment. Alternative C does 

propose the largest transportation system. However, all 

the action alternatives propose opportunities for 

motorized recreation. They vary only in the amount and 

location of those opportunities. See Table 7 on page 37 

in Chapter 2 for a comparison of the recreational 

opportunities proposed for the range of alternatives. 

The State of Wyoming has implemented an Off-road 

Recreational Vehicle (ORRV) Program. It is the intent 

of the Forest to enroll all roads and trails designated for 

110/1. 128/1. 161/2. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

57

motorized use in the Wyoming portion of the Black 

Hills in the Wyoming State ORRV program.

208 2-37 Alternative Selection. 2-37 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should not select Alternative C 

because it opens too much of the forest to

motorized travel.

Alternative C does propose the largest transportation 

system. Consistent with the 2005 Motorized Travel 

Rule, development of all the action alternatives 

specifically included considering effects of trails with the 

objective of minimizing effects related to damage to soil, 

watershed, vegetation, other forest resources, 

harassment of wildlife, disruption of wildlife habitats, 

and conflicts between motorized trail use and existing 

uses. 

276/4. 280/11. 376/3.

209 2-38 Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative D 

because it is the most consistent with Executive 

Orders 11644 and 11989.

The FS acknowledges that EPA identified Alternative D 

as the environmentally preferable alternative, and as the

most consistent with these two Executive Orders. 

Alternative D proposes the smallest motorized travel 

system. The Department of Agriculture produced the 

2005 Motorized Travel Rule to be consistent with 

Executive Orders 11644 and 11989, and to serve as the

means to implement the policy direction contained in 

those Executive Orders. The 2005 Motorized Travel 

Rule places more emphasis on considering the effects of 

motorized trails and areas, than of roads. Consistent 

with the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule, the action 

alternatives were developed with the objective of 

minimizing effects related to damage to soil, watershed, 

vegetation, other forest resources, harassment of 

wildlife, disruption of wildlife habitats, and conflicts 

between motorized trail use and existing uses. 

473/6.

210 2-38 Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative D 

because it is the environmentally preferable 

alternative.

The FS acknowledges that EPA identified Alternative D 

as the environmentally preferable alternative, and as the 

most consistent with NFMA requirements. Consistent 

with the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule, the action 

alternatives were developed with the objective of 

minimizing effects related to damage to soil, watershed, 

vegetation, other forest resources, harassment of 

wildlife, disruption of wildlife habitats, and conflicts 

between motorized trail use and existing uses. 

Alternative D does propose the smallest motorized 

travel system.

082/1. 187/1. 473/4. 473/5.

211 2-38 Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public Concern: The Thank you for your comment. Alternative D does 091/2. 122/3. 276/7. 320/9. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

58

Forest Service should select Alternative D 

because it would have a minimal impact on 

resources.

propose the smallest motorized travel system, and 

presents less impacts to some natural resource 

components. The decision will seek to balance 

recreation opportunities with effects to natural resources 

and other elements. 

376/4. 399/7. 462/96.

212 2-38 Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative D 

because it would best protect the natural and 

cultural resources.

Thank you for your comment. Alternative D does 

propose the smallest motorized travel system, and 

presents less impacts to some natural resource 

components. The decision will seek to balance 

recreation opportunities with effects to natural resources 

and other elements. 

276/5. 414/79.

213 2-38 Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative D 

because it would best protect plant and animal 

communities.

Thank you for your comment. Alternative D does 

propose the smallest motorized travel system, and 

presents less impacts to some natural resource 

components. The decision will seek to balance 

recreation opportunities with effects to natural resources 

and other elements. 

025/1. 027/4. 078/1. 436/2. 

456/145.

214 2-38 Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative D 

because it would have the least potential to spread

noxious weeds and pests.

The Forest Service acknowledges the support of the 

Pennington County Weed and Pest Board for 

Alternative D because they believe it would have the 

least potential to spread noxious weeds and pests. 

Alternative D does propose the smallest motorized 

travel system, and presents less impacts to some natural 

resource components. The decision will seek to balance 

recreation opportunities with effects to natural resources 

and other elements. 

165/1. 326/17. 471/4.

215 2-38 Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative D 

because it would limit disturbance to livestock 

and wild game.

Thank you for your comment. Alternative D does 

propose the smallest motorized travel system, and could 

pose less disturbance to livestock and wild game. The 

effects of each of the alternatives on these and other 

elements are disclosed in Chapter 3 of the EIS. The 

decision will seek to balance recreation opportunities 

with effects to natural resources and other elements. 

118/1. 326/17.

216 2-38 Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative D 

because it would provide enough trails for 

motorized use while decreasing damage to trails.

Thank you for your comment. 252/1. 399/5. 436/1.

217 2-38 Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative D to 

reduce the damage caused by user-created 

Thank you for your comment. All of the action 

alternatives would restrict or eliminate motorized crosscountry travel as compared to the existing situation, and 

015/1. 358/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

59

motorized trails. improve the ability to enforce travel regulations. The 

effects of each of the alternatives are disclosed in 

Chapter 3 of the EIS. 

218 2-38 Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative D 

because it would reduce the number of miles 

open to motorized use.

Thank you for your comment. The alternatives were 

designed to present varied levels of recreation 

opportunities. The effects of the alternatives are 

disclosed in Chapter 3 of the EIS. The decision will 

seek to balance recreation uses, effects to natural and 

other resources, and other elements. 

134/2. 138/3. 139/1. 140/3. 

141/3. 169/1. 213/2. 252/1. 

264/1. 319/1. 376/4. 414/1. 

462/1. 473/4. 27/4.

219 2-38 Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative D 

because it would concentrate high-impact 

motorized uses.

Thank you for your comment. 017/1. 456/145.

220 2-38 Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative D 

because it would reduce user conflicts.

Consistent with the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule, 

development of all the action alternatives specifically 

included considering effects of trails with the objective 

of minimizing effects related to damage to soil, 

watershed, vegetation, other forest resources, 

harassment of wildlife, disruption of wildlife habitats, 

and conflicts between motorized trail use and existing 

uses. The effects of the alternatives on non-motorized 

recreation opportunities are disclosed in Chapter 3. 

252/1. 319/108. 320/9. 356/3. 

368/2. 373/2. 414/79. 462/9. 

474/28.

221 2-38 Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative D 

because it would allow for quiet recreation.

Consistent with the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule, 

development of all the action alternatives specifically 

included considering effects of trails with the objective 

of minimizing effects related to damage to soil, 

watershed, vegetation, other forest resources, 

harassment of wildlife, disruption of wildlife habitats, 

and conflicts between motorized trail use and existing 

uses. The effects of the alternatives on non-motorized 

recreation opportunities are disclosed in Chapter 3. 

399/8. 440/1. 563/1. 578/3. 

588/1.

222 2-38 Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative D 

because it would implement the quiet zone 

concept.

Consistent with the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule, 

development of all the action alternatives specifically 

included considering effects of trails with the objective 

of minimizing effects related to damage to soil, 

watershed, vegetation, other forest resources, 

harassment of wildlife, disruption of wildlife habitats, 

and conflicts between motorized trail use and existing 

uses. The effects of the alternatives on non-motorized 

recreation opportunities are disclosed in Chapter 3. 

024/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

60

223 2-38 Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative D 

because it would implement "walk-in-only" areas.

Consistent with the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule, 

development of all the action alternatives specifically 

included considering effects of trails with the objective 

of minimizing effects related to damage to soil, 

watershed, vegetation, other forest resources, 

harassment of wildlife, disruption of wildlife habitats, 

and conflicts between motorized trail use and existing 

uses. The effects of the alternatives on non-motorized 

recreation opportunities are disclosed in Chapter 3. 

456/12. 458/19.

224 2-38 Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative D 

because it would best protect riparian areas.

Alternatives were developed to present differing levels 

of recreation opportunities, and with the objective of 

minimizing effects to soil, watershed, vegetation, other 

forest resources, harassment of wildlife, disruption of 

wildlife habitats, and conflicts between motorized trail 

use and existing uses. All action alternatives would 

significantly reduce the number of perennial stream 

crossings and the mileage of routes within 30 feet of 

streams. Design criteria for stream crossings would 

reduce the associated effects. No motorized crosscountry use would be allowed under Alternatives D or 

E. Alternative D does propose the smallest motorized 

travel system. The effects of each alternative on riparian 

areas and other resources are disclosed in Chapter 3 of 

the EIS, in the Hydrology section. 

346/9. 471/4.

225 2-38 Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative D 

because it would protect riparian areas and spruce 

habitats and would reduce noise impacts.

Thank you for your comment. We agree that 

Alternative D would have the least number of stream 

crossings, the least mileage of routes near streams, and 

the fewest miles in spruce and riparian habitat. 

372/8. 

226 2-38 Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative D to 

protect Management Area 3.1 - Botanical Areas.

The action alternatives were developed to offer differing 

levels of recreation opportunities, and with the objective 

of minimizing effects to soil, watershed, vegetation, 

other forest resources, harassment of wildlife, disruption 

of wildlife habitats, and conflicts between motorized 

trail use and other existing uses, including nonmotorized recreation. Design criteria are included to 

reduce the effects of implementing the action 

alternatives. Alternative D does propose the smallest 

motorized travel system. The effects of the alternatives 

are disclosed in Chapter 3 of the EIS. 

371/1. 372/6.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

61

227 2-38 Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative D 

because it is the most sustainable and least 

destructive option.

Thank you for your comment. 187/2. 276/7. 320/13. 345/1. 

473/5. 590/1.

228 2-38 Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative D 

because it is the least expensive.

Cost data has been added to the FEIS, in the 

Engineering section in Chapter 3. The decision will 

consider many factors including cost. 

320/13. 399/8. 

229 2-38 Alternative Selection. 2-38 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative D 

because it is the least expensive and easiest to 

enforce.

Cost data has been added to the FEIS, in the 

Engineering section in Chapter 3. The decision will 

consider many factors including cost. 

122/1. 529/2. 345/1. 

230 2-39 Alternative Selection. 2-39 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should not select Alternative D 

because it is too restrictive.

Thank you for your comment. At this time, the Forest 

Service has not identified a preferred alternative. All the 

action alternatives will be considered in developing a 

selected alternative. The selected alternative will be 

based on public comments and the results of the forestwide effects analysis for the DEIS.

158/4. 336/7.

231 2-39 Alternative Selection. 2-39 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should not select Alternative D 

because it reduces economic benefits to local 

communities.

Thank you for your comment. At this time, the Forest 

Service has not identified a preferred alternative. All the 

action alternatives will be considered in developing a 

selected alternative. The selected alternative will be 

based on public comments and the results of the forestwide effects analysis for the DEIS.

336/9.

232 2-39 Alternative Selection. 2-39 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should not select Alternative D 

because it does not meet the need for increasing 

recreation travel opportunities.

Thank you for your comment. At this time, the Forest 

Service has not identified a preferred alternative. All the 

action alternatives will be considered in developing a 

selected alternative. The selected alternative will be 

based on public comments and the results of the forestwide effects analysis for the DEIS.

459/7. 611/7.

233 2-39 Alternative Selection. 2-39 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should not select Alternative D to 

avoid increasing illegal trail use and resulting 

damage and reduced safety.

Thank you for your comment. 336/8.

234 2-40 Alternative Selection. 2-40 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should not select Alternatives D or 

E because they close too many trails to motorized 

use.

Thank you for your comment. At this time, the Forest 

Service has not identified a preferred alternative. All the 

action alternatives will be considered in developing a 

selected alternative. The selected alternative will be 

based on public comments and the results of the forestwide effects analysis for the DEIS.

005/1. 211/5. 324/1. 450/12. 

453/2. 491/5. 597/5. 

235 2-40 Alternative Selection. 2-40 Public Concern: The Thank you for your comment. At this time, the Forest 005/2. 005/3. 025/5. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

62

Forest Service should not select Alternatives D or 

E because they would limit game retrieval.

Service has not identified a preferred alternative. All the 

action alternatives will be considered in developing a 

selected alternative. The selected alternative will be 

based on public comments and the results of the forestwide effects analysis for the DEIS.

236 2-41 Alternative Selection. 2-41 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative D or E 

because prohibiting off-road ATV use is the only 

way to control ATV use. 

Thank you for your comment. At this time, the Forest 

Service has not identified a preferred alternative. All the 

action alternatives will be considered in developing a 

selected alternative. The selected alternative will be 

based on public comments and the results of the forestwide effects analysis for the DEIS.

137/1. 406/1. 427/1.

237 2-42 Alternative Selection. 2-42 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative E because 

it would require licensing, allow motorized 

recreation on currently designated routes, and 

avoid the need for legislative action.

Thank you for your comment. 160/1. 

238 2-42 Alternative Selection. 2-42 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative E because 

it has the fewest roads and trails open to off-road 

vehicles.

Thank you for your comment. 150/1. 376/6. 

239 2-42 Alternative Selection. 2-42 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative E because 

it allows more travel on existing roads while 

limiting motorized use of trails.

Thank you for your comment. 280/3.

240 2-42 Alternative Selection. 2-42 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative E because 

it would be the least expensive.

Thank you for your comment. 276/6. 280/5. 

241 2-42 Alternative Selection. 2-42 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should select Alternative E because 

it minimizes elk habitat fragmentation and stream 

sedimentation.

Thank you for your comment. 281/3. 

242 2-43 Alternative Selection. 2-43 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should not select Alternative E 

because it fails to meet recreational travel needs 

and does not comply with MUSYA and NFMA.

All the action alternatives, including Alternative E, 

propose opportunities for motorized recreation. They 

vary only in the amount and location of those 

opportunities. See Table 7 on page 37 in Chapter 2 for a 

comparison of the recreational opportunities proposed 

for the range of alternatives.

158/5. 459/6. 611/6. 

243 2-43 Alternative Selection. 2-43 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should not select Alternative E 

because it does not include concentrated 

Thank you for your comment. At this time, the Forest 

Service has not identified a preferred alternative. All the 

action alternatives will be considered in developing a 

399/10.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

63

motorized use areas or allow for game retrieval. selected alternative. The selected alternative will be 

based on public comments and the results of the forestwide effects analysis for the DEIS.

244 2-43 Alternative Selection. 2-43 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should not select Alternative E 

because it reduces access and benefits to the local 

economy.

Thank you for your comment. At this time, the Forest 

Service has not identified a preferred alternative. All the 

action alternatives will be considered in developing a 

selected alternative. The selected alternative will be 

based on public comments and the results of the forestwide effects analysis for the DEIS.

336/10. 

245 2-43 Alternative Selection. 2-43 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should not select Alternative E 

because it allows for too many roads.

Thank you for your comment. At this time, the Forest 

Service has not identified a preferred alternative. All the 

action alternatives will be considered in developing a 

selected alternative. The selected alternative will be 

based on public comments and the results of the forestwide effects analysis for the DEIS.

399/9. 

246 2-44 Alternative Selection. 2-44 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should not select Alternative E or 

A because they don't address vehicle travel in the 

BHNF.

Alternative E is not the same as Alternative A. Although 

Alternative E proposes designating the existing 

transportation system as reflected in Alternative A, it 

would prohibit motorized cross-country use on 864,000 

acres. 

286/1. 316/6. 354/6.

247 2-45 Alternative Selection. 2-45 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that 

Alternative E is not implementable.

All the action alternatives are considered to be 

implementable.

376/6.

248 2-46 Alternative Selection. 2-46 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should not select any of the 

proposed alternatives because they close off 

public lands.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to 

provide access for both motorized and non-motorized 

users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. As stated in the Travel Management 

Rule, National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

use. However, the magnitude and intensity of motor 

vehicle use have increased to the point that the purpose 

and need cannot be met while still allowing unrestricted 

cross-country travel. Soil erosion, water quality, and 

wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. The Action 

Alternatives B through E each propose a designated and 

actively managed system of roads, trails, and areas for 

motor vehicle use. See the FEIS, Chapter 2, Table 7, for 

a comparison of the systems proposed in each 

alternative. Specifically, total miles of motorized trail 

would jump from the current 36 miles to 663 miles in 

Alternative B, 771 miles in Alternative C, and 320 miles 

478/2. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

64

in Alternative D. 

249 2-46 Alternative Selection. 2-46 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should not select any of the 

proposed alternatives because they all concentrate 

motorized users.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to 

provide access for both motorized and non-motorized 

users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. As stated in the Travel Management 

Rule, National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

use. However, the magnitude and intensity of motor 

vehicle use have increased to the point that the purpose 

and need cannot be met while still allowing unrestricted 

cross-country travel. Soil erosion, water quality, and 

wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. The Action 

Alternatives B through E each propose a designated and 

actively managed system of roads, trails, and areas for 

motor vehicle use. See the FEIS, Chapter 2, Table 7, for 

a comparison of the systems proposed in each 

alternative. Specifically, total miles of motorized trail 

would jump from the current 36 miles to 663 miles in 

Alternative B, 771 miles in Alternative C, and 320 miles 

in Alternative D. 

375/1. 611/5. 

250 2-47 Alternative Selection. 2-47 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that all the 

alternatives will reduce adverse impacts to 

ecosystems and watersheds.

Consistent with the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule, 

development of all the action alternatives specifically 

included considering effects of trails with the objective 

of minimizing effects related to damage to soil, 

watershed, vegetation, other forest resources, 

harassment of wildlife, disruption of wildlife habitats, 

and conflicts between motorized trail use and existing 

uses. 

611/9.

251 2-48 Alternative Selection. 2-48 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that all the 

alternatives will identify an official travel system 

and update the Forest travel map.

At this time, the Forest Service has not identified a 

preferred alternative. The selected alternative will be 

developed based on public comments and the results of 

the forest-wide effects analysis for the DEIS. All the 

alternatives, including the no action and modified 

proposed action, are designed to provide a range of 

options from which the responsible official can make an 

informed choice. The alternatives, which were 

developed by an interdisciplinary team of specialists, 

differ by the relative emphasis given to individual issues 

and public concerns. The selected alternative will 

identify the official transportation system that, when 

routes and areas are available for designation, will be 

459/4. 611/4.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

65

displayed on Motor Vehicle Use Maps.

252 2-49 Alternative Selection. 2-49 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that all the 

alternatives will specify which routes are open to 

motorized access.

At this time, the Forest Service has not identified a 

preferred alternative. The selected alternative will be 

developed based on public comments and the results of 

the forest-wide effects analysis for the DEIS. All the 

alternatives, including the no action and modified 

proposed action, are designed to provide a range of 

options from which the responsible official can make an 

informed choice. The alternatives, which were 

developed by an interdisciplinary team of specialists, 

differ by the relative emphasis given to individual issues 

and public concerns. The selected alternative will 

identify the official transportation system that, when 

routes and areas are available for designation, will be 

displayed on Motor Vehicle Use Maps.

459/10. 611/10.

253 2-50 Alternative Selection. 2-50 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that none of 

the alternatives will meet the increasing demand 

for recreational travel opportunities because they 

all reduce OHV opportunities.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to 

provide access for both motorized and non-motorized 

users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. As stated in the Travel Management 

Rule, National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

use. However, the magnitude and intensity of motor 

vehicle use have increased to the point that the purpose 

and need cannot be met while still allowing unrestricted 

cross-country travel. Soil erosion, water quality, and 

wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. As 

proposed in the Action Alternatives B through E, a 

designated and actively managed system of roads, trails, 

and areas for motor vehicle use is needed. All the action 

alternatives propose opportunities for OHV motorized 

recreation. They vary only in the amount and location of 

those opportunities.

459/5.

254 2-51 Alternative Selection. 2-51 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that the 

alternatives do not meet the stated objectives of 

the Travel Management Plan.

At this time, the Forest Service has not identified a 

preferred alternative. The selected alternative will be 

developed based on public comments and the results of 

the forest-wide effects analysis for the DEIS. Your 

concerns are acknowledged and they will be considered 

in developing the selected alternative.

475/9.

255 2-52 Revisions to Proposed Alternatives. 2-52 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should modify 

Alternative A to restrict access to roads and trails 

At this time, the Forest Service has not identified a 

preferred alternative. The selected alternative will be 

developed based on public comments and the results of 

197/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

66

shown on the current forest trails map. the forest-wide effects analysis for the DEIS. All aspects 

of the action alternatives will be considered in 

developing the selected alternative.

256 2-52 Revisions to Proposed Alternatives. 2-52 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should modify 

Alternative A to include greater enforcement.

At this time, the Forest Service has not identified a 

preferred alternative. The selected alternative will be 

developed based on public comments and the results of 

the forest-wide effects analysis for the DEIS. All aspects 

of the action alternatives will be considered in 

developing the selected alternative.

491/1.

257 2-53 Revisions to Proposed Alternatives. 2-53 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should create a 

preferred alternative using Alternative B as the 

baseline because it most closely resembles the 

alternative developed by the BHNG Advisory 

Board Travel Management Subcommittee.

At this time, the Forest Service has not identified a 

preferred alternative. The selected alternative will be 

developed based on public comments and the results of 

the forest-wide effects analysis for the DEIS. All aspects 

of the action alternatives will be considered in 

developing the selected alternative.

475/1.

258 2-54 Revisions to Proposed Alternatives. 2-54 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should ensure that 

Alternative B includes a motor vehicle use map.

At this time, the Forest Service has not identified a 

preferred alternative. The range of alternatives was

developed to meet the stated purpose and need and 

address the identified significant issues. The selected 

alternative will be developed based on public comments 

and the results of the forest-wide effects analysis for the 

DEIS. All aspects of the action alternatives will be 

considered in developing the selected alternative.

276/3.

259 2-55 Revisions to Proposed Alternatives. 2-55 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should include the 

trails from Alternative B in Alternative C.

At this time, the Forest Service has not identified a 

preferred alternative. The selected alternative will be 

developed based on public comments and the results of 

the forest-wide effects analysis for the DEIS. All aspects 

of the action alternatives will be considered in 

developing the selected alternative.

313/3. 447/6. 460/106. 492/1. 

504/16. 520/2. 526/1.

260 2-56 Revisions to Proposed Alternatives. 2-56 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should modify 

Alternative C to enhance recreational trail 

opportunity.

At this time, the Forest Service has not identified a 

preferred alternative. The selected alternative will be 

developed based on public comments and the results of 

the forest-wide effects analysis for the DEIS. All aspects 

of the action alternatives will be considered in 

developing the selected alternative.

459/8.

261 2-56 Revisions to Proposed Alternatives. 2-56 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should modify 

Alternative C to include as many of the existing 

trails as possible.

At this time, the Forest Service has not identified a 

preferred alternative. The selected alternative will be 

developed based on public comments and the results of 

the forest-wide effects analysis for the DEIS. All aspects 

of the action alternatives will be considered in 

459/9. 545/5.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

67

developing the selected alternative.

2622-56 Revisions to Proposed Alternatives. 2-56 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should modify 

Alternative C to ensure that the disabled are 

allowed access to the backcountry.

At this time, the Forest Service has not identified a 

preferred alternative. The selected alternative will be 

developed based on public comments and the results of 

the forest-wide effects analysis for the DEIS. All aspects 

of the action alternatives will be considered in 

developing the selected alternative. Special provisions 

aimed at providing people with disabilities motorized 

opportunities not available to all forest users have not 

been included in the DEIS. In the comments and 

responses on the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule published 

on November 9, 2005 in the Federal Register, the 

agency states, “Under section 504 of the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973, no person with a disability can be denied 

participation in a Federal program that is available to all 

other people solely because of his or her disability. In 

conformance with section 504, wheelchairs are welcome 

on all National Forest System lands that are open to 

foot travel and are specifically exempt from the 

definition of motor vehicle in § 212.1 of the final rule, 

even if they are battery-powered. However, there is no 

legal requirement to allow people with disabilities to use 

OHVs or other motor vehicles on roads, trails, and 

areas closed to motor vehicle use because such an 

exemption could fundamentally alter the nature of the 

Forest Service‟s travel management program (7 CFR 

12e.103). Reasonable restrictions on motor vehicle use, 

applied consistently to everyone, are not 

discriminatory”. This concept also applies to providing 

special provisions for aging populations that may have 

limited mobility.

432/4.

2632-56 Revisions to Proposed Alternatives. 2-56 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should modify 

Alternative C to prohibit mud bogging.

Mud bogging is currently not allowed on the Forest. It is 

also not proposed in any of the action alternatives, 

including Alternative C.

432/3.

2642-57 Revisions to Proposed Alternatives. 2-57 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should reevaluate 

the areas open for elk retrieval in Alternative C 

because they do not include many of the areas elk 

herds use.

Thank you for your comment. The areas for elk-only 

game retrieval were analyzed and proposed based on 

potential effects to natural and cultural resources. Based 

on the effects analysis, some areas were determined not 

appropriate for designation based on potential impacts 

of previously identified or unknown sensitive resources.

087/2.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

68

265 2-58 Revisions to Proposed Alternatives. 2-58 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should modify 

Alternative D to allow dispersed camping and 

game retrieval.

At this time, the Forest Service has not identified a 

preferred alternative. The selected alternative will be 

developed based on public comments and the results of 

the forest-wide effects analysis for the DEIS. All aspects 

of the action alternatives will be considered in 

developing the selected alternative.

440/1.

266 2-59 Revisions to Proposed Alternatives. 2-59 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should modify 

Alternative E to include game retrieval.

At this time, the Forest Service has not identified a 

preferred alternative. The selected alternative will be 

developed based on public comments and the results of 

the forest-wide effects analysis for the DEIS. All aspects 

of the action alternatives will be considered in 

developing the selected alternative. Game retrieval was 

included in Alternatives A, B and C. Alternative E will 

be considered along with game retrieval options in the 

final decision.

152/3.

267 2-60 Revisions to Proposed Alternatives. 2-60 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should ensure that 

the selected alternative includes the route 

designations from Alternative C for the Prairie 

Creek/Victoria Lake area.

At this time, the Forest Service has not identified a 

preferred alternative. The selected alternative will be 

developed based on public comments and the results of 

the forest-wide effects analysis for the DEIS. All aspects 

of the action alternatives will be considered in 

developing the selected alternative.

536/11.

268 2-61 Impact Analysis. 2-61 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should improve the impact analysis 

and avoid additional environmental impacts.

Thank you for your comment. Your concerns will be 

considered in developing the selected alternative. 

Designation decisions will be made in accordance with 

the criteria in § 212.55 of the Travel Management Rule.

473/8.

269 2-62 Impact Analysis. 2-62 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should improve the impact analysis 

to remove bias and provide realistic impact 

evaluation.

Thank you for your comment. As reflected in the Travel 

Management Rule, designations of roads, trails, and 

areas for motor vehicle use will be based on accurate, 

pertinent, unbiased information. 

491/3.

270 2-62 Impact Analysis. 2-62 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should improve the impact analysis 

to ensure the significant issues are addressed.

Thank you for your comment. The significant issues 

identified for the DEIS are listed in Chapter 1. They 

were discussed and analyzed in Chapters 2 and 3.

126/9.

271 2-63 Impact Analysis. 2-63 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should demonstrate the 

environmental benefits that will result from the 

proposed action to justify the significant impact 

on the human environment.

All alternatives address the desire for multiple-use access 

and recreational use. The Interdisciplinary Team 

evaluated resource management issues as well as the 

social, economic and environmental justice issues. The 

implication that motorized recreationists should be 

identified as an environmental justice-covered 

population is not valid. Executive Order 12898 

specifically deals with low-income and minority 

126/137.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

69

populations. 

272 2-64 Technical and Editorial. 2-64 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should provide the source data 

used to estimate the $350 average per mile 

maintenance cost and should clarify whether the 

number is based on Black Hills data or on other 

forests.

Thank you for your comment. Conversations in 2007 

with Forest Service staff from the Medicine Bow Routt 

NF and Grand Mesa Uncompahgre Gunnison NF 

resulted in an estimated range of $250 to $350 for road 

and motorized trail maintenance costs. Black Hills NF 

engineers concurred with this estimate. These figures are 

also included in the 2007 Travel Analysis Report. 

Providing definitive cost figures in a DEIS for a 

proposed trail system is not practical or a realistic 

expectation. Even after the design, layout and 

construction phases for routes are completed, 

maintenance costs will vary. There are no specific 

standards for motorized trail maintenance. All routes, 

including trails with varying level of difficulty ratings, 

have a maintenance class assigned to them and are 

maintained at different levels and rates depending on the 

priority and available resources.

098/1. 098/2. 098/4.

273 2-65 Technical and Editorial. 2-65 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should explain the reason for 

the differences in annual and deferred 

maintenance costs between September 2007 and 

February 2009 and whether the data presented in 

Table 23 will be reported to Region 2.

As stated in the DEIS, annual maintenance costs include 

such things as routine road surface blading and culvert 

cleaning, and the annualized cost of replacing signs and 

road surfaces, mostly gravel. Deferred maintenance 

costs reflect maintenance that was not performed when 

it was scheduled and was delayed for a future period. 

Between 2007 and 2009, the type and quality of data 

required to be collected changed, therefore the costs 

reported in the 2007 Travel Analysis Report and the 

2009 DEIS may also differ.

098/3.

274 2-66 Technical and Editorial. 2-66 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should eliminate the use of the 

term “Concentrated Motorized Use Area” 

because users misunderstand the term.

We agree that the term "Concentrated Motorized Use 

Area,” or CMUA, may be misinterpreted. The term is 

described in the DEIS in Chapter 2 on page 24 as "a 

defined area featuring smaller-scale loop routes and 

other motorized travel opportunities." Since the intent 

of the CMUA terminology is to describe the location of 

a concentration of looped OHV routes comprised of 

trails and "roads open to all vehicles," the term will be 

replaced with "Motorized Trail System," or MTS. 

465/16.

275 2-67 Technical and Editorial. 2-67 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should disclose the locations 

of learning areas.

The descriptions and locations of the three learning 

(practice) areas were included in the DEIS. The 

information is provided in the Alternative C description 

465/3.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

70

on page 26 in Chapter 2. Two areas were identified on 

the Bearlodge Ranger District, the Bearlodge Pit in the 

northern portion of the district and the Hain Spring Pit 

in the southern portion of the district. A third area was 

identified on the Northern Hills Ranger District at the 

Spearfish Quarry near the City of Spearfish. 

276 2-68 Technical and Editorial. 2-68 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should provide Table 29.

Table # 29 is provided in the DEIS. As indicated in the 

Table of Contents, the table is located in the Hydrology 

section of Chapter 3 on page 123.

578/48.

277 2-69 Maps and Data. 2-69 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should include GPS coordinates on the 

travel map to allow for accurate real-time 

positioning.

Thank you for your comment. Latitude and Longitude 

values can be considered for the Motor Vehicle Use 

Map.

055/3.

278 2-70 Maps and Data. 2-70 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should provide access to full-sized maps 

at the Forest Service office because the online 

maps are too difficult to read.

Copies of the complete DEIS document, including 20 

maps, were available at all Black Hills NF administrative 

offices prior to the Notice of Availability (NOA) on 

Tuesday, September 11, 2007. 

010/1. 086/1.

279 2-71 Maps and Data. 2-71 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should improve the maps to ensure they 

are accurate, legible, and understandable.

Thank you for your comment. We will continue to 

improve the maps for the FEIS.

094/5.

280 2-71 Maps and Data. 2-71 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should improve the maps to show 

the relationship between hiking and motorized 

trails.

The effects to non-motorized trail users were analyzed 

in the Recreation section within in Chapter 3 of the 

DEIS. It was not deemed necessary to further increase 

the complexity of the maps by including non-motorized 

trails.

067/2.

281 2-71 Maps and Data. 2-71 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should improve the maps to provide 

clearer information regarding forest lands in 

Wyoming.

Thank you for your comment. We will continue to 

improve the maps for the FEIS.

114/2.

282 2-72 Maps and Data. 2-72 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should correct the maps to correctly show 

the location of the Experimental Forest.

We apologize for the confusion. The location labeled as 

"Experiment Forest" is actually the name for a trail head 

(see symbol adjacent to text) that accesses roads and 

trails in the vicinity of the actual Experimental Forest 

which is located south and west of the trail head.

316/4.

283 2-73 Maps and Data. 2-73 Public Concern: The Forest 

service should include hiking trails on the maps to 

allow the assessment of how users will be 

dispersed.

The effects to non-motorized trail users were analyzed 

in the Recreation section within in Chapter 3 of the 

DEIS. It was not deemed necessary to further increase 

the complexity of the maps by including non-motorized 

trails.

465/20. 

284 2-74 Maps and Data. 2-74 Public Concern: The Forest All the proposed routes and areas are depicted on the 20 085/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

71

Service should provide a complete GIS database

to allow for accurate route analysis.

maps representing the range of alternatives. A complete, 

single source GIS database of all the different 

components and attributes accessed for the forest-wide 

DEIS analysis does not currently exist. Some of the data 

is of a sensitive nature and access is restricted by law. 

285 3-1 General Management (Chapter 3: Natural 

Resources Management). 3-1 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should move forward with the 

travel management plan to protect riparian areas 

and private property.

As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

Forests are managed by law for multiple use. However, 

the magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot 

be met while still allowing unrestricted cross-country 

travel. Soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat are 

being adversely affected. A designated and actively 

managed system of roads, trails, and areas for motor 

vehicle use is needed.

097/4.

286 3-2 General Management. 3-2 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should protect the natural beauty 

and peacefulness of the Forest.

As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National 

Forests are managed by law for multiple use. However, 

the magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have 

increased to the point that the purpose and need cannot 

be met while still allowing unrestricted cross-country 

travel. Soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat are 

being adversely affected. A designated and actively 

managed system of roads, trails, and areas for motor 

vehicle use is needed.

089/2. 141/1.

287 3-3 General Management. 3-3 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should protect our public lands 

because the BHNF is a rare and unique area.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to 

provide access for both motorized and non-motorized 

users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. As stated in the Travel Management 

Rule, National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

use. However, the magnitude and intensity of motor 

vehicle use have increased to the point that the purpose 

and need cannot be met while still allowing unrestricted 

cross-country travel. Soil erosion, water quality, and 

wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. A 

designated and actively managed system of roads, trails, 

and areas for motor vehicle use is needed.

343/6. 362/24.

288 3-4 General Management. 3-4 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should protect the forest without 

closing the forest for future generations.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to 

provide access for both motorized and non-motorized 

users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. As stated in the Travel Management 

Rule, National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

211/6.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

72

use. However, the magnitude and intensity of motor 

vehicle use have increased to the point that the purpose 

and need cannot be met while still allowing unrestricted 

cross-country travel. Soil erosion, water quality, and 

wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. A 

designated and actively managed system of roads, trails, 

and areas for motor vehicle use is needed.

289 3-5 General Management. 3-5 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should give natural resource 

protection priority over recreation.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to 

provide access for both motorized and non-motorized 

users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. As stated in the Travel Management 

Rule, National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

use. However, the magnitude and intensity of motor 

vehicle use have increased to the point that the purpose 

and need cannot be met while still allowing unrestricted 

cross-country travel. Soil erosion, water quality, and 

wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. A 

designated and actively managed system of roads, trails, 

and areas for motor vehicle use is needed.

443/1.

290 3-6 General Management. 3-6 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should embrace sustainable 

management policies to protect the Black Hills 

for future generations.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to 

provide access for both motorized and non-motorized 

users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. As stated in the Travel Management 

Rule, National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

use. However, the magnitude and intensity of motor 

vehicle use have increased to the point that the purpose 

and need cannot be met while still allowing unrestricted 

cross-country travel. Soil erosion, water quality, and 

wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. A 

designated and actively managed system of roads, trails, 

and areas for motor vehicle use is needed.

456/147.

291 3-7 General Management. 3-7 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that one of 

their primary missions is to protect wildlife 

habitats and that motorized use is inconsistent 

with that mission.

The FEIS discloses the effects of each alternative on 

wildlife and their habitat. This information will be taken 

into consideration in the final decision.

280/1.

292 3-8 General Management. 3-8 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should protect wildlife habitat for 

sensitive snails, butterflies, reptiles, birds, and 

mammals.

The FEIS discloses the effects of each alternative on 

wildlife and their habitat. This information will be taken 

into consideration in the final decision.

123/3. 341/2. 342/2. 344/3.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

73

293 3-9 General Management. 3-9 Public Concern: The

Forest Service should keep roads out of botanical 

areas.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to 

provide access for both motorized and non-motorized 

users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. As stated in the Travel Management 

Rule, National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

use. National Forests are not reserved for the exclusive 

use of any one group, nor must every use be 

accommodated on every acre. It is entirely appropriate 

for different areas of the National Forests to provide 

different opportunities for recreation. An 

interdisciplinary process was used to identify routes 

suitable for public motorized use designation, including 

all identified non-system routes, in the range of 

alternatives. The analysis process included identifying 

natural and cultural resource concerns, recreation, access 

needs, and other related considerations consistent with 

the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule to develop the range of 

alternatives. The results of this analysis can be found in 

Chapter 3 of the DEIS. 

578/33.

294 3-10 General Management. 3-10 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should protect the eight areas 

identified in the Black Hills Community 

Inventory as exemplary from motorized 

recreation.

Thank you for your comments. At this time, the Forest 

Service has not identified a preferred alternative. All the 

action alternatives will be considered in developing a 

selected alternative. The selected alternative will be 

based on public comments and the results of the forestwide effects analysis for the DEIS. Your concerns will 

be further considered in developing the selected 

alternative.

319/32. 414/20. 456/110. 

458/86. 462/21.

295 3-11 General Management. 3-11 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should decrease road mileage to 

protect wildlife habitat.

Alternative D reduced the amount of open roads in the 

Black Hills. This will be taken into consideration in the 

final decision. 

113/1. 123/2. 156/2. 341/1. 

342/1. 344/2.

296 3-12 General Management. 3-12 Public Concern: The

Forest Service should use road closures to better 

meet habitat needs because more than sufficient 

structural stage 1 or roadside habitat is available.

The effects of roads on wildlife, including elk, are 

discussed in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. Alternative D 

proposed closing some roads for various reasons, 

including wildlife. This information along with your 

comment will be considered in the final decision. 

The ArcHSI model was not used in the elk and deer 

analysis. Route mileage was used as the indicator of 

habitat effects and disturbance effects.

326/46.

297 3-13 General Management. 3-13 Public Concern: The It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to 181/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

74

Forest Service should resist increasing access for 

motorized users to reduce damage to roads and 

vegetation.

provide access for both motorized and non-motorized 

users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. As stated in the Travel Management 

Rule, National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

use. However, the magnitude and intensity of motor 

vehicle use have increased to the point that the purpose 

and need cannot be met while still allowing unrestricted 

cross-country travel. Soil erosion, water quality, and 

wildlife habitat are being adversely affected. A 

designated and actively managed system of roads, trails, 

and areas for motor vehicle use is needed.

298 3-14 General Management. 3-14 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should protect mountain lions 

from the impacts of roads and OHVs.

Mountain lions were not discussed in the Draft and 

Final EIS because they are covered under the effects to 

management indicator species (MIS). The effect to 

mountain lions would be similar to their main prey item 

- deer. White-tailed deer are a designated MIS and are 

discussed in detail in the wildlife section in Chapter 3 of 

the Draft EIS and Final EIS. 

516/2.

299 3-15 General Management. 3-15 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge the impact 

roads have on lead levels in the food chain.

The suggested literature was reviewed. The affected 

environment, general wildlife and habitat components in 

the wildlife section of Chapter 3 acknowledge pollution 

as an effect of roads. 

319/10. 414/9. 462/10.

300 3-16 Management Goals & Plan Revisions. 3-16 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should not 

use the standard of Pre-European Settlement 

when managing for ecological sustainability 

because the standard is illegal, arbitrary, and 

unsupported by scientific evidence.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to 

provide access for both motorized and non-motorized 

users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. As stated in the Travel Management 

Rule, National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

use. National Forests are not reserved for the exclusive 

use of any one group, nor must every use be 

accommodated on every acre. It is entirely appropriate 

for different areas of the National Forests to provide 

different opportunities for recreation. An 

interdisciplinary process was used to identify routes 

suitable for public motorized use designation, including 

all identified non-system routes, in the range of 

alternatives. The analysis process included identifying 

natural and cultural resource concerns, recreation, access 

needs, and other related considerations consistent with 

the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule to develop the range of 

alternatives. The results of this analysis can be found in 

126/148.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

75

Chapter 3 of the DEIS. 

301 3-17 Management Goals & Plan Revisions. 3-17 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should retain 

the design criteria for hydrology, fisheries, and 

range and weeds because they are appropriate.

Thank you for your comments. 471/6.

302 3-18 Management Goals & Plan Revisions. 3-18 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should revise 

the design criteria for wildlife to include species in 

addition to goshawk and to include dates and 

areas for seasonal closures.

Most wildlife issues were designed into the Alternatives 

to be consistent with the Forest Plan. Only those items 

that require specific considerations during 

implementation are listed for wildlife in the FEIS, 

Appendix B. The trailhead has yet to be designed on 

the ground and we want goshawks to be considered 

(nest nearby) during the design and implementation. 

The routes listed for goshawk seasonal closures are 

different from the standard closure dates for other 

routes and therefore potentially forgotten during 

implementation. The list serves as a reminder during 

implementation. 

326/26.

303 3-19 Management Goals & Plan Revisions. 3-19 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

complete up-to-date wildlife surveys of 

management indicator species, species of local 

concern, and Region 2 species to comply with 

NEPA.

Although no wildlife surveys were done specifically for

this project, the document also notes that surveys have 

continued on the Forest during the course of other 

activities. These include Forest-wide monitoring efforts, 

surveys during other projects, and other incidental 

observations. The text was modified to make this 

clearer. 

319/2. 414/2. 462/2.

304 3-20 Management Goals & Plan Revisions. 3-20 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

reconsider the plan to use additional herbicides to 

combat invasive weeds as mitigation for increased 

vehicle use because herbicides have their own 

problems and may not be a solution.

As described on page 280 of the DEIS, noxious weeds 

and invasive species could become established and 

persist under the action alternatives, if not addressed 

proactively or treated aggressively following the 

guidelines set forth in the Noxious Weed Management 

Plan (USDA Forest Service 2003a).

474/8.

305 3-21 Monitoring. 3-21 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should include a monitoring plan to track 

accountability.

Monitoring has been ongoing, and contributed to the 

knowledge of issues and concerns that drove alternative 

development in travel management analysis. Monitoring 

provided valuable information about natural and cultural 

resource concerns and will continue to do so in the 

future. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, the 

responsible agency official must monitor the effects of 

motor vehicle use on designated roads and trails, 

consistent with the applicable land management plan 

(Forest Plan), as appropriate and feasible (36 CFR 

465/10. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

76

212.57).

306 3-22 Monitoring. 3-22 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should conduct annual monitoring 

including costs, maintenance, and impacts.

Monitoring has been ongoing, and contributed to the 

knowledge of issues and concerns that drove alternative 

development in travel management analysis. Monitoring 

provided valuable information about natural and cultural 

resource concerns and will continue to do so in the 

future. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, the 

responsible agency official must monitor the effects of 

motor vehicle use on designated roads and trails, 

consistent with the applicable land management plan 

(Forest Plan), as appropriate and feasible (36 CFR 

212.57).

470/8. 545/13. 546/13.

307 3-23 Monitoring. 3-23 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should adopt monitoring best 

management practices to effectively monitor 

impacts to wildlife

Monitoring has been ongoing, and contributed to the 

knowledge of issues and concerns that drove alternative 

development in travel management analysis. Monitoring 

provided valuable information about natural and cultural 

resource concerns and will continue to do so in the 

future. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, the 

responsible agency official must monitor the effects of 

motor vehicle use on designated roads and trails, 

consistent with the applicable land management plan 

(Forest Plan), as appropriate and feasible (36 CFR 

212.57). 

319/12. 414/11. 456/101. 

458/77. 462/12.

308 3-24 Monitoring. 3-24 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should include a monitoring plan for 

native plant species to ensure adequate 

monitoring will occur.

Monitoring has been ongoing, and contributed to the 

knowledge of issues and concerns that drove alternative 

development in travel management analysis. Monitoring 

provided valuable information about natural and cultural 

resource concerns and will continue to do so in the 

future. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, the 

responsible agency official must monitor the effects of 

motor vehicle use on designated roads and trails, 

consistent with the applicable land management plan 

(Forest Plan), as appropriate and feasible (36 CFR 

212.57).

319/35. 414/23. 456/113. 

458/89. 462/24. 

309 3-25 Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Streams & Watersheds. 

3-25 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

protect riparian areas and sensitive 

biological/botanical areas from OHV use.

Any alternative except Alternative A would protect 

riparian areas and sensitive biological/botanical areas, 

such as the Black Fox, with the designation of travel 

routes. Cross country travel would not be allowed 

which would protect these sensitive areas.

464/11. 475/10.

310 3-26 Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Streams & Watersheds. General and route-specific design criteria have been 475/8.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

77

3-26 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

protect streams and riparian areas from intrusion 

by OHVs.

identified to protect streams and riparian areas from 

intrusion by OHVs

311 3-27 Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Streams & Watersheds. 

3-27 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

protect areas around streams and lakes to reduce 

impacts on water quality.

General and route-specific design criteria have been 

identified to maintain water quality.

480/1.

312 3-28 Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Streams & Watersheds. 

3-28 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

tightly control roads next to perennial creeks to 

avoid sedimentation, erosion, and the spread of 

noxious weeds.

General and route-specific design criteria have been 

identified to avoid/minimize sedimentation, erosion and 

noxious weeds next to perennial streams

264/3.

313 3-29 Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Streams & Watersheds. 

3-29 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

protect riparian areas and wetlands because they 

serve important ecological functions and are 

vulnerable.

General and route-specific design criteria have been 

identified to protect riparian areas and wetlands.

319/61. 414/33. 456/81. 

458/59. 462/50. 

314 3-30 Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Streams & Watersheds. 

3-30 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

mitigate for any impacts to riparian areas because 

they provide important habitat for bird species.

Effects on riparian habitat pertaining to wildlife species 

is discussed in the wildlife section in Chapter 3 of the 

FEIS. Impacts to riparian areas would be mitigated 

through the implementation of general and site-specific 

design criteria as well as Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines and Regional Watershed Conservation 

Practices. 

319/63. 343/2. 414/35. 456/83. 

458/61. 462/52.

315 3-31 Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Streams & Watersheds. 

3-31 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

include mitigation for routes and streams where 

resource damage is a concern.

Mitigation for the routes you reference was included in 

the DEIS [page 308], which included prioritization of 

routes for remediation and design options for 

mitigation. This discussion is retained in the FEIS.

456/89.

316 3-32 Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Streams & Watersheds. 

3-32 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

include all crossings of impaired water bodies as 

among those with highest priority for armoring or 

remediation.

The majority of streams listed as impaired due to water 

temperature were impaired due to natural sources. 

Prioritizing stream crossings on these impaired waters 

would have some beneficial effect, but is not likely to 

address the true source of impairment. Prioritization of 

other stream crossings based on other criteria may be 

more appropriate.

473/11.

317 3-33 Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Streams & Watersheds. 

3-33 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

minimize the number of routes that cross through 

streambeds to reduce sediment loading and 

damage to streambanks.

The number of road/trail crossings on perennial 

streams was used as an indicator of potential effects to 

water quality and fish habitat. Alternative D proposes 

the lowest number of crossings on perennial streams. 

Bridges are identified as a possible measure to mitigate 

319/40. 346/8. 462/29.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

78

adverse effects from routes crossing perennial streams.

318 3-34 Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Streams & Watersheds. 

3-34 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

ensure that stream crossings with potential 

resource issues be remediated or the routes 

closed.

Your recommendation that the routes identified on page 

308 of the DEIS be remediated prior to designation on 

the MVUM will be considered. The second table of 

routes you reference identifies implementation 

monitoring as the appropriate short-term action because 

unacceptable resource damage was not currently 

occurring, while recognizing that increased motor 

vehicle use may occur upon designation of these routes 

on the MVUM and the subsequent potential for 

unacceptable resource damage to occur.

319/66. 414/40. 462/56.

319 3-35 Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Streams & Watersheds. 

3-35 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

complete stream crossing studies prior to allowing 

vehicles on routes to protect blue ribbon trout 

streams.

We agree with the need for and value of a Forest-wide 

road/trail-stream crossing inventory. We will continue 

to pursue funding and partnership opportunities to that 

end.

465/36.

320 3-36 Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Streams & Watersheds. 

3-36 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

complete a stream-crossing survey to address 

culvert placement issues.

We agree with the need for and value of a Forest-wide 

road/trail-stream crossing inventory. We will continue 

to pursue funding and partnership opportunities to that 

end. Your recommendation that the routes identified on 

pages 308 and 309 of the DEIS be rectified prior to 

designation on the MVUM will be considered.

456/88.

321 3-37 Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Streams & Watersheds. 

3-37 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

develop a stream crossing inventory protocol that 

gives priority to impaired streams to mitigate 

potential water quality impairments on streams in 

the BHNF.

The Forest Service has developed a protocol to 

inventory and assess road-stream crossings. The criteria

to assess and prioritize the remediation of stream 

crossings are a management decision independent of the

inventory and assessment protocol. Routes prioritized 

for remediation on page 308 of the DEIS were 

identified based on them being non-system routes that 

may lack proper engineering design and which therefore 

had the greatest potential for an additive incremental 

impact compared to the baseline condition. Mitigating 

stream crossings on streams that are temperature 

impaired due to natural causes (page 118 of the DEIS) 

may provide some positive benefits, but is not likely to 

address the actual source of impairment (natural causes). 

A table has been added to the FEIS, Chapter 3, 

Hydrology section, showing the number of crossings of 

impaired waters under each alternative. 

473/9.

322 3-38 Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Streams & Watersheds. Our approach to managing the Forest-wide motorized 458/66.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

79

3-38 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

set a forest-wide stream crossing density limit 

because culverts are not always correctly placed or 

maintained.

road/trail system in regard to stream crossings is to 

provide for a desired condition at crossings that will 

allow for aquatic organism passage, floodplain function, 

reduced sediment input, etc., rather than to set a stream 

crossing density limit. 

323 3-39 Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Streams & Watersheds. 

3-39 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

clarify whether stream crossings are proposed for 

Hanna Creek, Spearfish Creek West, and Little 

Spearfish Creek.

No new stream crossings are proposed for Hanna 

Creek, West Spearfish Creek or Little Spearfish Creek.

464/22. 464/25.

324 3-40 Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Streams & Watersheds. 

3-40 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

compare potential sediment yield to naturally 

occurring conditions when making road closure 

decisions because naturally occurring fires

produce more sediment yield than motorized 

recreation.

Roads are not closed based on how much sediment they 

yield. If they can be mitigated to reduce and minimize 

sediment, then there should be no problem with the 

road if it is needed. If a road is causing unacceptable 

impacts, then it should be closed or moved to a better 

location if the road is needed. Comparing it to other 

sediment producing events like wildfire is difficult 

because of the difference in magnitudes of sediment 

that can be produced.

126/41.

325 3-41 Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Streams & Watersheds. 

3-41 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

apply the Black Fox Valley Botanical Area model 

to the Black Hills to conserve and enhance 

hydrologic resources.

We agree that seeps, springs, and wetlands need to be 

protected from degradation from OHV use. That is one 

of the reasons why we are proposing the travel 

management restrictions. Restricting vehicles to 

designated trails would protect seeps, springs, and 

wetlands.

319/64. 414/36. 456/84. 

458/62. 462/53.

326 3-42 Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Streams & Watersheds. 

3-42 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

protect aquifers from oil spills.

Technically all areas of the Black Hills National Forest 

are upstream of the recharge areas of the Madison 

Aquifer. It would not be practical to prohibit motorized 

travel. The proposal will address this concern. We are 

proposing to limit vehicle travel to designated routes, 

versus allowing cross country travel, and designated 

crossings.

413/6.

327 3-43 Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Streams & Watersheds. 

3-43 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

restrict OHV use in watersheds that supply 

municipal drinking water to protect the water 

supply from contamination.

OHV overuse has a potential for a very negative impact 

on the water resources. That is one of the reasons why 

this project proposes to change unlimited off road travel 

to designated routes at designated crossings of stream to 

limit areas where vehicle travel is allowed. Many user 

created routes would be closed. Restricting travel to 

designated routes would protect the watersheds.

319/62. 414/34. 456/82. 

458/60. 462/51.

328 3-44 Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Streams & Watersheds. The presence of roads and trails within a watershed does 591/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

80

3-44 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

protect the Rapid Creek and Pactola watersheds.

not necessarily mean that the watersheds are not 

protected. Roads and trails that are properly maintained 

and mitigated would have little overall impact to the 

watershed. Impacts to the watershed could occur where 

unrestricted travel occurs next to and through perennial 

water. This project proposes to limit vehicle travel to 

designated trails, which would reduce the overall 

impacts to the watershed. Empress Gulch would remain 

a closed system road in Alternatives D and E. Kelly 

Gulch is currently an open system road to the parking 

area, and would remain so in all alternatives. None of 

the alternatives would open Kelly Gulch to motorized 

travel from the parking area to Rapid Creek. Stewart 

Gulch would remain a closed system road in 

Alternatives D and E, although a mapping error 

incorrectly shows FSR 249.3A open seasonally in 

Alternative E. Gorman Gulch would be open to 

highway legal vehicles only in all alternatives because it 

provides access to private property.

329 3-45 Air Pollution. 3-45 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should reduce air pollution from gaspowered vehicles.

Compliance with state and federal air quality standards 

would occur under all the action alternatives. Air quality 

was considered in developing the range of alternatives. 

The effects of the alternatives on air quality are 

disclosed in the FEIS, Chapter 3, Engineering and 

Transportation section. All of the action alternatives are 

expected to maintain air quality standards due to the 

significantly reduced acres open to cross-country travel 

and route miles open to motorized vehicles under all 

alternatives from the current situation (Alternative A). 

518/2.

330 3-46 Cultural Resources. 3-46 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should protect cultural and 

sensitive resources.

Thank you for your comment. The U.S. Forest Service 

has a legal mandate to protect cultural resources. The 

specific legal mandates are summarized in the Cultural 

Resources section of the EIS. An assessment of effect 

has been completed for each of the nearly 400 cultural 

sites that have been identified in the area of potential 

effect. Protection measures have been prescribed at 

those locations where the data demonstrate that historic 

properties are at-risk due to activities associated with 

motor vehicle use. The protection measures prescribed 

are designed to ensure that no significant historic 

128/5. 241/5. 522/4.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

81

properties are adversely affected. See also the response 

to Public Concern 2-24, regarding access for individuals 

with disabilities.

331 3-47 Grazing. 3-47 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should clarify whether grazing permittees 

will be allowed access to check cattle and fix 

fences.

As stated in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS under "Features 

Shared by all Alternatives - Administrative use" and is 

also discussed in Chapter 3, Range section -

"Assumptions", allowances would be available to do 

work directly related to management on the permit. This 

will be carried forward to the Final. 

025/3. 043/1.

332 3-48 Grazing. 3-48 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should issue permit exemption stickers to 

grazing permittees to ensure that they are allowed 

continued ATV access.

How permittee access is authorized is an administrative 

question and would be done through the grazing permit 

process. The Forest is considering several methods 

including this suggestion.

236/1.

333 3-49 Grazing. 3-49 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should clarify how grazing permittees that 

are also outfitters will be controlled.

OHV use under the grazing permit is for the 

administration of that permit only. This is noted in the 

Chapter 3 Range - Assumptions in the final EIS. 

Outfitters permitted on the Forest for hunting activities 

would be required to adhere to the same travel 

management rules as the general public. There would 

be no exemption for outfitters under the travel 

management rule. Currently, none of the grazing 

permittees are permitted for outfitter services on the 

Forest.

419/6.

334 3-50 Grazing. 3-50 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should annually license off-road vehicles 

for grazing permittees.

How access is authorized is an administrative question 

and will be done through the grazing permit system but 

it is being discussed. 

458/13.

335 3-51 Grazing. 3-51 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should allow access for fire prevention, 

timber operations, and forest thinning but should 

not give grazing permittees more rights than other 

users.

Administrative access under a valid permit is important 

and will be authorized.

325/3.

336 3-52 Grazing. 3-52 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should maintain the current motorized 

access for multiple uses including grazing, timber, 

mineral exploration, and firewood collection.

As stated in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS under "Features 

Shared by all Alternatives - Administrative use" 

allowances would be available to permittees to do work 

directly related to the management on the permit. This 

will be carried forward to the Final.

477/4. 614/4.

337 3-53 Grazing. 3-53 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should ensure that the plan will not 

detract from management activities including 

grazing and timber harvest.

Multiple use activities would continue to be allowed 

through access for administrative purposes and for 

contractors and permittees working within the terms of 

their contract or permit. Your comment will be 

545/9.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

82

considered in the final decision.

338 3-54 Grazing. 3-54 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should clarify what restrictions will be 

placed on grazing permittees to mitigate damage 

to cultural and natural resources.

Use under the grazing permit is for the administration 

of that permit only. This will be noted in the Chapter 3 

Range - Assumptions in the final EIS.

456/118. 456/119. 456/120. 

458/92. 458/93. 458/94.

339 3-55 Grazing. 3-55 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should not increase motorized access to 

the Higgins Gulch Grazing Allotment because 

illegal motorized recreation is already a problem 

and should not be rewarded.

Routes in the Higgins Gulch allotment were analyzed 

for environmental impacts in Alternatives B and C. In 

Alternative D many of the routes in this allotment were 

dropped from the analysis and in Alternative E only the 

existing open system roads were analyzed. Any decision 

about which routes are selected will be documented in 

the Record of Decision.

305/1.

340 3-56 Grazing. 3-56 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should prohibit motorized recreation on 

the Sand Creek and Idol Grazing Allotments 

because the off-road community has been unable 

to police itself.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives 

for motorized opportunities. Under Alternatives A and 

E only routes currently open to motorized opportunities 

were considered for public motorized travel. 

Alternative D proposed closing additional routes within 

the Sand Creek and Idol Allotments to public motorized 

travel. Alternative B and C proposed a less than 50-inch 

trail within the Sand Creek Allotment in addition to the 

routes currently open to motorized opportunities. Each 

alternative was analyzed in detail and effects on natural 

resources are documented in Chapter 3.

232/5.

341 3-57 Grazing. 3-57 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should address the issues associated with 

illegal motorized use of the Sand Creek Closure 

Area because problems are increasing and 

negatively impacting grazing permittees.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the 

Forest into compliance with the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule and designate motorized routes. 

Illegal motorized access to a non-motorized area such as 

Sand Creek will be dealt with through law enforcement 

activities. 

232/1.

342 3-57 Grazing. 3-57 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should address the issues associated with 

illegal motorized use of the Sand Creek Closure 

Area because the methods being used to limit 

illegal use are impeding grazing permittees.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the 

Forest into compliance with the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule and designate motorized routes. 

Illegal motorized access to a non-motorized area such as 

Sand Creek will be dealt with through law enforcement 

activities. 

232/3.

343 3-58 Grazing. 3-58 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should acknowledge that ORV use, open 

areas, and grazing can be done properly.

The Forest Service agrees that a variety of multiple uses 

can often be accommodated in one area with proper 

management. The effects of this proposal are disclosed 

in Chapter 3. 

378/14.

344 3-59 Firewood Collection. 3-59 Public Concern: The Firewood permittees should reference the special notes 025/4.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

83

Forest Service should clarify whether firewood 

permittees will be allowed motorized access.

in the individual permit for travel restrictions or 

allowances.

345 3-60 Firewood Collection. 3-60 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should ensure sufficient access to 

allow for firewood collection to ensure that older 

residents could collect sufficient supplies for 

winter heat.

Firewood permittees should reference the special notes 

in the individual permit for travel restrictions or 

allowances.

145/2.

346 3-61 Timber Harvest and Vegetation Management. 3-

61 Public Concern: The Forest Service should not 

close timber sale areas to motorized traffic 

because these uses can coexist.

NFS roads and trails used for timber management and 

fire suppression may be used by motorized vehicles 

subject to road & trail specific restrictions.

536/4.

347 3-62 Timber Harvest and Vegetation Management. 3-

62 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

limit OHV access on roads used for timber 

harvest to reduce user conflicts.

NFS roads and trails used for timber management and 

fire suppression may be used by other motorized 

vehicles subject to road and trail specific restrictions.

546/3. 548/7.

348 3-63 Timber Harvest and Vegetation Management. 3-

63 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that timber harvest contractors leave 

trash behind.

Forest Service timber sale purchasers and service 

contractors are directed by contract to keep sale areas 

clean. Enforcement is a contract administration issue. 

486/3.

349 3-64 Timber Harvest and Vegetation Management. 3-

64 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that timber harvesters can be more 

harmful to the forest than off-road vehicles.

Logging on NFS lands is an integral part of multiple use 

management. Mechanized logging machinery is the most 

efficient means of forest harvesting. Timber sale 

purchasers and service contractors are directed by 

contract to keep sale areas clean.

565/13.

350 3-65 Timber Harvest and Vegetation Management. 3-

65 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

ensure that the trails system will not affect 

management activities, including timber 

harvesting and grazing.

Access will be allowed to contractors and permit holders 

operating within the terms and scope of their contract 

or permit, to conduct Government-related business. 

546/9.

351 3-66 Timber Harvest and Vegetation Management. 3-

66 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

avoid restricting use of roads for timber harvest 

to allow for efficient removal of forest products.

Access will be allowed to contractors and permit holders 

operating within the terms and scope of their contract 

or permit, to conduct Government-related business. 

546/12. 548/6.

352 3-67 Timber Harvest and Vegetation Management. 3-

67 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

ensure that current forest plan goals are not 

affected by the travel management plans 

especially regarding fuel treatments, recreation 

opportunity spectrums, or scenery objectives.

Access will be allowed to contractors and permit holders 

operating within the terms and scope of their contract 

or permit, to conduct Government-related business. 

We do not expect that implementation of Forest Plan 

goals and objectives will be affected by the decision on 

this project, and in fact accomplishment of some 

resource protection objectives may be made easier. 

548/8.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

84

353 3-68 Timber Harvest and Vegetation Management. 3-

68 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

reopen motorized routes that were closed due to 

timber harvests because the vegetation cover has 

been re-established.

NFS roads and trails used for timber management and 

fire suppression may be used by motorized vehicles 

subject to road & trail specific restrictions.

126/100.

354 3-69 Timber Harvest and Vegetation Management. 3-

69 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

ensure that the plan will not hinder vegetation 

treatment of forest stands because these 

treatments serve important economic and 

ecological roles.

Forest management on NFS lands is an integral part of 

multiple use management. Travel management will be 

consistent with Forest Plan direction.

546/11. 546/16.

355 3-70 Mineral Exploration. 3-70 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should reconsider removing areas 

in Craven Canyon from mineral exploration.

The summary sentence 'public concern' for this 

comment mischaracterized the correspondence sent by 

the commenter. The County Commissioners did not 

object to withdrawal of areas in Craven Canyon from 

mineral entry. Instead, the County Commissioners 

stated their concern that the travel management EIS was 

completed with no input from the County Commission. 

The reference to Craven Canyon was merely a 

preliminary statement made in the letter. In response to 

County Commission concerns, District Ranger Lynn 

Kolund, Forest Minerals Staff Rusty Wilder, and District 

Archeologist Tony King met with the Fall River County 

Commissioners on May 19, 2009. At that meeting, the 

Forest representatives answered questions the County 

Commissioners had regarding the Craven Canyon 

proposal. 

289/2.

356 3-71 Route Selection & Locating. 3-71 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should ensure roads 

and trails avoid wetlands and riparian areas.

Effects to riparian areas and wetlands were disclosed in 

the hydrology, botany and wildlife sections of the EIS. 

Design criteria in the document would protect, reduce

or minimize impact to these areas. Motorized route 

designation attempts to avoid and minimize impacts to 

wetlands and riparian areas consistent with law, 

regulation and policy.

123/4. 214/3. 341/3. 342/3. 

344/4.

357 3-72 Route Selection & Locating. 3-72 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should ensure roads 

avoid riparian areas especially the Pactola 

Reservoir and Rapid Creek watersheds.

Effects to riparian areas were analyzed in the hydrology, 

botany and wildlife sections of the EIS. Design criteria 

in the document would protect, reduce or minimize 

impacts to these areas. Closing all roads and trails next

to riparian area is not practical unless they are causing 

undesirable impacts. Many routes in the Pactola and 

264/4.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

85

Rapid Creek watersheds included in Alternative C were 

eliminated in Alternative D. 

358 3-73 Route Selection & Locating. 3-73 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should close all trails 

near perennial streams to protect fish habitat 

from sedimentation.

Effects to riparian areas and wetlands were analyzed in 

the hydrology, botany and wildlife sections of the EIS. 

Effects to streams were analyzed in the hydrology and 

fisheries sections of the EIS. Design criteria in the 

document are designed to protect and minimize impacts 

to the streams. Keeping all roads and trails out of the 

WIZ is not practical. Closing all trails within 100 feet of 

perennial streams is not practicable because not all trails 

run parallel to perennial streams and at some point these 

trails need to cross a stream. Other site-specific terrain 

features, such as cliffs, may also result in trails being 

routed within 100 feet of perennial streams. Effects to 

fisheries and aquatic resources due to sedimentation, 

which would include dust, are disclosed in the FEIS, 

Chapter 3, Fisheries and Hydrology sections. 

139/2.

359 3-74 Route Selection & Locating. 3-74 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should exclude any 

route within 100 yards of ephemeral or perennial 

streams, seeps, springs, wet meadows, or other 

wetlands unless the route is part of a minimal 

transportation system or legally required.

Effects to riparian areas and wetlands were analyzed in 

the hydrology, botany and wildlife sections of the DEIS. 

Effects to streams were analyzed in the hydrology and 

fisheries sections of the DEIS. A buffer is not needed 

along ephemeral drainages as there is not aquatic life to 

protect along these drainages. A 100 yard buffer would 

be excessive and not necessary, especially in the Black 

Hills with the precipitation regime. Most impacts come 

from a zone of 50 feet and no or minimal impacts are 

expected with implementation of the design criteria 

outlined in the document. The DEIS analyzed the 

potential impacts of motorized routes within 30 feet and 

119 feet of perennial streams. These buffers were based 

on distances identified in the Travel Analysis Process 

(2005) completed at the time of the Phase II Forest Plan 

Amendment. The exclusion of all routes within 100 

yards (300 feet) of aquatic/riparian/wetland resources 

may not be necessary to protect these resources based 

on site-specific consideration and existing policy, e.g., 

Regional Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook. 

319/65. 414/37. 456/85. 

458/63. 462/54.

360 3-75 Route Selection & Locating. 3-75 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should include 

riparian areas, wetlands, and wet meadows on the 

Effects to riparian areas and wetlands were analyzed in 

the hydrology, botany and wildlife sections of the DEIS. 

A buffer is not needed along ephemeral drainages as 

362/18.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

86

Motor Vehicle Use Map and establish a 300-foot 

buffer around sensitive areas.

there is not aquatic life to protect along these drainages. 

A 300 foot buffer would be excessive and not necessary, 

especially in the Black Hills with the precipitation 

regime. Most impacts come from a zone of 50 feet and 

no or minimal impacts are expected with 

implementation of the design criteria outlined in the 

document. Placing these areas on MVUM would clutter 

the map and make the map unreadable. The motor 

vehicle use map (MVUM) is designed for a single 

purpose, which is to display those roads, trails, and areas 

designated for motor vehicle use. Adding extraneous 

features that don‟t support the purpose would create 

unnecessary cartographic complexity. Using an arbitrary 

300-foot buffer as a criterion to close user created 

routes and to restrict motorized routes adjacent to 

seeps, springs, wet meadows and wetlands may be 

inappropriate without considering site-specific 

conditions.

3613-76 Route Selection & Locating. 3-76 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should not permit 

OHV use within 30 feet of an impaired water 

body and should close trails that run in drainages 

or cross impaired water bodies to avoid further 

degradation of water quality.

Effects to riparian areas and wetlands were analyzed in 

the hydrology, botany and wildlife sections of the DEIS. 

As outlined in the DEIS and FEIS, no streams are listed 

impaired due to sediment. Design criteria would 

minimize impacts to the stream when trails are in 

proximity to the stream.

473/10.

3623-77 Route Selection & Locating. 3-77 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should select 

motorized roads and trails that avoid sensitive 

areas to protect these areas from illegal off-road 

use.

Resources issues are being analyzed throughout the 

Forest. The Forest Service needs to manage where 

OHV traffic is allowed. Enforcement personnel would 

deal with the issue of unauthorized routes being used. 

Forest Service Law Enforcement personnel play a 

critical role in ensuring compliance with laws and 

regulations, protecting public safety, and protecting 

National Forest Resources.

112/2.

3633-78 Route Selection & Locating. 3-78 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should ensure that 

roads are not close to or in areas with sensitive 

species because it would be expensive to design 

the roads and enforce protection of these areas.

Effects to botanical and other sensitive areas were 

analyzed in the DEIS. Any decision on routes included 

will be documented in the Record of Decision. 

Enforcement personnel would address the issue of 

unauthorized routes being used. Forest Service Law 

Enforcement personnel play a critical role in ensuring 

compliance with laws and regulations, protecting public 

safety, and protecting National Forest Resources.

280/12.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

87

364 3-79 Route Selection & Locating. 3-79 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should ensure routes 

avoid all known occurrences of Region 2 sensitive 

species and BHNF species of local concern 

because surveys for these species have not been 

completed and to protect these species.

Effects to botanical and other sensitive areas were 

analyzed in the DEIS. Any decision on routes included 

will be documented in the Record of Decision. The 

direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on 

botanical resources and habitat were analyzed in the 

DEIS. Population viability analyses are outside the 

scope of this decision.

319/19. 319/20. 319/21. 

414/14. 414/15. 414/16. 

456/104. 456/105. 456/106. 

458/80. 458/81. 458/82. 

462/15. 462/16. 462/17.

365 3-80 Route Selection & Locating. 3-80 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should ensure trails 

avoid montane grasslands and other stands of 

globally rare plant communities to protect the 

special-status plants in the BHNF.

Effects to botanical and other sensitive areas were 

analyzed in the DEIS. Any decision on routes included 

will be documented in the Record of Decision. Impacts 

to Montane Grasslands are addressed in the Botany 

Resource Report for Black Hills National Forest Travel 

Management Plan.

319/31. 414/19. 456/109. 

458/85. 462/20. 

366 3-81 Route Selection & Locating. 3-81 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should exclude any 

routes lacking a valid reason for inclusion to 

protect native plant species and communities.

Effects to native plant species and communities were 

analyzed in the DEIS. Any decision on routes included 

will be documented in the Record of Decision

319/33. 414/21. 456/111. 

458/87. 462/22.

367 3-82 Route Selection & Locating. 3-82 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should not allow 

new routes to be added to the system to ensure 

the system is sustainable.

Any new routes added to the travel management system 

subsequent to this decision would be analyzed in a 

separate NEPA process prior to designation.

414/49. 456/28. 462/66.

368 3-83 Area-Specific Requests. 3-83 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should protect the area south 

of Bear Mountain Lookout Tower because it is a 

highly desirable wildlife area.

We appreciate your comments and concerns related to 

private property and specifically Forest Service Roads 

285.1A, 285.1H, 477.2C and 298.1E. To be clear, none 

of the alternatives analyzed have designated any of these 

routes as trails. The three routes you have identified as 

dead ends to private property (285.1H, 477.2C, and 

298.1E) are included in all alternatives. However, in 

Alternative D, FSR 285.1A is not included as an open 

road. The Decision Maker will consider your concerns 

and make a decision based on the analysis of effects 

within all alternatives.

399/3.

369 3-84 Area-Specific Requests. 3-84 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should protect the Black Fox 

area from OHV and roads impacts.

None of the alternatives analyzed included motorized 

routes south of the Rochford Road and east of Rhoade's 

Fork in the Black Fox area. Many roads open to 

highway legal vehicles only west of Rhoade's Fork in 

Alternative C were eliminated from Alternative D.

578/36.

370 3-85 Area-Specific Requests. 3-85 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should protect the Botany 

Canyon area from noise and impacts.

No routes were analyzed in Botany Canyon in any 

alternative. Common to all alternatives the noise level 

would be set at 96 decibels. 

578/35. 588/21.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

88

371 3-86 Area-Specific Requests. 3-86 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should protect Dugout Gulch 

from motorized trails and resulting invasive plant 

distribution.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives 

for Dugout Gulch. Alternatives A, D, and E do not 

propose any public motorized use within the area.

479/6.

372 3-87 Area-Specific Requests. 3-87 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should avoid increasing 

motorized access to Hanna Creek, Spearfish 

Creek West, and Little Spearfish Creek and their 

riparian areas to avoid damaging these ecosystems 

and watersheds.

Dispersed camping in portions of Hanna Creek, 

Spearfish Creek and Little Spearfish Creek was analyzed 

in Alternatives B and C and removed in Alternatives D 

and E. Game retrieval in the same areas was analyzed in 

Alternative B and removed from Alternatives C, D and 

E. Dispersed camping and game retrieval in the portions 

of Hanna Creek, Spearfish Creek and Little Spearfish 

Creek within the Spearfish Canyon management area 

were not analyzed in any alternative. Any decision 

about where either dispersed camping or game retrieval 

will be allowed will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

464/15. 464/17.

373 3-88 Area-Specific Requests. 3-88 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should remove Middle Nugget 

Creek from the trail system because it is a yearlong flowing stream. 

Alternative E includes FSR 675.1 as a seasonally closed 

route. This is a mapping error, as this route is currently 

closed yearlong, and would continue as such in a 

corrected Alternative E. Comment has been evaluated 

and will be considered in the Record of Decision

591/3.

374 3-89 Area-Specific Requests. 3-89 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should protect the Spearfish 

Canyon landscape from invasive plants, erosion, 

disturbance of above-the-rim habitat, and 

motorized recreation.

FSR 215.1 Annie Creek was analyzed in Alternatives B 

and E as a road open to highway legal vehicles and in 

Alternative C as a road open to all. It was removed from

Alternative D. FSR 186.2 Cleopatra was not analyzed in 

Alternatives B, C or D. It was analyzed in Alternative E 

as a road open to highway legal vehicles. Any decision 

about routes selected will be documented in the Record 

of Decision.

610/1.

375 3-90 Area-Specific Requests. 3-90 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should remove selected trails 

to limit pollution and protect the water influence 

zone for selected streams including Little 

Spearfish Creek.

This was analyzed in DEIS BHNF Travel Management 

Plan hydrology section p114-132. There is a reduction 

of routes in the water influence zone (WIZ) in all action 

alternatives. Any decision on routes included will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. 

319/72. 

376 3-90 Area-Specific Requests. 3-90 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should remove selected trails 

to limit pollution and protect the water influence 

zone for selected streams including Elk Creek.

This was analyzed in DEIS BHNF Travel Management 

Plan hydrology section p114-132. There is a reduction 

of routes in the WIZ in all action alternatives. Any 

decision on routes included will be documented in the 

Record of Decision. 

319/74. 

377 3-90 Area-Specific Requests. 3-90 Public Concern: This was analyzed in DEIS BHNF Travel Management 319/75. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

89

The Forest Service should remove selected trails 

to limit pollution and protect the water influence 

zone for selected streams including Little Elk 

Creek.

Plan hydrology section p114-132. There is a reduction 

of routes in the WIZ in all action alternatives. Any 

decision on routes included will be documented in the 

Record of Decision. 

378 3-90 Area-Specific Requests. 3-90 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should remove selected trails 

to limit pollution and protect the water influence 

zone for selected streams including Box Elder 

Creek.

This was analyzed in DEIS BHNF Travel Management 

Plan hydrology section p114-132. There is a reduction 

of routes in the WIZ in all action alternatives. Any 

decision on routes included will be documented in the 

Record of Decision. 

319/76. 

379 3-90 Area-Specific Requests. 3-90 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should remove selected trails 

to limit pollution and protect the water influence 

zone for selected streams including Bad Luck 

Springs.

This was analyzed in DEIS BHNF Travel Management 

Plan hydrology section p114-132. There is a reduction 

of routes in the WIZ in all action alternatives. Any 

decision on routes included will be documented in the 

Record of Decision.

319/73. 

380 3-90 Area-Specific Requests. 3-90 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should remove selected trails 

to limit pollution and protect the water influence 

zone for selected streams including Jim Creek, 

Pilot Knob Trailhead, and Spruce Gulch.

This was analyzed in DEIS BHNF Travel Management 

Plan hydrology section p114-132. There is a reduction 

of routes in the WIZ in all action alternatives. Any 

decision on routes included will be documented in the 

Record of Decision. 

319/70. 

381 3-90 Area-Specific Requests. 3-90 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should remove selected trails 

to limit pollution and protect the water influence 

zone for selected streams including the Silver City 

Area.

Many of the routes in the Silver City area that were 

included in Alternative C were eliminated or are open to 

highway legal vehicles only in Alternatives D and E. 

This was analyzed in DEIS BHNF Travel Management 

Plan hydrology section p114-132. There is a reduction 

of routes in the WIZ in all action alternatives. Any 

decision on routes included will be documented in the 

Record of Decision.

319/71. 

382 3-90 Area-Specific Requests. 3-90 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should remove selected trails 

to limit pollution and protect the water influence 

zone for selected streams including Ward Draw.

This was analyzed in DEIS BHNF Travel Management 

Plan hydrology section p114-132. There is a reduction 

of routes in the WIZ in all action alternatives. Any 

decision on routes included will be documented in the 

Record of Decision.

319/69. 

383 3-90 Area-Specific Requests. 3-90 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should remove selected trails 

to limit pollution and protect the water influence 

zone for selected streams including Hanna Creek.

This was analyzed in DEIS BHNF Travel Management 

Plan hydrology section p114-132. There is a reduction 

of routes in the WIZ in all action alternatives. Any 

decision on routes included will be documented in the 

Record of Decision. 

319/68. 

384 3-90 Area-Specific Requests. 3-90 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should remove selected trails 

to limit pollution and protect the water influence 

This was analyzed in DEIS BHNF Travel Management 

Plan hydrology section p114-132. There is a reduction 

of routes in the WIZ in all action alternatives. Any 

319/67. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

90

zone for selected streams including South 

Stagebarn Tributary.

decision on routes included will be documented in the 

Record of Decision.

3853-91 Impact Analysis. 3-91 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should demonstrate how the 

proposed action will protect resources and be 

ecologically sustainable to ensure that decision 

making is consistent with Executive Orders 11644 

and 11989. 

The Department of Agriculture produced the 2005 

Motorized Travel Rule to be consistent with Executive 

Orders 11644 and 11989, and to serve as the means to 

implement the policy direction contained in those 

Executive Orders. The Rule places more emphasis on 

considering the effects of motorized trails and areas, 

than of roads. The action alternatives were developed to 

meet that part of the purpose and need to reduce 

adverse effects from unmanaged cross-country and road 

and trail use to soil, watershed, vegetation, other forest 

resources, wildlife and their habitats, as well as to reduce 

conflicts between Forest users. The alternatives address 

these to varying degrees, which can be seen in the 

number of stream crossings, acres of cross-country use 

which would be allowed, and other indicators. 

Alternative D proposes the smallest motorized travel 

system. The effects of the alternatives are disclosed in 

the FEIS, Chapter 3. 

473/7.

3863-92 Impact Analysis. 3-92 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should collect sufficient 

background data to quantify existing conditions 

for natural resources so that impacts can be 

measured and quantified and management actions 

justified.

The Forest has conducted a sufficient forest-wide 

analysis of the effects of designating roads, trails and 

areas for motorized use proposed in all of the action 

alternatives. The results of this analysis can be found in 

Chapter 3 of the DEIS. 

126/183.

3873-93 Impact Analysis. 3-93 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should compare human-made 

impacts to naturally occurring impacts when 

assessing significance to avoid the appearance of 

bias and unfairness.

The proposed designations of roads, trails, and areas for 

motor vehicle use were based on accurate, pertinent, 

unbiased information. Designation decisions in the 

selected alternative will be made in accordance with the 

criteria in § 212.55 of the final rule. 

126/186.

3883-93 Impact Analysis. 3-93 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should compare human-made 

impacts to naturally occurring impacts when 

assessing significance because naturally-occurring 

impacts are often much greater than human-

caused impacts.

The proposed designations of roads, trails, and areas for 

motor vehicle use were based on accurate, pertinent, 

unbiased information. Designation decisions in the 

selected alternative will be made in accordance with the 

criteria in § 212.55 of the final rule. 

126/187.

3893-94 Impact Analysis. 3-94 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should recognize that human 

activity in the area is less than it has been 

The proposed designations of roads, trails, and areas for 

motor vehicle use were based on accurate, pertinent, 

unbiased information. Designation decisions in the 

126/180.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

91

historically to accurately evaluate the cumulative 

impact of reduced access.

selected alternative will be made in accordance with the 

criteria in § 212.55 of the final rule. 

390 3-95 Impact Analysis. 3-95 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should adequately consider the 

significant human-environment issues involving 

motorized recreation because historically these 

impacts have not been given appropriate weight.

The proposed designations of roads, trails, and areas for

motor vehicle use were based on accurate, pertinent, 

unbiased information. Designation decisions in the 

selected alternative will be made in accordance with the 

criteria in § 212.55 of the final rule. 

126/178.

391 3-96 Impact Analysis. 3-96 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge the impact 

winter logging has on the forest.

Thank you for your comment. 565/2.

392 3-97 Impact Analysis. 3-97 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should analyze the effect of high 

road density on pine martin habitat and remove 

roads from white spruce and pine martin habitat.

Marten are closely tied to spruce habitat in the Black 

Hills. The FEIS shows the number miles of routes in 

spruce habitat by alternative in the wildlife section in 

Chapter 3. Alternative D has fewer routes in spruce 

habitat. This will be taken into consideration in the final 

decision.

578/47.

393 3-98 Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-98 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should correct the 

analysis of wildlife impacts to accurately state the 

impact from OHVs.

Even though elk populations are healthy in the Black 

Hills, there have been several studies in the Black Hills 

that have documented elk responses to roads. This 

information is included in the elk discussion in the 

Wildlife section in Chapter 3. Other literature 

referenced in the wildlife section of the FEIS document 

road effects on wild

126/101. 522/2.

394 3-99 Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-99 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should not use 

disturbance of wildlife as a reason to restrict 

motorized access because evidence shows that 

hikers disturb wildlife more than motorized 

vehicles.

The designation trails are not part of this project. The 

effects of hikers are included in the cumulative effects 

portion of the wildlife analysis.

126/200. 126/201. 

395 3-100 Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-100 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should acknowledge 

that change in available habitat is not the only 

impact on wildlife from the system.

The wildlife analysis in the FEIS provides charts that 

show the miles of routes in appropriate habitats. The 

FEIS was edited to include more discussion on the 

change in habitat quantity. As mentioned under 

methodology and general effects to wildlife, habitat loss 

from roads is estimated at 5 acres per mile. Rather than 

doing this calculation, the miles of routes were used as 

an indicator of habitat alteration. As noted in the FEIS, 

this project is not proposing to construct new roads or 

trails, only designating existing roads and trails. Most 

habitat alteration has occurred in the past, not as a result 

456/100. 458/76.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

92

of the action alternatives. The total miles of routes are 

included in the figures for wildlife habitat as an indicator 

of cumulative effects from past activities. The FEIS 

notes in the general effects to wildlife and habitat 

components that mortality is less likely on primitive 

roads such as those designated in this project.

396 3-101 Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-101 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should acknowledge 

that impacts on wildlife can occur from OHV use 

including soil erosion, vegetation loss, loss of 

habitat security, invasive species introduction, and 

forest fragmentation.

The wildlife section of the DEIS and FEIS 

acknowledges that OHV use can affect wildlife, and 

discloses the effects on wildlife and habitat.

319/8. 414/7. 456/96. 458/72. 

462/8.

397 3-102 Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-102 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should analyze the 

cumulative impacts of each alternative on habitats 

as a result of fragmentation and disturbance from 

roads to provide a quantifiable basis for 

comparing alternatives.

The wildlife analysis in the FEIS provides charts that 

show the miles of routes in appropriate habitats. The 

FEIS was edited to include more discussion on the 

change in habitat quantity. As mentioned under 

methodology and general effects to wildlife, habitat loss 

from roads is estimated at 5 acres per mile. Rather than

doing this calculation, the miles of routes were used as 

an indicator of habitat alteration. As noted in the FEIS, 

this project is not proposing to construct new roads or 

trails, only designating existing roads and trails. Most 

habitat alteration has occurred in the past, not as a result 

of the action alternatives. The total miles of routes are 

included in the figures for wildlife habitat as an indicator 

of cumulative effects from past activities. The FEIS 

notes in the general effects to wildlife and habitat 

components that mortality is less likely on primitive 

roads such as those designated in this project.

456/99. 458/75.

398 3-103 Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-103 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should include 

relevant data on elk and roads in its analysis 

because there are numerous studies documenting 

the effects of roads on elk.

Good comments. The elk discussion was edited in the 

Final EIS to include relevant and local study on elk and 

effects of roads. 

319/7. 326/20. 326/24. 346/10. 

414/6. 456/92. 456/94. 456/95. 

458/71. 462/7. 

399 3-103 Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-103 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should include 

relevant data on elk and roads in its analysis 

because elk movement is affected by human 

activities and not all roads disturb elk equally.

Good comments. The elk discussion was edited in the 

Final EIS to include relevant and local study on elk and 

effects of roads. 

326/19. 346/11. 346/13. 

456/93. 458/69. 

400 3-103 Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-103 Public Good comments. The elk discussion was edited in the 465/14. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

93

Concern: The Forest Service should include 

relevant data on elk and roads in its analysis 

because elk are highly sensitive to habitat 

fragmentation.

Final EIS to include relevant and local study on elk and 

effects of roads. 

401 3-103 Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-103 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should include 

relevant data on elk and roads in its analysis 

because elk are valuable wildlife and game species.

Good comments. The elk discussion was edited in the 

Final EIS to include relevant and local study on elk and 

effects of roads. 

346/12. 458/70.

402 3-104 Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-104 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should include the 

local elk research in the DEIS to accurately 

evaluate the impact of roads on elk.

Good comments. The elk discussion was edited in the 

Final EIS to include relevant and local study on elk and 

effects of roads. 

326/24.

403 3-105 Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-105 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should improve the 

analysis of hunting and wildlife conservation 

issues to better address Executive Order 13443.

Additional evaluation of effects on the hunting 

experience are discussed in the recreation section. The 

purpose of the reference to Executive Order 13443 was 

to show that the different alternatives provide different 

types of access for hunting but they do not eliminate 

hunting access.

461/42.

404 3-106 Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-106 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should reduce 

motorized routes in old-growth habitat to protect 

old-growth obligate species and interior forest 

species.

Different amounts of routes in old forest and spruce 

habitat are included in each alternative. This is displayed 

in the wildlife section in Chapter 3 (charts). This 

information and your comment will be considered in the 

final decision.

319/4. 414/4. 462/4.

405 3-107 Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-107 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should describe the 

effects of roads on habitat and species viability on 

mountain lions and elk.

The elk section was edited to include local studies of 

roads and elk. Mountain lions were not discussed in the 

Draft and Final EIS because effects are expected to be 

similar to species already discussed in the effects 

analysis. The effect to mountain lions are expected to 

be similar to those displayed for wildlife in general, and 

for their main prey item - deer. General effects on 

wildlife and habitat are discussed in the Wildlife Section 

in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIS and Final EIS. Whitetailed deer are a designated MIS and are discussed in 

detail in the wildlife section in Chapter 3 of the Draft 

EIS and Final EIS. Mule deer are also discussed in 

Chapter 3 in the Draft EIS and Final EIS as a demand 

species. 

578/46.

406 3-108 Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-108 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should analyze 

impacts on mountain lions and their habitat 

Mountain lions were not discussed in the Draft and 

Final EIS because effects are expected to be similar to 

species already discussed in the effects analysis. The 

539/1. 547/2. 547/4. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

94

because they are still struggling and are affected 

by high road density. 

effect to mountain lions are expected to be similar those 

displayed for wildlife in general, and for their main prey 

item - deer. General effects on wildlife and habitat are 

discussed in the Wildlife Section in Chapter 3 of the 

Draft EIS and Final EIS. White-tailed deer are a 

designated MIS and are discussed in detail in the wildlife 

section in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIS and Final EIS. 

Mule deer are also discussed in Chapter 3 in the Draft 

EIS and Final EIS as a demand species. 

407 3-108 Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-108 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should analyze 

impacts on mountain lions and their habitat 

including overkill and loss of habitat.

Mountain lions were not discussed in the Draft and 

Final EIS because effects are expected to be similar to 

species already discussed in the effects analysis. The 

effect to mountain lions are expected to be similar to 

those displayed for wildlife in general, and for their main 

prey item, deer. General effects on wildlife and habitat 

are discussed in the Wildlife Section in Chapter 3 of the 

Draft EIS and Final EIS. White-tailed deer are a 

designated MIS and are discussed in detail in the wildlife 

section in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIS and Final EIS. 

Mule deer are also discussed in Chapter 3 in the Draft 

EIS and Final EIS as a demand species.

539/2. 547/1. 547/3.

408 3-109 Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-109 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should not use 

wildlife mortality as a reason to restrict motorized 

access because OHV use does not cause 

significant wildlife mortality.

As noted in the DEIS (page 175), collisions are less 

likely on primitive roads. This is retained in the Final 

EIS. However, some species such as frogs, snakes, 

snails, butterflies, etc, are more susceptible to mortality 

than larger animals. These effects are discussed for each 

species. 

126/213. 126/14.

409 3-110 Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-110 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should acknowledge 

that all of the action alternatives would improve 

wildlife impacts because they would largely 

eliminate cross-country travel.

The FEIS states this for most wildlife in the Wildlife 

section in Chapter 3.

461/40.

410 3-111 Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-111 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should ensure that 

wildlife is allowed some non-roaded areas.

All the alternatives have some non-road areas. 

Alternative D has the most areas with closed roads. The 

alternatives and your comment will be taken into 

consideration in the final decision and will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

523/1.

411 3-112 Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-112 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should acknowledge 

that not all roads have the same level of impact 

The DEIS acknowledges that not all roads are equal 

when it comes to wildlife impacts on page 145. This will 

remain in the FEIS.

461/38.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

95

on wildlife.

412 3-113 Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-113 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should consider the 

effects to wildlife from year-round motorized use 

because many species, including elk, will be 

negatively affected.

The Wildlife section in Chapter 3 of the FEIS discloses 

the effects of rear-round and seasonal motorized use on 

many wildlife species including elk.

326/18.

413 3-114 Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-114 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should acknowledge 

that hikers disturb nesting birds even though 

restrictions on hikers are seldom imposed.

The designation trails are not part of this project. The 

effects of hikers are included in the cumulative effects 

portion of the wildlife analysis.

126/202. 

414 3-115 Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-115 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should acknowledge 

that hikers and wolves have greater impacts on 

wildlife than OHV users but hikers and wolves 

are unrestricted.

No wolf packs occur on the Black Hills. The 

designation trails are not part of this project. The effects 

of hikers are included in the cumulative effects portion 

of the wildlife analysis

126/103.

415 3-116 Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-116 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should consider 

restrictions on fishing and hunting to protect fish 

and game before restricting motorized access 

because the benefits would be greater on the 

wildlife and impacts to motorized recreation from 

further closures would be significant.

Game and Fish season and bag limits are set by the 

States and are outside the scope of this project. The 

Forest will continue to work with our State partners to 

help manage wildlife habitat and populations.

126/210. 126/211. 

416 3-117 Wildlife & Wildlife Habitats. 3-117 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should designate the 

stock pond at Mayhappy for wildlife use rather 

than for ATV use.

The FS analyzed FSR 546 in the Mayhappy Flats area 

for wildlife concerns in Alternatives A through E for 

varying miles of route to be included in the decision. 

Alternatives B and D propose closing approximately 1.0 

mile of FSR 546.1 beginning at the Forest boundary on 

the east end of this route which may address some of 

your concerns. The Record of Decision will designate 

which roads or trails are open to motorized vehicle use. 

If the stock pond at Mayhappy is not on a designated 

route, then OHV use in the stock pond would be 

prohibited under all alternatives.

524/2.

417 3-118 Special-Status Species. 3-118 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should analyze the impacts on 

sensitive species.

The effect to sensitive species is discussed in the 

Biological Evaluation (located in the Planning Record) 

and is summarized in the Wildlife section of Chapter 3 

of the FEIS.

517/3. 517/4.

418 3-119 Special-Status Species. 3-119 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should include a biological 

assessment of sensitive and rare species.

A biological evaluation and assessment of threatened, 

endangered and sensitive species is included in the 

planning record and is summarized in Chapter 3 of the 

214/2.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

96

FEIS.

419 3-120 Special-Status Species. 3-120 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should ensure that claims of 

impacts to endangered species are supported by 

substantial technical data.

The effects on the black-footed ferret, the only 

threatened or endangered species on the Forest, are 

discussed in the Biological Evaluation and Biological 

Assessment, and are summarized in the Wildlife section 

of Chapter 3 in the FEIS. A determination of "no 

effect" was made for black-footed ferret and the 

rationale is provided in the Biological 

Evaluation/Assessment.

126/212. 126/213.

420 3-121 Special-Status Species. 3-121 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should evaluate potential 

impacts on black-footed ferret and black-tailed 

prairie dog because the black-footed ferret is the 

rarest mammal in North America.

Effects on black-footed ferrets and prairie dogs are 

discussed in the Biological Evaluation/Biological 

Assessment and are summarized in the Wildlife section 

of Chapter 3 of the FEIS.

319/5. 462/5.

421 3-122 Special-Status Species. 3-122 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should provide better 

demographic and population data for the redbelly snake because the species is endemic to the 

area.

The effect on Black Hills redbelly snakes is discussed in 

the Biological Evaluation and is summarized in the 

Wildlife Section of Chapter 3 of the FEIS. The analysis 

uses the best available science (literature) combined with 

known occurrence data and assumes the species is 

present in suitable habitat. Extensive surveys would not 

change this assumption nor would it add to the design 

of the route system or enhance the effects analysis.

319/3. 414/3. 462/3.

422 3-123 Special-Status Species. 3-123 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should consider the delisting 

of the grizzly bear as a reasonably foreseeable 

action because this change in status could affect 

whether areas need to remain non-motorized.

According to the most recent literature, there are no 

longer grizzly bears in the Black Hills. Grizzly bears 

were not evaluated in this project.

126/216. 126/217. 

423 3-124 Wildlife Habitat. 3-124 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that roads 

contribute to habitat fragmentation to ensure that 

impacts to species are recognized.

Fragmentation was taken into consideration in the 

wildlife section of Chapter 3 of the DEIS and will 

remain in the Final EIS. In the DEIS, see pages 145, 

149, 168, 175, 183, 184, 185, as examples.

319/9. 414/8. 456/97. 458/73. 

462/9.

424 3-125 Wildlife Habitat. 3-125 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should analyze the impacts from 

roads that have displaced native habitats to 

appropriately balance human uses with wildlife 

and habitats.

The wildlife analysis in the FEIS provides charts that 

show the miles of routes in appropriate habitats. The 

FEIS was edited to include more discussion on the 

change in habitat quantity. As mentioned under 

methodology and general effects to wildlife, habitat loss 

from roads is estimated at 5 acres per mile. Rather than

doing this calculation, the miles of routes were used as 

an indicator of habitat alteration. As noted in the FEIS, 

this project is not proposing to construct new roads or 

465/12.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

97

trails, only designating existing roads and trails. Most 

habitat alteration has occurred in the past, not as a result 

of the action alternatives. The total miles of routes are 

included in the figures for wildlife habitat as an indicator 

of cumulative effects from past activities. The FEIS 

notes in the general effects to wildlife and habitat 

components that mortality is less likely on primitive 

roads such as those designated in this project.

425 3-126 Wildlife Habitat. 3-126 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should conduct a habitat capability 

model to ensure that burned areas are adequately 

analyzed.

Route mileage was used as the indicator of habitat 

effects and disturbance effects instead of a habitat 

capability model. 

465/15.

426 3-127 Wildlife Habitat. 3-127 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include a habitat effect 

analysis to estimate quantitative impacts and 

comply with NEPA.

The FEIS was edited to include more discussion on the 

change in habitat quantity. As mentioned under 

methodology and general effects to wildlife, habitat loss 

from roads is estimated at 5 acres per mile. Rather than 

doing this calculation, the miles of routes were used as 

an indicator of habitat alteration. As noted in the FEIS, 

this project is not proposing to construct new roads or 

trails, only designating existing roads and trails. Most 

habitat alteration has occurred in the past, not as a result 

of the action alternatives. The total miles of routes are 

included in the figures for wildlife habitat as an indicator 

of cumulative effects from past activities.

326/21. 346/3. 

427 3-127 Wildlife Habitat. 3-127 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include a habitat effect 

analysis including impacts to deer and elk and 

effects of concentrated motorized use areas.

The FEIS was edited to include more discussion on the 

change in habitat quantity. As mentioned under 

methodology and general effects to wildlife, habitat loss 

from roads is estimated at 5 acres per mile. Rather than

doing this calculation, the miles of routes were used as 

an indicator of habitat alteration. As noted in the FEIS, 

this project is not proposing to construct new roads or 

trails, only designating existing roads and trails. Most 

habitat alteration has occurred in the past, not as a result 

of the action alternatives. The total miles of routes are 

included in the figures for wildlife habitat as an indicator 

of cumulative effects from past activities.

326/25. 

428 3-128 Wildlife Habitat. 3-128 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should provide a more thorough 

analysis of impacts to habitat and include data to 

support their conclusions.

The FEIS was edited to include more discussion on the 

change in habitat quantity. As mentioned under 

methodology and general effects to wildlife, habitat loss 

from roads is estimated at 5 acres per mile. Rather than

319/6. 414/5. 456/91. 458/68. 

462/6.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

98

doing this calculation, the miles of routes were used as 

an indicator of habitat alteration. As noted in the FEIS, 

this project is not proposing to construct new roads or 

trails, only designating existing roads and trails. Most 

habitat alteration has occurred in the past, not as a result 

of the action alternatives. The total miles of routes are 

included in the figures for wildlife habitat as an indicator 

of cumulative effects from past activities.

429 3-129 Wildlife Habitat. 3-129 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should analyze wildlife disturbance 

and habitat loss and fragmentation to allow a 

meaningful comparison of alternatives.

The FEIS was edited to include more discussion on the 

change in habitat quantity. As mentioned under 

methodology and general effects to wildlife, habitat loss 

from roads is estimated at 5 acres per mile. Rather than

doing this calculation, the miles of routes were used as 

an indicator of habitat alteration. As noted in the FEIS, 

this project is not proposing to construct new roads or 

trails, only designating existing roads and trails. Most 

habitat alteration has occurred in the past, not as a result 

of the action alternatives. The total miles of routes are 

included in the figures for wildlife habitat as an indicator 

of cumulative effects from past activities.

326/22. 326/23. 346/4.

430 3-130 Wildlife Habitat. 3-130 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should analyze the effects of roads 

to wildlife and wildlife habitat especially in the 

Jasper/Rogers shack Fire Complex.

The analysis of how each alternative contributes to 

achieving the winter road density objective (Objective 

5.4-207) in Management Area 5.4 was shown on page 

192 of the DEIS. The analysis was not done for specific 

areas such as Jasper and Roger's Shack Fires. The 

effects analysis was done for MA 5.4 Forest-wide and 

included areas like Jasper and Roger's Shack Fires. In 

the action alternatives, Guidelines 5.4-9102 and 5.4-5101 

were used in different amounts to contribute to 

Objective 5.4-207, depending on the emphasis of each 

alternative. Alternatives B and C would move away from 

the objective in an effort to provide more motorized 

recreation opportunities for the public. Alternative D 

would move winter route density in MA 5.4 towards 

Objective 5.4-207 in an effort to limit the level and 

likelihood of effects on natural and cultural resources, 

including wildlife, through a smaller motorized travel 

system. Alternative E would have winter route densities 

similar to Alternative A (existing condition). (See also 

DEIS and FEIS Chapter 2 for descriptions, intent and 

326/45. 461/41.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

99

design of alternatives). This rational and explanation 

was added to the route density analysis in the FEIS. 

The amount of routes, winter and yearlong, included in 

MA 5.4 and in Jasper and Roger's Shack Fires will be 

considered in the final decision. 

431 3-131 Grazing II. 3-131 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should review the impacts from grazing 

because cattle may cause greater impacts than 

ATVs.

Analysis of livestock use is outside the scope of this 

document and is done through our Range NEPA 

process. The concern about damage while rounding up 

livestock, administrative access under a valid permit is 

important and will be authorized for the administration 

of that permit, only.

196/3. 369/7.

432 3-132 Invasive Plants. 3-132 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should revise the analysis of road 

impacts on weed infestations because the analysis 

is inaccurate and inadequate.

The results from any selected alternative will reduce the 

spread of noxious weeds over the current situation; see 

Chapter 3 "Invasive Species - Environmental Effects 

Analysis." 

465/13.

433 3-133 Invasive Plants. 3-133 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should consider the impacts of 

roads and vehicles on the spread of invasive plant 

species because a larger system will result in more 

invasive plants than a smaller system.

We agree more roads would likely increase the spread of 

weeds. The results from any selected alternative would 

reduce the spread of noxious weeds over the current 

situation, see Chapter 3 "Invasive Species -

Environmental Effects Analysis" due to the restrictions 

on open travel and less total miles of roads through no

unauthorized routes (see Table 44, page275), 

Comparison of indicator measures and alternatives for 

range.)

414/54. 456/121. 462/71.

434 3-134 Invasive Plants. 3-134 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should revisit the analysis of 

transport mechanisms for invasive weeds to 

ensure a balanced evaluation of both motorized 

and non-motorized transport mechanisms.

You are correct there are many transport mechanism 

and they all can spread weeds. See Chapter 3, Affected 

Environment. This document addresses motorized uses 

and that is the details discussed. ATVs and other off 

road vehicles do carry weeds in many small catch areas 

and in mud, those who do practice "Wash your Steeds” 

do the environment a great service, but many do not 

practice this policy. 

126/192.

435 3-135 Invasive Plants. 3-135 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should provide support for the 

conclusion that OHV use is tied to invasive plant 

propagation.

Several citations are included that illustrate the impacts 

of roads. While not specific to OHV use, they do 

represent the best available science on how routes and 

motorized vehicles can affect wildlife.

461/39.

436 3-136 Invasive Plants. 3-136 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should consider available funding 

levels and existing systems for combating invasive 

plants when selecting an alternative because 

The results from any selected alternative would reduce 

the spread of noxious weeds over the current situation, 

see Chapter 3, "Invasive Species - Environmental 

Effects Analysis" due to the restrictions on open travel 

319/85. 414/55. 414/56. 

456/122. 456/123. 462/72. 

462/73.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

100

prevention is better than effective treatment. and no unauthorized routes (see Table 44, page 275, 

Comparison of indicators measures and alternative for 

range).

437 3-137 Invasive Plants. 3-137 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that 

motorized users contribute to programs for 

noxious weed abatement and have little impact on 

the noxious weed problem to ensure a balanced 

discussion.

This statement may be true in Montana but there is no 

such program in Wyoming or South Dakota. 

126/193.

438 3-138 Soils & Erosion. 3-138 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should improve the analysis of 

soils and erosion because accepted EPA standards 

were not used and the information provided is 

inadequate.

Dust is generally an effect of various levels of use on 

designated Forest transportation systems. Dust is 

generally not an issue in the Black Hills on soils when 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines are implemented. 

Dust (and EPA Air Quality Standards?) was addressed 

within the engineering and transportation section of the 

DEIS and is addressed further in the FEIS. 

327/2.

439 3-139 Soils & Erosion. 3-139 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should clarify how the soil

compaction guidelines will be applied.

Expected soil compaction effects beyond the designated 

road/trail prism and designated parking width 

associated with the roads and trails is included under the 

discussion for the various alternatives. Information on 

soil compaction, in addition to other potential effects to 

the soil resource that would not become part of the area 

to be dedicated to the formally designated permanent 

transportation system components (roads, trails, 

trailheads and specified parking zones along routes) was 

included in the Soils section on pages 100 – 114 of the 

DEIS. While page numbers may be different in the 

FEIS this discussion is still expected to be located the 

Soils Section of the FEIS.

461/32.

440 3-140 Soils & Erosion. 3-140 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that effects on 

soil will be minimal or beneficial because available 

routes already exist.

Expected beneficial effects, in addition to other 

expected potential effects to Forest soil resources was 

included in the Soils section of the DEIS on pages 100 –

114. In the FEIS this discussion is still expected to be 

located the Soils Section of the FEIS.

461/33.

441 3-141 Soils & Erosion. 3-141 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should ensure that erosion impacts

from non-motorized recreation are accurately 

described to avoid bias against motorized 

recreation.

The Travel Management Plan DEIS documents 

information and expected effects associated with the 

decision for motorized vehicle travel on the Black Hills; 

non-motorized uses are outside of the scope of that 

decision. Various other documents, both at the 

programmatic level and project level (such as the 1997 

126/202.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

101

Forest Plan FEIS and the Forest Plan Phase II FEIS) 

include descriptions of potential effects and/or closures 

or reroutes with various other non-motorized 

recreational uses. 

442 3-142 Soils & Erosion. 3-142 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should avoid using soil erosion as a 

reason to limit motorized recreation because soil 

erosion from naturally occurring fires is much 

greater.

The Travel Management Plan DEIS documents 

information and expected effects associated with the 

decision for motorized vehicle travel on the Black Hills; 

non-motorized uses are outside of the scope of that 

decision. Various other documents, both at the 

programmatic level and project level (such as the 1997 

Forest Plan FEIS and the Forest Plan Phase II FEIS) 

include descriptions of potential effects and/or closures 

or reroutes with various other non-motorized 

recreational uses. 

126/188.

443 3-143 Soils & Erosion. 3-143 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should not use sediment 

production as a reason to restrict motorized 

recreation because restoration and road 

decommissioning cause greater short-term 

impacts than OHV use does.

We agree that road/trail restoration and 

decommissioning can increase sediment input into water 

bodies in the short-term. Per NEPA requirements, the 

analysis disclosed both the potential short-term AND 

long-term effects of designating routes for motorized 

use. Routes are not proposed to be closed because of 

the amount of sediment they are predicted to produce. 

As mentioned models have their limitations and were 

not used on the Black Hills National Forest. The design 

criteria outlined in the document would minimize the 

impacts to the streams.

126/184.

444 3-144 Water Quality. 3-144 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should be commended for the thorough 

analysis of aquatic resources.

Thank you for the complimentary comment. 326/27.

445 3-145 Water Quality. 3-145 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should establish the actual sediment 

transport capacity of project area streams to 

ensure an accurate assessment of sediment 

transport impacts.

Sediment from human activities should be limited to 

protect the aquatic resources. We disagree that 

sediment can be added to the stream and be OK if the 

stream can move it because it could still affect 

something down stream. A goal of travel management 

is to minimize impacts to the aquatic resource by 

minimizing or eliminating sediment eroding from the 

road and trail system.

126/191.

446 3-146 Water Quality. 3-146 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should acknowledge that the amount of 

sediment production on Federal lands is small 

when compared to the sediment production on 

A Forest-wide study comparing sediment produced on 

federal versus non-federal lands has not been conducted 

on the Black Hills National Forest. Sediment produced 

is dependant on a number of watershed characteristics, 

126/190.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

102

non-federal lands. including but not limited to soil type, slope, 

precipitation regime, land use practices, stream order, 

etc. The study referenced was conducted on the Gallatin 

NF in Montana and may not be comparable to the 

Black Hills NF. The Forest Service has a public trust 

responsibility and a duty per the travel management rule 

to address resources issues that are within agency 

authority.

447 3-147 Water Quality. 3-147 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should acknowledge that Alternative C 

might help contain didymo because it is more 

easily transmitted by foot traffic.

Alternative C is not likely to contain didymo, an aquatic 

nuisance species, in Rapid Creek because this alternative 

does not substantially change the amount of recreational 

foot traffic, which is the primary pathway for the spread 

of didymo, in Rapid Creek downstream of Pactola Dam.

461/37.

448 3-148 Water Quality. 3-148 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should acknowledge that OHV-related 

water quality impacts are analyzed as nonpoint 

sources and most impairment in the area is due to 

natural sources.

There are no impairments to the streams on the Black 

Hills National Forest due to sediment. Most activities 

on the National Forest are non-point sources including 

travel management.

461/35.

449 3-149 Water Quality. 3-149 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should acknowledge that greater impacts 

to water quality will result from new route 

construction than from road use.

There are several factors that contribute sediment to 

streams. As mentioned construction and the mere 

presence of the road or trail could contribute sediment, 

as will continue use. Continued use keeps churning up 

the road or trail surface making it available for transport. 

Road or trails that do not receive use will develop an 

armored surface over time and will not produce as much 

sediment as routes that are used.

461/36.

450 3-150 Water Quality. 3-150 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should acknowledge that Alternatives B 

and C would have greater hydrology impacts than 

Alternative A on Hanna Creek, Spearfish Creek 

West, and Little Spearfish Creek.

Alternative B would have less effects to the water 

resource than Alternative A because no cross country 

travel would be allowed. This would greatly reduce the 

impacts of vehicle travel even in the areas mentioned, 

Hanna Creek from South of the Hanna Campground to 

road 209, Spearfish Creek West [Spearfish Creek from 

Cheyenne Crossing west along Hwy 85 to LeadDeadwood water supply intake] and Little Spearfish 

Creek from Savoy to where it flows into Little Spearfish 

Canyon and parallels Road 222. Dispersed camping and 

game retrieval would not impact these areas because 

dispersed camping would be discouraged within 100 feet 

of lakes and streams and land vehicles would be 

prohibited from entering perennial streams.

464/18. 464/30.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

103

451 3-151 Climate Change. 3-151 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include an analysis of 

climate change impacts to comply with the 

Department of Interior Order.

A discussion of climate change has been added to the 

FEIS.

458/9. 458/10. 458/11.

452 3-152 Climate Change. 3-152 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should consider the carbon 

footprint of its decision.

A discussion of climate change has been added to the 

FEIS.

331/6.

453 3-153 Visual Resources. 3-153 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should consider trails as part of the 

natural landscape and should evaluate the visual 

impacts of motorized and non-motorized 

recreation fairly and equally.

The Scenery section of the Draft EIS analyzed the 

effects of motorized recreation use evident in the 

landscape and the expected elements of that use that 

would be evident in the landscape to all, including those 

enjoying non-motorized recreation activities (i.e.-hiking, 

mountain biking, etc.). This analysis included visiting 

representative sites of motorized use in a variety of 

vegetation and terrain conditions to identify those 

visible effects (DEIS, pg. 255-257). Re-evaluating the 

impacts of non-motorized recreation trails is outside the 

scope of this EIS.

126/242.

454 3-154 Visual Resources. 3-154 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should analyze scenic integrity 

from a variety of viewpoints to include 

viewpoints on non-motorized trials.

The Scenery section of the Draft EIS analyzed the 

effects of motorized recreation use evident in the 

landscape and the expected elements of that use that 

would be evident in the landscape to all, including those 

enjoying non-motorized recreation activities (i.e.-hiking, 

mountain biking, etc.). This analysis included visiting 

representative sites of motorized use in a variety of 

vegetation and terrain conditions to identify those 

visible effects (DEIS, pg. 255-257). As Vegetative 

screening can be dynamic; we only consider the viewed 

landforms.

456/116.

455 3-155 Visual Resources. 3-155 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should reduce light pollution.

Light pollution from motorized trail use (at night) was 

not discussed in the Draft EIS. Currently the Forest 

does not have rules that prohibit motorized trail use at 

night, nor are we aware of reliable ways to measure 

resulting cumulative light emissions. This issue can be 

monitored and addressed in future programmatic 

documents if needed. 

518/3.

456 3-156 Cultural & Historic Resources. 3-156 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should comply with 

the National Historic Preservation Act to protect 

heritage resources.

Thank you for your comment. The U.S. Forest Service 

has a legal mandate to comply with the National 

Historic Preservation Act. The specific legal mandates 

are summarized in the Cultural Resources section of the 

578/45.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

104

EIS. An assessment of effect has been completed for 

each of the nearly 400 cultural sites that have been 

identified in the area of potential effect. Protection 

measures have been prescribed at those locations where 

the data demonstrate that historic properties are at-risk 

due to activities associated with motor vehicle use. The 

protection measures prescribed are designed to ensure 

that no significant historic properties are adversely 

affected. In addition, the U.S. Forest Service has 

completed formal consultation for this action with the 

respective State Historic Preservation Officers and 

appropriate Tribal representatives as mandated by the 

implementing regulations for National Historic 

Preservation Act.

457 3-157 Cultural & Historic Resources. 3-157 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should revise the 

cultural resource analysis to reduce confusion and 

comply with the National Historic Preservation 

Act.

Thank you for your comment. The Cultural Resources 

section of the FEIS has been edited and updated to 

more clearly and concisely analyze and report the effect 

of this action on historic properties. The U.S. Forest 

Service has a legal mandate to comply with the National 

Historic Preservation Act. An assessment of effect has 

been completed for each of the nearly 400 cultural sites 

that have been identified in the area of potential effect. 

Protection measures have been prescribed at those 

locations where the data demonstrate that historic 

properties are at-risk due to activities associated with 

motor vehicle use. The protection measures prescribed 

are designed to ensure that no significant historic 

properties are adversely affected. In addition, the U.S. 

Forest Service has completed formal consultation for 

this action with the respective State Historic 

Preservation Officers and appropriate Tribal 

representatives as mandated by the implementing 

regulations for National Historic Preservation Act.

583/2.

458 4-1 General (Chapter 4: Transportation System 

Management & Planning). 4-1 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should manage the forest 

similarly to those in other states to reduce the 

number of out-of-state users.

The Travel Management Rule is intended to provide a 

consistent national framework and consistent 

terminology for travel management decisions on all 

National Forests and Grasslands.

047/1. 220/12.

459 4-2 General. 4-2 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should identify recreational and motorized users 

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to 

provide access for both motorized and non-motorized 

126/113.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

105

of the National Forest as the owners of the plan 

to ensure that the objective is to meet their needs.

users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. As stated in the Travel Management 

Rule, National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

use. National Forests are not reserved for the exclusive 

use of any one group, nor must every use be 

accommodated on every acre. It is entirely appropriate 

for different areas of the National Forests to provide 

different opportunities for recreation. An 

interdisciplinary process was used to identify routes 

suitable for public motorized use designation, including 

all identified non-system routes, in the range of 

alternatives. The analysis process included identifying 

natural and cultural resource concerns, recreation, access 

needs, and other related considerations consistent with 

the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule to develop the range of 

alternatives. The results of this analysis can be found in 

Chapter 3 of the DEIS. 

460 4-3 General. 4-3 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should adopt best management practices as part 

of the travel planning effort to minimize impacts 

and comply with Eos 11644 and 11989.

The Department of Agriculture produced the 2005 

Motorized Travel Rule to be consistent with Executive 

Orders 11644 and 11989, and to serve as the means to 

implement the policy direction contained in those 

Executive Orders. The 2005 Motorized Travel Rule 

places more emphasis on considering the effects of 

motorized trails and areas, than of roads. Consistent 

with the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule, development of 

all the action alternatives specifically included 

considering effects of trails with the objective of 

minimizing effects related to damage to soil, watershed, 

vegetation, other forest resources, harassment of 

wildlife, disruption of wildlife habitats, and conflicts 

between motorized trail use and existing uses.

456/142. 456/144.

461 4-4 General. 4-4 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should manage the lands using local standards and 

culture as criteria rather than criteria more fitting 

for larger urban areas.

It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to 

provide access for both motorized and non-motorized 

users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. As stated in the Travel Management 

Rule, National Forests are managed by law for multiple 

use. National Forests are not reserved for the exclusive 

use of any one group, nor must every use be 

accommodated on every acre. It is entirely appropriate 

for different areas of the National Forests to provide 

126/244.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

106

different opportunities for recreation. An 

interdisciplinary process was used to identify routes 

suitable for public motorized use designation, including 

all identified non-system routes, in the range of 

alternatives. The analysis process included identifying 

natural and cultural resource concerns, recreation, access 

needs, and other related considerations consistent with 

the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule to develop the range of 

alternatives. The results of this analysis can be found in 

Chapter 3 of the DEIS. 

462 4-5 General. 4-5 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should reconsider expanding the existing system 

to avoid increasing impacts to water quality, 

aquatic resource, and wildlife habitat.

Alternative D proposes the smallest motorized travel 

system. The Department of Agriculture produced the 

2005 Motorized Travel Rule to be consistent with 

Executive Orders 11644 and 11989, and to serve as the 

means to implement the policy direction contained in 

those Executive Orders. The 2005 Motorized Travel 

Rule places more emphasis on considering the effects of 

motorized trails and areas, than of roads. Consistent 

with the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule, development of 

all the action alternatives specifically included 

considering effects of trails with the objective of 

minimizing effects related to damage to soil, watershed, 

vegetation, other forest resources, harassment of 

wildlife, disruption of wildlife habitats, and conflicts 

between motorized trail use and existing uses.

473/1.

463 4-6 General. 4-6 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should revise the alternative descriptions to 

ensure that the motorized system cannot be 

expanded without limits because Appendix F 

implies that expansion could occur for many 

decades into the future.

The proposed changes to the Forest Plan are not meant 

to indicate that the stated mileages of construction or 

conversion would occur each decade into the future in 

perpetuity. The Forest Plan direction shown applies to 

the current decade. The quantities shown are not 

mandatory targets but aspirations. They are included 

here to provide appropriate adjustments to current 

Forest Plan direction. Any proposed implementation of 

Forest Plan direction must undergo site-specific NEPA 

analysis, which is the purpose of this current analysis. 

414/53. 456/32. 462/70.

464 4-7 General. 4-7 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should allow for reassessment of the plan in 

future years to allow for thoughtful addition and 

deletion of routes.

Designation of routes and areas for motor vehicle use is 

only one step in the ongoing process of travel 

management. Implementation of travel management 

decisions includes effective education, enforcement, 

monitoring and evaluation. Information from 

610/3.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

107

monitoring will help determine if there is a need for 

change and whether designations should be revised.

465 4-8 General. 4-8 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should allow for future modifications to the trail 

system to improve connectivity of trails.

Designation of routes and areas for motor vehicle use is 

only one step in the ongoing process of travel 

management. Implementation of travel management 

decisions includes effective education, enforcement, 

monitoring and evaluation. Information from 

monitoring will help determine if there is a need for 

change and whether designations should be revised.

395/14. 461/20.

466 4-9 General. 4-9 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should allow for amendments to create or modify 

trails to be responsive to the needs of motorized 

recreationists.

Designation of routes and areas for motor vehicle use is 

only one step in the ongoing process of travel 

management. Implementation of travel management 

decisions includes effective education, enforcement, 

monitoring and evaluation. Information from 

monitoring will help determine if there is a need for 

change and whether designations should be revised.

126/58. 351/20.

467 4-10 General. 4-10 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should ensure that future management 

projects are reviewed to ensure that no new road 

construction will be allowed.

Travel management planning is not new to the agency 

or the Black Hills National Forest. For many years, the 

Forest has been involved in travel planning in the 

development of land management plans and numerous 

site-specific project-level decisions. As the Forest 

implements and monitors the decision resulting from 

the current process, as well as those in the future, we 

may identify needs for change in the existing 

designations. 

458/15.

468 4-11 General. 4-11 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should acknowledge that decreasing the 

road system in the future will be more difficult 

because stakeholders will feel entitled.

The Travel Management Rule (see § 212.54) provides 

for revision of designations as needed to meet changing 

conditions. Revisions may include closures, additions or 

changes in designations following public involvement 

and site-specific environmental analysis. 

293/7.

469 4-12 General. 4-12 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should provide the “best trail system” 

immediately.

Thank you for your comment. 217/19.

470 4-13 General. 4-13 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should encourage manufacturers to design 

vehicles with differential axles to reduce the 

creation of ruts.

This is beyond the scope of this project. 126/268. 394/14.

471 4-14 Road and Trail System. 4-14 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should describe the process 

used to evaluate and identify the minimum system 

A roads analysis was conducted on Black Hills National 

Forest high-speed roads resulting in a Roads Analysis 

Report (RAP) published in October 2005. A travel 

456/136.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

108

required for safe and efficient travel, 

administration, use, and protection of National 

Forest lands to comply with the Travel 

Management Rule.

analysis was conducted on high-clearance roads, trails, 

and unauthorized routes resulting in a Travel Analysis 

Process (TAP) Report published in September 2007. 

These reports provide a technical, science-based review 

of the Black Hills National Forest transportation system. 

472 4-15 Road and Trail System. 4-15 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should resolve the 

inconsistencies in the DEIS regarding the total 

miles of roads in the system.

FEIS will correct any inconsistencies in road mileages 

reported. However, roads open to motorized travel 

include Levels 2-5. Total road miles also include Level 1 

roads which are not open to public motorized use. 

545/6.

473 4-16 Road and Trail System. 4-16 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should establish an estimate of 

the maximum carrying capacity of designated 

roads and trails to allow for monitoring and 

capping the use when capacity is reached.

The size of the Travel System over time will be 

evaluated through monitoring and the environmental 

analysis process. 

456/35. 456/36. 458/29. 

458/30.

474 4-17 Road and Trail System. 4-17 Public Concern:

The Forest Service should clarify the allowed 

administrative access to ensure access for 

permittees and contractors.

The discussion of Administrative Access in Chapter 2, 

under section: Features Shared By All Alternatives, 

includes use by contractors and permit holders 

operating within the terms and scope of their contract 

or permit.

419/5. 546/5. 548/3.

475 4-18 Road and Trail System. 4-18 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should allow motorized travel 

on all routes designated as EX-Existing in the 

metadata for the geodatabase.

36 CFR 212 establishes requirements for the 

administration of the forest transportation system... 

These regulations describe a MINIMUM road system... 

The selected system must be environmentally 

sustainable, socially acceptable, and economically 

feasible.

133/1. 545/12.

476 4-19 Roads. 4-19 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should allow current roads to remain open 

because no damage is done by those who stay on 

the roads.

36 CFR 212 establishes requirements for the 

administration of the forest transportation system... 

These regulations describe a MINIMUM road system... 

The selected system must be environmentally 

sustainable, socially acceptable, and economically 

feasible.

175/1. 268/1. 366/12. 546/1.

477 4-20 Roads. 4-20 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should prohibit ATV travel off of fire roads 

because users abuse the option and cause erosion.

Motorized use (including ATV/OHV) will only be 

allowed on routes designated through the Travel 

Management Plan. The selected system must be 

environmentally sustainable, socially acceptable, and 

economically feasible. Resource protection is critical to 

this process.

528/1.

478 4-21 Roads. 4-21 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should open existing gated roads to dissuade users 

from travelling in non-road areas.

Gated roads are NFSR's in Level 1 maintenance 

category, meaning they are only needed for 

administrative use and are not open to the public for 

207/2.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

109

motorized travel. The public may enjoy these routes in 

any non-motorized means. The final decision may 

include the conversion of some gated roads to an 

"open" status but it is just as likely that many will remain 

open for administrative use only.

4794-22 Roads. 4-22 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should open most of the gates in the BHNF.

Gated roads are NFSR's in Level 1 maintenance 

category, meaning they are only needed for 

administrative use and are not open to the public for 

motorized travel. The public may enjoy these routes in 

any non-motorized means. The final decision may 

include the conversion of some gated roads to an 

"open" status but it is just as likely that many will remain 

open for administrative use only.

313/5.

4804-23 Roads. 4-23 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should remove the pipe barrier gates because they 

are ugly, ineffective, and with the plan change, 

unnecessary.

Gated roads are NFSR's in Level 1 maintenance 

category, meaning they are only needed for 

administrative use and are not open to the public for 

motorized travel. The public may enjoy these routes in 

any non-motorized means. The final decision may 

include the conversion of some gated roads to an 

"open" status but it is just as likely that many will remain 

open for administrative use only.

236/2.

4814-24 Roads. 4-24 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should provide access to logging roads.

Motorized use will be allowed on routes designated 

through the Travel Management Plan. The selected 

system will be environmentally sustainable, socially 

acceptable, and economically feasible. 

565/9.

4824-25 Roads. 4-25 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should acknowledge that mining and logging 

roads are dangerous.

Motorized use will be allowed on routes designated 

through the Travel Management Plan. The selected 

system will be environmentally sustainable, socially 

acceptable, and economically feasible. 

369/3.

4834-26 Trails. 4-26 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should leave the trails as they are.

Trail opportunities for vehicles less than 65-inches have 

been provided for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the 

DEIS and FEIS to varying degrees. Effects to the 

natural resources for this activity are disclosed in 

Chapter 3.

041/1.

4844-27 Trails. 4-27 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should move forward with a new trail system to 

protect the forest from damage while ensuring 

that some motorized access is allowed.

Trail opportunities for vehicles less than 65-inches have 

been provided for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the 

DEIS and FEIS to varying degrees. Effects to the 

natural resources for this activity are disclosed in 

Chapter 3.

097/7.

4854-28 Trails. 4-28 Public Concern: The Forest Service The designated system will include some mixed-use 445/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

110

should move forward with mixed-used trails. routes open to highway legal and non-highway legal 

vehicles. 

486 4-29 Trails. 4-29 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should develop a diverse trail system to meet the 

various needs of users.

Trail opportunities for vehicles 65-inches and less in 

width would be provided for in Alternatives B, C, and D 

of the DEIS and FEIS to varying degrees. Effects to 

the natural resources for this activity are disclosed in 

Chapter 3.

201/1. 207/1.

487 4-30 Trails. 4-30 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should retain the maximum amount of trails.

Trail opportunities for vehicles 65-inches and less in 

width would be provided for in Alternatives B, C, and D 

of the DEIS and FEIS to varying degrees. Effects to 

the natural resources for this activity are disclosed in 

Chapter 3.

234/1. 393/13. 493/1.

488 4-31 Trails. 4-31 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should provide a network of national motorized 

recreation trails similar to the continental divide 

trail.

Trail opportunities for vehicles 65-inches and less in 

width would be provided for in Alternatives B, C, and D 

of the DEIS and FEIS to varying degrees. Effects to 

the natural resources for this activity are disclosed in 

Chapter 3.

126/266.

489 4-32 Trails. 4-32 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should include primitive trails in the plan to

increase compliance with the Travel Management 

Rule. 

Trail opportunities for vehicles 65-inches and less in 

width would be provided for in Alternatives B, C, and D 

of the DEIS and FEIS to varying degrees. Trail 

opportunities open to all vehicles are also provided. 

Effects to the natural resources for this activity are 

disclosed in Chapter 3.

493/2.

490 4-33 Trails. 4-33 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should encourage use of trails in woods rather 

than open roads to increase safety. 

Trail opportunities for vehicles 65-inches and less in 

width would be provided for in Alternatives B, C, and D 

of the DEIS and FEIS to varying degrees. Effects to 

the natural resources for this activity are disclosed in 

Chapter 3.

546/4. 546/14.

491 4-34 Trails. 4-34 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should add trails to those proposed in Alternative 

C to increase the success of the plan with little 

additional maintenance expense.

Trail opportunities for vehicles 65-inches and less in 

width would be provided for in Alternatives B, C, and D 

of the DEIS and FEIS to varying degrees. Effects to 

the natural resources for this activity are disclosed in 

Chapter 3. Some two-track roads are not appropriate 

for continued motorized access due to the sensitive 

natural resources. Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS 

and FEIS retain to varying degrees some two-track 

routes for motorized use. 

453/1.

492 4-35 Trails. 4-35 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should include a trail system in Custer and Fall 

River Counties to allow for the counties to collect 

Trail opportunities for vehicles 65-inches and less in 

width would be provided for in Alternatives B, C, and D 

of the DEIS and FEIS to varying degrees. Effects to 

217/11.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

111

trail permit fees. the natural resources for this activity are disclosed in 

Chapter 3. Opportunities will be reevaluated in Custer 

and Fall River Counties.

493 4-36 Inventories. 4-36 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should include all existing trails in the 

inventory even if they do not meet design criteria.

This analysis includes the evaluation of user created 

routes, even if they did not currently meet standards for 

Forest System trails and roads, for possible designation 

into the Forest Travel System. The evaluation of each 

routes considered factors such as compatibility with 

existing land prescriptions and/or designations, impacts 

to the resource, wildlife objectives, safety, existing 

and/or potential conflicts as well as information 

provided from the public. These routes will also need 

to meet existing objectives, standards and specifications 

as identified within Forest Service Manuals and 

Handbooks. Routes that are determined to provide a 

benefit to the public and are consistent with the above 

factors are likely candidates for inclusion into the 

transportation system. 

126/21. 215/7. 216/9. 221/18. 

222/15. 260/14. 262/15. 

382/13. 460/11. 497/17. 

503/16. 519/9. 520/3. 531/15. 

592/4. 607/6. 

494 4-36 Inventories. 4-36 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should include all existing trails in the 

inventory because many go to scenic locations.

This analysis includes the evaluation of existing user 

created or defined trails, including trails leading to scenic 

overlooks or other points of interest, for possible 

designation into the Forest Travel System. The 

evaluation of each routes considered factors such as 

compatibility with existing land prescriptions and/or 

designations, impacts to the resource, wildlife objectives, 

safety, existing and/or potential conflicts as well as 

information provided from the public. These routes will 

also need to meet existing objectives, standards and 

specifications as identified within Forest Service 

Manuals and Handbooks. Routes that are determined 

to provide a benefit to the public and are consistent 

with the above factors are likely candidates for inclusion 

into the transportation system. 

559/4. 

495 4-36 Inventories. 4-36 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should include all existing trails in the 

inventory even if they will ultimately be closed.

This analysis does not address decommissioning or 

physically closing existing roads or trails. However, not 

all existing trails and roads will be designated as open to 

public motorized travel. 

545/7. 546/15. 

496 4-36 Inventories. 4-36 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should include all existing trails in the 

inventory including user-created single-track trails.

This analysis includes the evaluation of user created 

routes and system routes for possible designation into 

the Forest Travel System. The evaluation of each routes 

536/22. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

112

considered factors such as compatibility with existing 

land prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the 

resource, wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or 

potential conflicts as well as information provided from 

the public. These routes will also need to meet existing 

objectives, standards and specifications as identified 

within Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes 

that are determined to provide a benefit to the public 

and are consistent with the above factors are likely 

candidates for inclusion into the transportation system. 

497 4-36 Inventories. 4-36 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should include all existing trails in the 

inventory including those in the Northern Hills.

This analysis includes the evaluation of existing user 

created or defined trails for possible designation into the 

Forest Travel System. The evaluation of each routes 

considered factors such as compatibility with existing 

land prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the 

resource, wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or 

potential conflicts as well as information provided from 

the public. These routes will also need to meet existing 

objectives, standards and specifications as identified 

within Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes 

that are determined to provide a benefit to the public 

and are consistent with the above factors are likely 

candidates for inclusion into the transportation system. 

514/12. 

498 4-36 Inventories. 4-36 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should include all existing trails in the 

inventory including those in the Southern Hills.

This analysis includes the evaluation of existing user 

created or defined trails for possible designation into the 

Forest Travel System. The evaluation of each routes 

considered factors such as compatibility with existing 

land prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the 

resource, wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or 

potential conflicts as well as information provided from 

the public. These routes will also need to meet existing 

objectives, standards and specifications as identified 

within Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes 

that are determined to provide a benefit to the public 

and are consistent with the above factors are likely 

candidates for inclusion into the transportation system. 

512/11. 

499 4-37 Inventories. 4-37 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should ensure that roads not included due 

to administrative issues, such as timing or 

inaccurate mapping, be reviewed for later 

This analysis includes the evaluation of existing user 

created or defined trails for possible designation into the 

Forest Travel System. The evaluation of each routes 

considered factors such as compatibility with existing 

261/16. 276/8. 322/15. 351/19. 

390/12. 441/4. 444/2. 449/5. 

450/15. 451/4. 534/20. 593/15. 

594/4. 595/4. 596/4. 597/3. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

113

addition. land prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the 

resource, wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or 

potential conflicts as well as information provided from 

the public. These routes will also need to meet existing 

objectives, standards and specifications as identified 

within Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes 

that are determined to provide a benefit to the public 

and are consistent with the above factors are likely 

candidates for inclusion into the transportation system. 

598/5. 599/4. 600/4. 601/4. 

602/4. 603/12. 604/13. 605/13. 

606/15. 607/5. 609/24.

500 4-38 Inventories. 4-38 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should include routes that were not 

analyzed due to budget or time constraints on a 

conditional basis.

This site-specific analysis evaluated existing user created 

or defined trails which were inventoried. The Forest 

Service understands there may be other unauthorized 

routes that could be desirable to consider for addition to 

the motorized travel system. Such routes could be 

included in the environmental analysis for future 

projects in those areas. The database for this project, 

including individual routes, will be available for use in 

future such projects. 

461/6.

501 4-39 Inventories. 4-39 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should include all roads being used for 

access to private lands to avoid conflicts with 

landowners.

Many routes that were not proposed for designation 

may be considered to be left open to provide private 

access, as well as other administrative uses. The Travel 

Management Rule provides that the following vehicles 

and uses are exempted (see §212.51): (1) Aircraft; (2) 

Watercraft; (3) Over-snow vehicles; (4) Limited 

administrative use by the Forest Service; (5) Use of any 

fire, military, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle for 

emergency purposes; (6) Authorized use of any combat 

or combat support vehicle for national defense 

purposes; (7) Law enforcement response to violations of 

law, including pursuit; and (8) Motor vehicle use that is 

specifically authorized under a written authorization 

issued under Federal law or regulations.

548/4.

502 4-40 Inventories. 4-40 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should ensure that access to private 

property is maintained.

The Forest Service recognizes the need for people to be 

able to access public and private lands. The Forest 

Service also recognizes the need for access points to be 

done responsibly including encouraging legal access as 

well as in ways that do not create resource damage. All 

current legal access rights will be maintained and the 

Forest will work with all requiring legal access.

544/1.

503 4-41 Inventories. 4-41 Public Concern: The Forest As stated in the Travel Management Rule, the Forest 314/4.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

114

Service should ensure that private land holders are 

able to access the trail system.

Service supports the general principle of equal public 

access to Federal lands. However, as stated in the 

response to Public Concern 4-41, routes that were not

proposed for designation may be considered to be left 

open to provide private access, as well as other 

administrative uses.

504 4-42 Inventories. 4-42 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should ensure that access for non-federal 

landowners of land adjacent to the BHNF is not 

affected.

The Forest Service recognizes the need for people to be 

able to access public and private lands. The Forest 

Service also recognizes the need for access points to be 

done responsibly including encouraging legal access as 

well as in ways that do not create resource damage. All 

current legal access rights will be maintained and the 

Forest will work with all requiring legal access.

269/2. 474/23. 478/1.

505 4-43 Inventories. 4-43 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should explain why previously closed 

roads or user-created roads are included because 

there are no compelling reasons to do so.

This analysis includes the evaluation of existing routes 

for possible designation into the Forest Travel System. 

The evaluation of each route considered factors such as 

compatibility with existing land prescriptions and/or 

designations, impacts to the resource, wildlife objectives, 

safety, existing and/or potential conflicts as well as 

information provided from the public. These routes will 

also need to meet existing objectives, standards and 

specifications as identified within Forest Service 

Manuals and Handbooks. Routes that are determined 

to provide a benefit to the public and are consistent 

with the above factors are likely candidates for inclusion 

into the transportation system. 

357/1.

506 4-44 Inventories. 4-44 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should include all existing routes without 

significant environmental issues because all the 

existing routes are important to visitors.

This analysis includes the evaluation of existing routes 

for possible designation into the Forest Travel System. 

The evaluation of each route considered factors such as 

compatibility with existing land prescriptions and/or 

designations, impacts to the resource, wildlife objectives, 

safety, existing and/or potential conflicts as well as 

information provided from the public. These routes will 

also need to meet existing objectives, standards and 

specifications as identified within Forest Service 

Manuals and Handbooks. Routes that are determined 

to provide a benefit to the public and are consistent 

with the above factors are likely candidates for inclusion 

into the transportation system. 

126/138. 212/1.

507 4-45 Inventories. 4-45 Public Concern: The Forest This analysis includes the evaluation of existing routes 357/2.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

115

Service should provide the reasoning for 

including each road or trail and exclude any route 

where the benefits don't outweigh the costs.

for possible designation into the Forest Travel System. 

The evaluation of each route considered factors such as 

compatibility with existing land prescriptions and/or 

designations, impacts to the resource, wildlife objectives, 

safety, existing and/or potential conflicts as well as 

information provided from the public. These routes will 

also need to meet existing objectives, standards and 

specifications as identified within Forest Service 

Manuals and Handbooks. Routes that are determined 

to provide a benefit to the public and are consistent 

with the above factors are likely candidates for inclusion 

into the transportation system. 

508 4-46 Inventories. 4-46 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should include all unauthorized roads in 

the inventory for possible future use.

Route and area inventories will be maintained in the 

project record for future consideration.

237/11. 239/11. 351/13. 

495/15. 498/14. 519/10. 

536/21. 602/7. 

509 4-46 Inventories. 4-46 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should include all unauthorized roads in 

the inventory and should work with motorized 

clubs to enhance the trail system.

Route and area inventories will be maintained in the 

project record for future consideration.

229/15.

510 4-46 Inventories. 4-46 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should include all unauthorized roads in 

the inventory including game trails.

Route and area inventories will be maintained in the 

project record for future consideration.

561/11. 

511 4-47 Inventories. 4-47 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should include “Other Recorded Trails” 

in the inventory to ensure accurate information is 

used.

As referenced in the Travel management Rule, many of 

the user-created or defined routes were developed 

without agency authorization, environmental analysis, or 

public involvement and do not have the same status as 

NFS roads and trails included in the forest 

transportation system. However, this analysis includes 

the evaluation of many existing user created or defined 

routes for possible designation into the Forest Travel 

System. The evaluation of each route considered factors 

such as compatibility with existing land prescriptions 

and/or designations, impacts to the resource, wildlife 

objectives, safety, existing and/or potential conflicts as 

well as information provided from the public. These 

routes will also need to meet existing objectives, 

standards and specifications as identified within Forest 

Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes that are 

determined to provide a benefit to the public and are 

consistent with the above factors are likely candidates 

197/3.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

116

for inclusion into the transportation system. 

512 4-48 Inventories. 4-48 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should reconsider the requirement that 

motorized users inventory existing routes and 

trails because users don't have the needed 

equipment and it places an undue burden on 

these users.

Off-road motorcyclists' level of participation was 

considerable in the EIS process on the Black Hills 

National Forest. Many of the area's OHV organizations, 

including off-road motorcycling enthusiasts, voluntarily 

conducted extensive route inventories. 

126/124.

513 4-49 Non_System Roads. 4-49 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should not include non-system 

roads to ensure that road and trail system is 

sustainable relative to protecting natural 

resources.

This analysis includes the evaluation of user created 

routes and non-system roads for possible designation 

into the Forest Travel System. The evaluation of each 

route considered factors such as compatibility with 

existing land prescriptions and/or designations, impacts 

to the resource, wildlife objectives, safety, existing 

and/or potential conflicts as well as information 

provided from the public. These routes will also need 

to meet existing objectives, standards and specifications 

as identified within Forest Service Manuals and 

Handbooks. Routes that are determined to provide a 

benefit to the public and are consistent with the above 

factors are likely candidates for inclusion into the 

transportation system. 

319/36. 362/23. 414/24. 

456/114. 458/90. 462/25.

514 4-50 Non_System Roads. 4-50 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should reconsider closing nonsystem roads to ensure sufficient fire and 

emergency access is retained. 

This analysis includes the evaluation of user created 

routes and system routes for possible designation into 

the Forest Travel System. The evaluation of each routes 

considered factors such as compatibility with existing 

land prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the 

resource, wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or 

potential conflicts as well as information provided from 

the public. These routes will also need to meet existing 

objectives, standards and specifications as identified 

within Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes 

that are determined to provide a benefit to the public 

and are consistent with the above factors are likely 

candidates for inclusion into the transportation system. 

241/3. 247/13.

515 4-51 Non_System Roads. 4-51 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should avoid closing non-system 

roads because use of these roads will preserve 

access for fire fighting and prevention.

This analysis includes the evaluation of user created 

routes and non-system roads for possible designation 

into the Forest Travel System. The evaluation of each 

route considered factors such as compatibility with 

existing land prescriptions and/or designations, impacts 

to the resource, wildlife objectives, safety, existing 

377/3.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

117

and/or potential conflicts as well as information 

provided from the public. These routes will also need 

to meet existing objectives, standards and specifications 

as identified within Forest Service Manuals and 

Handbooks. Routes that are determined to provide a 

benefit to the public and are consistent with the above 

factors are likely candidates for inclusion into the 

transportation system. 

516 4-52 Non_System Roads. 4-52 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should avoid classifying all nonsystem roads as „illegal‟ because many were 

created legally.

This analysis includes the evaluation of user created 

routes and non-system roads for possible designation 

into the Forest Travel System. The evaluation of each 

route considered factors such as compatibility with 

existing land prescriptions and/or designations, impacts 

to the resource, wildlife objectives, safety, existing 

and/or potential conflicts as well as information 

provided from the public. These routes will also need 

to meet existing objectives, standards and specifications 

as identified within Forest Service Manuals and 

Handbooks. Routes that are determined to provide a 

benefit to the public and are consistent with the above 

factors are likely candidates for inclusion into the 

transportation system. 

126/169. 126/235.

517 4-53 Non_System Roads. 4-53 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should not include user created 

roads in the final plan to ensure included routes 

are designed and constructed to be sustainable.

The evaluation of all routes considered factors such as 

compatibility with existing land prescriptions and/or 

designation, impacts to the resource, wildlife objectives, 

safety, existing and/or potential conflicts as well as 

information provided from the public. Administrative 

use routes will provide needed access to the Forest 

Service for needed management capabilities. All routes 

will need to meet existing objectives, standards and 

specifications identified in FS Manuals and Handbooks.

357/5. 473/22.

518 4-54 Non_System Roads. 4-54 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that they have 

not adequately managed the OHV community 

thus leading to the problem of unauthorized 

roads.

The DEIS proposes an actively managed transportation 

system of roads and trails in all of the action alternatives 

(Alternatives B-E). The existing condition (Alternative 

A) is described as a passively managed transportation 

system.

319/42. 414/27. 456/40. 

458/34. 462/31.

519 4-55 Non_System Roads. 4-55 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should describe the process for 

closing unclassified roads including proposals for 

dealing with increasing adjacent residential 

We Agree. 473/2.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

118

development.

520 4-56 Road Density. 4-56 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should reduce the number of roads 

because there are already enough roads. 

The Travel Management Rule of 2005 directed that any 

roads, trails and areas that are to be open to motor 

vehicle use on a National Forest be designated. Such 

use would be prohibited on routes and areas not 

designated. The Forest Service recognizes there are 

over 4,000 miles of unauthorized routes on the Black 

Hills NF. The purpose and need for this project 

includes identifying a system to comply with the Rule, 

provide a range of quality experiences for Forest users, 

and reduce impacts caused by unmanaged use. See the 

EIS, Chapter 1 for more information. 

156/1. 214/1. 343/1. 344/1.

521 4-57 Road Density. 4-57 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should reduce the density of roads and 

trails because other National Forests have much 

lower densities.

The Forest Service is responding to the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule with this proposal. National Forests 

are managed for multiple uses, one of those being 

recreation. There are no nationwide standards for road 

density. Opportunities and limitations unique and 

appropriate to the Black Hills NF will be considered in 

this analysis. 

134/5. 140/2. 141/6. 

522 4-57 Road Density. 4-57 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should reduce the density of roads and 

trails to bring it in line with Statewide road 

densities.

The analysis considers a range of alternatives for a 

motorized travel system. Some factors that must be 

evaluated for the Black Hills NF include the pattern of 

intermingled private land ownership, resource 

management needs and the capability to provide a range 

of recreation opportunities. These factors are discussed 

and effects disclosed in Chapter 3 of the EIS. 

138/2. 488/1. 

523 4-57 Road Density. 4-57 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should reduce the density of roads and 

trails to bring it in line with national and Region 2 

averages.

The analysis considers a range of alternatives for a 

motorized travel system. Some factors that must be 

evaluated for the Black Hills NF include the pattern of 

intermingled private land ownership, resource 

management needs and the capability to provide a range 

of recreation opportunities. These factors are discussed 

and effects disclosed in Chapter 3 of the EIS. 

414/46. 458/21.

524 4-57 Road Density. 4-57 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should reduce the density of roads and 

trails because high road densities cause adverse 

environmental and recreational impacts.

Effects of alternative motorized travel systems on these 

and other resources are disclosed in Chapter 3 of the 

EIS. 

293/1. 

525 4-57 Road Density. 4-57 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should reduce the density of roads and 

trails to protect elk populations, especially in the 

The EIS in Chapter 3, Wildlife section, acknowledges 

that roads can affect elk in various ways, including 

through displacement near open roads. The EIS states 

139/3.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

119

Central Hills. that all action alternatives would have a net beneficial 

effect on habitat quantity by not allowing motorized 

cross-country travel on much of the Forest, and that 

effects on habitat condition and trend are expected to 

be reduced through less cross-country travel. 

526 4-57 Road Density. 4-57 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should reduce the density of roads and 

trails to no more than 2 miles per square mile of 

forest.

The effects of the alternatives on resources are disclosed 

in the Chapter 3 of the EIS. The Hydrology section 

shows that the action alternatives would eliminate use 

on two-thirds of perennial stream crossings currently 

used. The wildlife section states that reducing or 

eliminating motorized cross-country travel under the 

action alternatives would benefit a variety of species 

including elk. 

517/1.

527 4-58 Road Density. 4-58 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should revisit the road density criteria 

because deer and elk can withstand greater 

densities.

The effects of the alternatives on elk and deer are

disclosed in the EIS in Chapter 3, Wildlife section. 

126/205. 126/206. 516/1.

528 4-59 Road Density. 4-59 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should acknowledge that the road density 

in the Black Hills is high by comparison to other 

National Forests.

The analysis considers a range of alternatives for a 

motorized travel system. Some factors that must be 

evaluated for the Black Hills NF include the pattern of 

intermingled private land ownership, resource 

management needs and the capability to provide a range 

of recreation opportunities. These factors are discussed 

and effects disclosed in Chapter 3 of the EIS. 

319/82. 456/14. 462/63.

529 4-60 Road Density. 4-60 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should limit motorized roads to a density 

of 1 mile per square mile to reduce damage and 

fragmentation of habitat.

The purpose and need for this project includes elements 

to develop a transportation system to provide a range of 

quality experiences for a variety of Forest users, and to 

reduce adverse impacts caused by unmanaged travel. 

The alternatives address these objectives in different 

ways. Alternative D reduces the route mileage and 

eliminates cross-country travel. The decision on this 

project will attempt to balance a variety of needs and 

will consider the effects of the alternatives disclosed in 

the EIS in Chapter 3. 

465/1. 

530 4-60 Road Density. 4-60 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should limit motorized roads to a density 

of 1 mile per square mile for the benefit of 

wildlife and quality habitat.

The purpose and need for this project includes elements 

to develop a transportation system to provide a range of 

quality experiences for a variety of Forest users, and to 

reduce adverse impacts caused by unmanaged travel. 

The alternatives address these objectives in different 

ways. Alternative D reduces the route mileage and 

362/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

120

eliminates cross-country travel. The decision on this 

project will attempt to balance a variety of needs and 

will consider the effects of the alternatives disclosed in 

the EIS in Chapter 3. 

531 4-61 Road Density. 4-61 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should create new trails where needed to 

meet the 1 mile per square mile guideline in areas 

managed for wildlife.

While Management Areas 5.4 and 5.43 do have 

objectives for one mile or less of open routes in the 

winter, there is no other directive regarding road density. 

The alternatives propose different routes and route 

mileages to address the issues. The effects of the 

alternatives on resources and recreation opportunities 

are disclosed in the EIS in Chapter 3. 

247/23.

532 4-62 Road Density. 4-62 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should consider the effect of Roadless 

Areas when applying density criteria because 

roadless areas mitigate for impacts on wildlife 

from high-density roaded areas.

The effects of the alternatives on wildlife habitat and 

other resources are disclosed in the EIS in Chapter 3. 

126/209. 126/210. 

533 4-63 Road Density. 4-63 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should reduce road density and motorized 

access to protect tourist attractions and reduce 

traffic.

The EIS explains in Chapter 1 that motorized use by 

ATVs and motorcycles has been increasing on the Black 

Hills NF for some time. The purpose and need for this 

project includes elements to develop a transportation 

system to provide for a quality experience for a variety 

of Forest users, and to reduce adverse impacts caused 

by unmanaged travel. The effects of the alternatives on 

resources and recreation opportunities are disclosed in 

the EIS in Chapter 3. 

169/4.

534 4-64 Route Closures. 4-64 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should fully disclose all existing areas, 

roads, and trails that would be closed to 

motorized access to ensure adequate public 

disclosure.

The 2005 Travel Management Rule requires the 

designation of any roads, trails and areas that are to be 

open to motor vehicle use; and, that designations shall 

be made by class of vehicle and season of use, where 

appropriate. The alternatives in the EIS are described in 

these terms. Readers can compare action alternatives 

against the No Action alternative to see proposed 

changes. The decision will comply with the 

requirements of the Rule. 

126/136.

535 4-65 Route Closures. 4-65 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should close no roads or trails that are 

currently accessible.

The Forest Service considered many routes suggested by 

the public for inclusion in the analysis. Some were not 

included due to resource or other concerns. The 

alternatives consider a number of routes to address the 

purpose and need and the issues in different ways. As 

stated in the FEIS, Chapter 2, Features Shared By All 

277/2.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

121

Alternatives, administrative access authority would be 

retained for future management needs, access would be 

allowed to contractors or permittees operating within 

the terms of their contract or permit, and reasonable 

administrative access would be allowed for other 

agencies as needed. 

536 4-66 Route Closures. 4-66 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should only close roads when there is a 

specific, publicly documented reason.

This analysis includes the evaluation of user created 

routes and system routes for possible designation into 

the Forest Travel System. The evaluation of each routes 

considered factors such as compatibility with existing 

land prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the 

resource, wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or 

potential conflicts as well as information provided from 

the public. These routes will also need to meet existing 

objectives, standards and specifications as identified 

within Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes 

that are determined to provide a benefit to the public 

and are consistent with the above factors are likely 

candidates for inclusion into the transportation system. 

The data relating to all routes from this analysis will be 

kept in the record. 

530/14. 

537 4-67 Route Closures. 4-67 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should revise the rule that defaults to road 

closure unless specifically opened be4cause 

problems are more appropriately addressed 

through enforcement.

The agency addressed this comment on the Travel 

Management Rule. The National Forests belong to all 

Americans, but Americans do not have a right to 

unrestricted use of National Forests. Congress 

established the Forest Service to provide reasonable 

regulation of the National Forests so that future 

generations can continue to enjoy them. The Forest 

Service proposed the travel management plan for the 

Black Hills NF to carry out that duty. 

201/3.

538 4-68 Route Closures. 4-68 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should implement a “closed unless open” 

policy to protect wildlife and contribute to user 

education.

The closed unless marked open policy is now National 

direction as outlined in the Motor Vehicle Use rule. 

This policy was developed to prevent resource damage 

from occurring across forest lands from "unmanaged" 

recreation use. The policy allows for the Forest Service 

to establish and maintain a system of travel routes 

across the Forest.

346/7. 

539 4-68 Route Closures. 4-68 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should implement a “closed unless open” 

to reduce issues, conflicts, and costs.

The closed unless marked open policy is now National 

direction as outlined in the Motor Vehicle Use rule. 

This policy was developed to prevent resource damage 

030/1. 438/4. 545/8. 546/2.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

122

from occurring across forest lands from "unmanaged" 

recreation use. The policy allows for the Forest Service 

to establish and maintain a system of travel routes 

across the Forest.

540 4-69 Route Closures. 4-69 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should revisit the “closed unless posted 

open” policy because signage is unreliable and 

requires significant maintenance.

The closed unless marked open policy is now National 

direction as outlined in the Motor Vehicle Use rule. 

This policy was developed to prevent resource damage 

from occurring across forest lands from "unmanaged" 

recreation use. The policy allows for the Forest Service 

to establish and maintain a system of travel routes 

across the Forest.

126/238.

541 4-69 Route Closures. 4-69 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should revisit the “closed unless posted 

open” policy because it is inconsistent with the 3-

States OHV ROD and National OHV policy.

The closed unless marked open policy is now National 

direction as outlined in the Motor Vehicle Use rule. 

This policy was developed to prevent resource damage 

from occurring across forest lands from "unmanaged" 

recreation use. The policy allows for the Forest Service 

to establish and maintain a system of travel routes 

across the Forest.

126/237.

542 4-70 Route Closures. 4-70 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should implement an “open unless posted 

closed” policy.

The closed unless marked open policy is now National 

direction as outlined in the Motor Vehicle Use rule. 

This policy was developed to prevent resource damage 

from occurring across forest lands from "unmanaged" 

recreation use. The policy allows for the Forest Service 

to establish and maintain a system of travel routes 

across the Forest.

438/4.

543 4-71 Route Closures. 4-71 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should only close routes that they can 

afford to obliterate because if the road is passable, 

it will be used.

The closed unless marked open policy is now National 

direction as outlined in the Motor Vehicle Use rule. 

This policy was developed to prevent resource damage 

from occurring across forest lands from "unmanaged" 

recreation use. The policy allows for the Forest Service 

to establish and maintain a system of travel routes 

across the Forest. Routes that are not included in the 

designated system will be monitored for possible 

obliteration depending on resource availability.

522/6. 522/7.

544 4-72 Route Closures. 4-72 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should avoid decommissioning existing 

trails because the money could be better spent 

upgrading them.

The closed unless marked open policy is now National 

direction as outlined in the Motor Vehicle Use rule. 

This policy was developed to prevent resource damage 

from occurring across forest lands from "unmanaged" 

recreation use. The policy allows for the Forest Service 

to establish and maintain a system of travel routes 

597/6.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

123

across the Forest. Routes that are not included in the 

designated system will be monitored for possible 

obliteration depending on resource availability.

545 4-73 Route Closures. 4-73 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should only close roads in areas where the 

trail system has been implemented.

The closed unless marked open policy is now National 

direction as outlined in the Motor Vehicle Use rule. 

This policy was developed to prevent resource damage 

from occurring across forest lands from "unmanaged" 

recreation use. The policy allows for the Forest Service 

to establish and maintain a system of travel routes 

across the Forest. Routes that are not included in the 

designated system will be monitored for possible 

obliteration depending on resource availability.

536/19.

546 4-74 Route Closures. 4-74 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should refrain from opening routes that 

are currently closed year-round to prevent 

unpleasant surprises for the non-motorized 

community.

This analysis includes the evaluation of user created 

routes and system routes for possible designation into 

the Forest Travel System. The evaluation of each routes 

considered factors such as compatibility with existing 

land prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the 

resource, wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or 

potential conflicts as well as information provided from 

the public. These routes will also need to meet existing 

objectives, standards and specifications as identified 

within Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes 

that are determined to provide a benefit to the public 

and are consistent with the above factors are likely 

candidates for inclusion into the transportation system. 

The decision may include the designation of some 

routes that currently do not meet established standards 

with the caveat that they be brought up to standard 

prior to being formally included within the 

transportation system. 

488/6.

547 4-75 Route Closures. 4-75 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should close roads that have incurred 

significant adverse effects until the impacts can be 

mitigated because there are significant impacts to 

sediment, stream integrity, wetlands, and 

floodplains from OHV use.

This analysis includes the evaluation of user created 

routes and system routes for possible designation into 

the Forest Travel System. The evaluation of each routes 

considered factors such as compatibility with existing 

land prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the 

resource, wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or 

potential conflicts as well as information provided from 

the public. These routes will also need to meet existing 

objectives, standards and specifications as identified 

within Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes 

473/16. 609/17.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

124

that are determined to provide a benefit to the public 

and are consistent with the above factors are likely 

candidates for inclusion into the transportation system. 

The decision may include the designation of some 

routes that currently do not meet established standards 

with the caveat that they be brought up to standard 

prior to being formally included within the 

transportation system. 

5484-76 Route Closures. 4-76 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should avoid closing roads based on 

wildlife concerns except where negative impacts 

can be identified and documented.

This analysis includes the evaluation of user created routes and system routes for possible designation into 

the Forest Travel System. The evaluation of each routes 

considered factors such as compatibility with existing 

land prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the 

resource, wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or 

potential conflicts as well as information provided from 

the public. These routes will also need to meet existing 

objectives, standards and specifications as identified 

within Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes 

that are determined to provide a benefit to the public 

and are consistent with the above factors are likely 

candidates for inclusion into the transportation system. 

The decision may include the designation of some 

routes that currently do not meet established standards 

with the caveat that they be brought up to standard 

prior to being formally included within the 

transportation system. 

126/102.

5494-77 Route Closures. 4-77 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should provide proof that nests are being 

used by endangered species before closing trails 

and should consider rerouting rather than closing 

the trail.

This analysis includes the evaluation of user created 

routes and system routes for possible designation into 

the Forest Travel System. The evaluation of each routes 

considered factors such as compatibility with existing 

land prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the 

resource, wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or 

potential conflicts as well as information provided from 

the public. These routes will also need to meet existing 

objectives, standards and specifications as identified 

within Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes 

that are determined to provide a benefit to the public 

and are consistent with the above factors are likely 

candidates for inclusion into the transportation system. 

The decision may include the designation of some 

447/5.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

125

routes that currently do not meet established standards 

with the caveat that they be brought up to standard 

prior to being formally included within the 

transportation system. 

550 4-78 Route Closures. 4-78 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should avoid using wildlife corridors as a 

reason to close areas to motorized use because 

sufficient evidence that wildlife follow basin 

divides does not exist.

Wildlife habitat needs will be one consideration in the 

decision on which roads to include n the trail and road 

system. The alternatives in FEIS present a range of 

alternatives of different route mileage. These will be 

taken into consideration during the final decision.

126/104. 126/105.

551 4-78 Route Closures. 4-78 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should avoid using wildlife corridors as a 

reason to close areas to motorized use because 

there is no Congressional mandate for these 

corridors.

This analysis includes the evaluation of user created 

routes and system routes for possible designation into 

the Forest Travel System. The evaluation of each routes 

considered factors such as compatibility with existing 

land prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the 

resource, wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or 

potential conflicts as well as information provided from 

the public. These routes will also need to meet existing 

objectives, standards and specifications as identified 

within Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes 

that are determined to provide a benefit to the public 

and are consistent with the above factors are likely 

candidates for inclusion into the transportation system. 

The decision may include the designation of some 

routes that currently do not meet established standards 

with the caveat that they be brought up to standard 

prior to being formally included within the 

transportation system. 

126/106.

552 4-79 Route Closures. 4-79 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should avoid obliterating existing 

roadways and should instead reclassify them as 

motorized to avoid the significant environmental 

impacts and cumulative recreation impacts from 

closing and removing roads.

The closed unless marked open policy is now National 

direction as outlined in the Motor Vehicle Use rule. 

This policy was developed to prevent resource damage 

from occurring across forest lands from "unmanaged" 

recreation use. The policy allows for the Forest Service 

to establish and maintain a system of travel routes 

across the Forest. Routes that are not included in the 

designated system will be monitored for possible 

obliteration depending on resource availability.

126/194.

553 4-80 Route Closures. 4-80 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should ensure that existing rights of way 

are retained for routes that will be closed to 

ensure long-term access for administrative 

The process of designating a motorized travel system 

will not impact existing authorized access by adjacent 

landowners, permittees and FS administrative use.

471/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

126

contractors or permittees.

554 4-81 Route Closures. 4-81 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should avoid closing roads that serve as 

alternate fire escape routes to comply with local 

County and State laws.

The Forest Service recognizes the need for people to be 

able to access public and private lands. The Forest 

Service also recognizes the need for access points to be 

done responsibly including encouraging legal access as 

well as in ways that do not create resource damage. All 

current legal access rights will be maintained and the 

Forest will work with all requiring legal access.

432/9. 525/1.

555 4-82 Route Closures. 4-82 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should consider classifying roads as trails 

rather than decommissioning them because they 

have already been through the NEPA process.

We agree. Many of the routes considered for 

designation as motorized trails are currently Forest 

Service roads.

460/14. 535/10. 609/22.

556 4-83 Route Closures. 4-83 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should classify roads that do not meet 

NEPA standards as trails rather than closing 

them.

We agree. Many of the routes considered for 

designation as motorized trails are currently Forest 

Service roads.

534/13.

557 4-84 Route Closures. 4-84 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should not close routes that appear to get 

little use-based levels of damage because such a 

policy penalizes ATV riders who tread lightly.

This analysis includes the evaluation of user created 

routes and system routes for possible designation into 

the Forest Travel System. The evaluation of each routes 

considered factors such as compatibility with existing 

land prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the 

resource, wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or 

potential conflicts as well as information provided from 

the public. These routes will also need to meet existing 

objectives, standards and specifications as identified 

within Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes 

that are determined to provide a benefit to the public 

and are consistent with the above factors are likely 

candidates for inclusion into the transportation system. 

The decision may include the designation of some 

routes that currently do not meet established standards 

with the caveat that they be brought up to standard 

prior to being formally included within the 

transportation system. 

126/111. 

558 4-85 Route Closures. 4-85 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that sitespecific NEPA analysis must precede route 

closure methods that include surface disturbance.

No routes are proposed to be decommissioned or 

physically closed in any alternatives in the DEIS. 

General public motorized travel will be prohibited off 

the designated transportation system. 

461/34.

559 4-86 Route Closures. 4-86 Public Concern: The Forest The closed unless marked open policy is now National 319/41. 462/30. 479/15.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

127

Service should provide physical barriers at road 

closures that are sufficient to block access to 

ensure that needed buffers between motorized 

and non-motorized uses are maintained. 

direction as outlined in the Motor Vehicle Use rule. 

This policy was developed to prevent resource damage 

from occurring across forest lands from "unmanaged" 

recreation use. The policy allows for the Forest Service 

to establish and maintain a system of travel routes 

across the Forest. Routes that are not included in the 

designated system will be monitored for possible 

physical barricades or obliteration depending on 

resource availability.

560 4-87 Route Closures. 4-87 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should not use the phrase “Area Closure 

Yearlong Off Road.”

Area closures are implemented for specific resource 

conditions or needs and will continue as long as the 

rationale still exists.

114/3.

561 4-88 Seasonal Closures. 4-88 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should avoid seasonal closures 

because they reduce the available trails.

Seasonal closures are used to protect natural resources, 

wildlife habitat, and reduce user conflicts. The final 

decision will include necessary seasonal designations.

445/6.

562 4-88 Seasonal Closures. 4-88 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should avoid seasonal closures 

because they adversely affect winter ATV riding.

Seasonal closures are used to protect natural resources, 

wildlife habitat, and reduce user conflicts. The final 

decision will include necessary seasonal designations.

534/18.

563 4-89 Seasonal Closures. 4-89 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should clarify what the proposed 

seasonal closure dates will be to ensure access for 

spring turkey hunting and restrict use of wet 

roads.

Seasonal closure dates will be defined in a route specific 

table on the Motorized Vehicle Use Map.

166/3. 346/22. 362/5. 465/11.

564 4-90 Seasonal Closures. 4-90 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should limit the number of 

seasonal closure periods to two to simplify and 

standardize the system.

Seasonal closures are used to protect natural resources, 

wildlife habitat, and reduce user conflicts. The final 

decision will include necessary seasonal designations.

126/253.

565 4-91 Seasonal Closures. 4-91 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should consider multiple closure 

dates so both off-road riders and game can 

coexist.

Seasonal closures are used to protect natural resources, 

wildlife habitat, and reduce user conflicts. The final 

decision will include necessary seasonal designations.

500/13.

566 4-91 Seasonal Closures. 4-91 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should consider multiple closure 

dates rather than one set of dates for all areas.

Seasonal closures are used to protect natural resources, 

wildlife habitat, and reduce user conflicts. The final 

decision will include necessary seasonal designations.

499/14.

567 4-92 Seasonal Closures. 4-92 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should ban off-roading November 

1 through May 15 to limit damage to the trails 

system and reduce conflicts with hunters and 

wintering wildlife.

Seasonal closures are used to protect natural resources, 

wildlife habitat, and reduce user conflicts. The final 

decision will include necessary seasonal designations.

091/4.

568 4-93 Seasonal Closures. 4-93 Public Concern: The Seasonal closures are used to protect natural resources, 126/214. 126/215. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

128

Forest Service should allow summer motorized 

access because wildlife can coexist with OHV use.

wildlife habitat, and reduce user conflicts. The final 

decision will include necessary seasonal designations.

569 4-94 Seasonal Closures. 4-94 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should close routes during hunting 

and other critical seasons and reopen them in the 

summer to address road density criteria.

Seasonal closures are used to protect natural resources, 

wildlife habitat, and reduce user conflicts. The final 

decision will include necessary seasonal designations.

126/208. 126/209.

570 4-95 Seasonal Closures. 4-95 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should clarify whether the Savoy 

and Hanna areas will be closed seasonally.

Seasonal closures are used to protect natural resources, 

wildlife habitat, and reduce user conflicts. The final 

decision will include necessary seasonal designations.

534/24.

571 4-96 Seasonal Closures. 4-96 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should reduce the number of 

seasonal closures in the Northern Hills.

Seasonal closures are used to protect natural resources, 

wildlife habitat, and reduce user conflicts. The final 

decision will include necessary seasonal designations.

378/16.

572 4-97 Winter Travel Management. 4-97 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should include 

winter travel planning in the plan to address 

wildlife issues, pollution, and wildland impacts.

The Travel Planning Rule and this document do not 

address travel by over-the-snow machines. Seasonal 

closures are utilized in varying degrees in each of the 

action alternatives to address potential user conflicts.

047/2. 123/6. 156/4. 214/5. 

319/81. 341/5. 342/5. 343/4. 

344/6. 414/45. 462/62.

573 4-98 Winter Travel Management. 4-98 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should ensure that 

road closures are in effect from December 15 to 

March 31 to best manage snowmobile trails.

The Travel Planning Rule and this document do not 

address travel by over-the-snow machines. Seasonal 

closures are utilized in varying degrees in each of the 

action alternatives to address potential user conflicts.

326/2. 326/3.

574 4-98 Winter Travel Management. 4-98 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should ensure that 

road closures are in effect from December 15 to 

March 31 to address potential conflicts between 

ATVs and snowmobiles.

The Travel Planning Rule and this document do not 

address travel by over-the-snow machines. Seasonal 

closures are utilized in varying degrees in each of the 

action alternatives to address potential user conflicts.

326/4. 

575 4-99 Winter Travel Management. 4-99 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should open more 

winter travel routes because often there is no 

snow and weather is mild.

Seasonal closures are used to protect natural resources, 

wildlife habitat, and reduce user conflicts. The final 

decision will include necessary seasonal designations.

221/17. 261/15. 438/3. 

576 4-99 Winter Travel Management. 4-99 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should open more 

winter travel routes because winter recreation is 

less damaging and is popular.

Seasonal closures are used to protect natural resources, 

wildlife habitat, and reduce user conflicts. The final 

decision will include necessary seasonal designations.

460/8. 535/7. 609/19.

577 4-100 Winter Travel Management. 4-100 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should maintain 

trails through areas managed for wildlife in winter 

because animals are used to roads and to comply 

with the existing forest plan.

Seasonal closures are used to protect natural resources, 

wildlife habitat, and reduce user conflicts. The final 

decision will include necessary seasonal designations.

217/16. 227/11. 379/14. 

449/10. 460/10. 

578 4-100 Winter Travel Management. 4-100 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should maintain 

Seasonal closures are used to protect natural resources, 

wildlife habitat, and reduce user conflicts. The final 

228/13.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

129

trails through areas managed for wildlife in winter 

to allow travel from Black Hawk to Nemo in the 

winter.

decision will include necessary seasonal designations.

579 4-100 Winter Travel Management. 4-100 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should maintain 

trails through areas managed for wildlife in winter 

to allow access to the Northern Hills during more 

of the year.

Seasonal closures are used to protect natural resources, 

wildlife habitat, and reduce user conflicts. The final 

decision will include necessary seasonal designations.

216/8. 

580 4-100 Winter Travel Management. 4-100 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should maintain 

trails through areas managed for wildlife in winter 

to allow for dispersed winter camping.

Seasonal closures are used to protect natural resources, 

wildlife habitat, and reduce user conflicts. The final 

decision will include necessary seasonal designations.

262/14.

581 4-100 Winter Travel Management. 4-100 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should maintain

trails through areas managed for wildlife in winter 

including allowing narrow trails through areas 

rather than closing entire areas.

Seasonal closures are used to protect natural resources, 

wildlife habitat, and reduce user conflicts. The final 

decision will include necessary seasonal designations.

260/13. 389/12. 501/14.

582 4-100 Winter Travel Management. 4-100 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should maintain 

trails through areas managed for wildlife in winter 

to provide connector routes to allow year-round 

use of the system.

Seasonal closures are used to protect natural resources, 

wildlife habitat, and reduce user conflicts. The final 

decision will include necessary seasonal designations.

302/13. 519/8.

583 4-101 Winter Travel Management. 4-101 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should ensure that 

the 1 mile per square mile guideline is met in 

winter range to compensate for the loss of crosscountry travel opportunities.

The comment refers to Objective 5.4-207, which would 

achieve an open-road density of one mile of road per 

square mile or less for public travel from December 15 

to May 15. The alternatives address recreation 

opportunities and resource protection in different ways 

according to the capabilities and conditions in different 

parts of the Forest. The effects of the alternatives on 

these elements are disclosed in the FEIS, Chapter 3, in 

the Recreation and Wildlife sections. 

215/6. 221/16. 497/16. 531/14.

584 4-102 Winter Travel Management. 4-102 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should not maintain 

trails through areas managed for wildlife in 

winter.

The comment refers to Objective 5.4-207, which would 

achieve an open-road density of one mile of road per 

square mile or less for public travel from December 15 

to May 15. The alternatives address recreation 

opportunities and resource protection in different ways 

according to the capabilities and conditions in different 

parts of the Forest. The effects of the alternatives on 

these elements are disclosed in the FEIS, Chapter 3, in 

the Recreation and Wildlife sections. 

505/12. 506/12. 507/15. 

509/11.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

130

585 4-103 Winter Travel Management. 4-103 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should avoid closing 

areas to winter motorized travel due to impacts 

on lynx because studies show no adverse impact 

to lynx from snowmobile use.

There is no lynx habitat on the Forest. Snowmobile use 

is not the subject of this analysis. 

126/203. 126/204.

586 4-104 Winter Travel Management. 4-104 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should allow for 

alternative routes to year-round businesses when 

roads are too wet or muddy.

Seasonal conditions affecting one route may affect 

others as well. The alternatives provide for seasonal 

access in different ways. Legal access to inholdings 

within the Forest boundary is not the subject of this 

analysis and will not be affected by the decision. 

247/20.

587 4-105 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

General. 4-105 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should use publication FS-643 – Roads 

Analysis to guide the evaluation of motorized 

roads and trails to ensure economic, timber 

management, special use permits, fire protection, 

recreation, social, and civil rights issues are 

adequately addressed.

A roads analysis was conducted on Black Hills National 

Forest high-speed roads resulting in a Roads Analysis 

Report (RAP) published in October 2005. A travel 

analysis was conducted on high-clearance roads, trails, 

and unauthorized routes resulting in a Travel Analysis 

Process (TAP) Report published in September 2007. 

These reports provide a technical, science-based review 

of the Black Hills National Forest transportation system. 

126/239. 126/240. 

588 4-106 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

General. 4-106 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should eliminate roads in areas assigned to 

the semi-primitive non-motorized ROS class to 

comply with the Forest Service Manual.

Semi-primitive non-motorized ROS class applies in 

Management Areas 2.2, 3.1, 3.32, 5.2A, and 5.3B. No 

routes are proposed in Management Area 2.2. In the 

rest, Forest Plan guidelines apply. The effects of the 

alternatives on ROS and recreation are disclosed in the 

FEIS, Chapter 3, Recreation Section. 

579/1.

589 4-107 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

General. 4-107 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should provide sufficient routes to access 

historic mines and cabins and dispersed 

campsites.

Thank you for your suggestion. The final decision will 

take into account specific purpose and need for routes. 

126/39.

590 4-108 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

General. 4-108 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should prohibit motorized routes or 

trailheads within 1⁄2 mile of a residential area to 

protect the areas from dust, noise, and 

harassment.

Thank you for your suggestion. The analysis uses two 

factors to evaluate impacts of each alternative. 1. Miles 

of NFS motorized routes within 1/2-mile of a nonmotorized trail. 2. Miles of designated NFS motorized 

routes through or within 300 feet of non-NFS lands.

270/1. 271/1. 456/73.

591 4-109 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

General. 4-109 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should locate motorized access points 

away from residential areas to protect these areas 

from the noise.

Thank you for your suggestion. The analysis uses two 

factors to evaluate impacts of each alternative. 1. Miles 

of NFS motorized routes within 1/2-mile of a nonmotorized trail. 2. Miles of designated NFS motorized 

routes through or within 300 feet of non-NFS lands.

270/2. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

131

592 4-110 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

General. 4-110 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should create a buffer zone between trails 

and sensitive areas.

Thank you for your suggestion. The analysis uses two 

factors to evaluate impacts of each alternative. 1. Miles 

of NFS motorized routes within 1/2-mile of a nonmotorized trail. 2. Miles of designated NFS motorized 

routes through or within 300 feet of non-NFS lands.

362/7.

593 4-111 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

General. 4-111 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should close and rehabilitate routes within 

100 yards of significant archeological sites, 

cultural artifacts, and historic sites unless the 

route is part of a minimal transportation system 

or legally required for access.

The alternatives provide appropriate measures and 

design criteria to protect cultural resources. These are 

explained in the FEIS, Chapter 2, Alternatives, and in 

Appendix B, Design Criteria. The effects of the 

alternatives are disclosed in Chapter 3, in the Cultural 

Resources section. 

456/117.

594 4-112 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

General. 4-112 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should reconsider including parallel or 

duplicate routes when those routes have different 

characters.

This analysis includes the evaluation of user created 

routes and system routes for possible designation into 

the Forest Travel System. The evaluation of each routes 

considered factors such as compatibility with existing 

land prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the 

resource, wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or 

potential conflicts as well as information provided from 

the public. These routes will also need to meet existing 

objectives, standards and specifications as identified 

within Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes 

that are determined to provide a benefit to the public 

and are consistent with the above factors are likely 

candidates for inclusion into the transportation system. 

324/2.

595 4-113 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

General. 4-113 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should ensure that the trail system design 

is not overly influenced by Forest District 

boundaries to ensure forest-wide consistency and 

an improved trail system.

Districts were heavily involved in developing 

alternatives and determining routes to be included in 

each. District personnel then worked with Forest and 

Interdisciplinary Team personnel to apply themes 

common to the alternatives and to assure that routes 

crossing District boundaries would be managed in the 

same way.

233/8.

596 4-114 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

General. 4-114 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should allow for a variety of motorized 

trails to accommodate different skill levels.

Thank you for your suggestion. 126/24. 496/13.

597 4-115 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

General. 4-115 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should reduce the number of spur roads.

Thank you for your suggestion. The final decision will 

take into account specific purpose and use for spur and 

dead-end routes.

301/11. 320/11. 362/6. 465/9. 

598 4-116 Route Selection, Designation, and Design - Thank you for your suggestion. The final decision will 346/5.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

132

General. 4-116 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should either keep spur roads open to all 

vehicle types or close them to reduce illegal usercreated trails.

take into account specific purpose and use for spur and 

dead-end routes.

599 4-117 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

General. 4-117 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should explain the reasons for excluding 

specific routes to allow the public to evaluate 

those factors.

The alternatives provide different recreational 

opportunities to address the issues. The route 

information provided by the public was used in 

formulating these alternatives. Some routes were carried 

forward into one or more alternatives, others were not 

included in any alternative, possibly due to resource 

conditions. The review of individual routes is 

documented in the project record. In the FEIS 

Alternative C has been modified to designate some 

existing roads as motorized trails in the Antelope 

Springs and Martin Draw areas in the southern Black 

Hills. This increases the number of miles of looped 

trails for riders of vehicles 65 inches and less in width. 

085/2. 

600 4-117 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

General. 4-117 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should explain the reasons for excluding 

specific routes because the public took the time to 

provide comment.

The alternatives provide different recreational 

opportunities to address the issues. The route 

information provided by the public was used in 

formulating these alternatives. Some routes were carried 

forward into one or more alternatives, others were not 

included in any alternative, possibly due to resource 

conditions. The review of individual routes is 

documented in the project record. In the FEIS 

Alternative C has been modified to designate some 

existing roads as motorized trails in the Antelope 

Springs and Martin Draw areas in the southern Black 

Hills. This increases the number of miles of looped 

trails for riders of vehicles 65 inches and less in width. 

119/4. 

601 4-118 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Mixed-Use Routes. 4-118 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should avoid requiring the use of 

mixed use roads because many OHVs have titles 

that prohibit licensing, as required on forest 

roads.

State traffic laws apply on NFS roads as provided for in 

36 CFR 212.5(a) (1). State governments have long taken 

the lead in establishing registration, safety, and licensing 

requirements for motor vehicles and motor vehicle 

operators, providing a consistent framework for users 

within State boundaries. The Forest Service may 

designate certain NFS roads open to non-highway legal 

motorized vehicles (motorized mixed use). These 

decisions will be made in the Record of Decision and 

will be informed by a Motorized Mixed Use Analysis.

351/16. 536/5.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

133

602 4-118 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Mixed-Use Routes. 4-118 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should avoid requiring the use of 

mixed use roads to avoid placing loud OHV 

machines on roads with cars.

State traffic laws apply on NFS roads as provided for in 

36 CFR 212.5(a) (1). State governments have long taken 

the lead in establishing registration, safety, and licensing 

requirements for motor vehicles and motor vehicle 

operators, providing a consistent framework for users 

within State boundaries. The Forest Service may 

designate certain NFS roads open to non-highway legal 

motorized vehicles (motorized mixed use). These 

decisions will be made in the Record of Decision and 

will be informed by a Motorized Mixed Use Analysis.

578/38.

603 4-118 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Mixed-Use Routes. 4-118 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should avoid requiring the use of 

mixed use roads to increase safety.

State traffic laws apply on NFS roads as provided for in 

36 CFR 212.5(a) (1). State governments have long taken 

the lead in establishing registration, safety, and licensing 

requirements for motor vehicles and motor vehicle 

operators, providing a consistent framework for users 

within State boundaries. The Forest Service may 

designate certain NFS roads open to non-highway legal 

motorized vehicles (motorized mixed use). These 

decisions will be made in the Record of Decision and 

will be informed by a Motorized Mixed Use Analysis.

244/2. 373/3. 439/2. 446/3. 

604 4-118 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Mixed-Use Routes. 4-118 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should avoid requiring the use of 

mixed use roads because child-sized dirt bikes 

cannot be made street legal, thus eliminating 

family-based motorized recreation.

State traffic laws apply on NFS roads as provided for in 

36 CFR 212.5(a) (1). State governments have long taken 

the lead in establishing registration, safety, and licensing 

requirements for motor vehicles and motor vehicle 

operators, providing a consistent framework for users 

within State boundaries. The Forest Service may 

designate certain NFS roads open to non-highway legal 

motorized vehicles (motorized mixed use). These 

decisions will be made in the Record of Decision and 

will be informed by a Motorized Mixed Use Analysis.

217/15. 233/7. 403/5. 441/3. 

446/2. 449/4. 

605 4-119 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Mixed-Use Routes. 4-119 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should allow only highway legal 

vehicles on roads to avoid impacts to private 

property.

State traffic laws apply on NFS roads as provided for in 

36 CFR 212.5(a) (1). State governments have long taken 

the lead in establishing registration, safety, and licensing 

requirements for motor vehicles and motor vehicle 

operators, providing a consistent framework for users 

within State boundaries. The Forest Service may 

designate certain NFS roads open to non-highway legal 

motorized vehicles (motorized mixed use). These 

decisions will be made in the Record of Decision and 

will be informed by a Motorized Mixed Use Analysis.

317/20.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

134

606 4-120 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Mixed-Use Routes. 4-120 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should disclose the impacts to 

drivers of street-legal vehicles from the mixing of 

non-street legal vehicles on roads.

State traffic laws apply on NFS roads as provided for in 

36 CFR 212.5(a) (1). State governments have long taken 

the lead in establishing registration, safety, and licensing 

requirements for motor vehicles and motor vehicle 

operators, providing a consistent framework for users 

within State boundaries. The Forest Service may 

designate certain NFS roads open to non-highway legal 

motorized vehicles (motorized mixed use). These 

decisions will be made in the Record of Decision and 

will be informed by a Motorized Mixed Use Analysis.

583/4. 584/2.

607 4-121 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-121 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should create more 

loop trails because a loop-system is popular and 

entertaining.

The Forest Service generated the action alternatives to 

include looped trail systems, to meet NFAB 

recommendations and public requests. The term 

"Concentrated Motorized Use Area" was used in the 

DEIS to describe these; the term has been changed in 

the FEIS to "Motorized Trail System". The concept is 

the same. The Forest Service in the FEIS has removed 

some dead-end spur routes, and, in Alternative C, 

changed the proposed designation of certain roads in 

the Antelope Springs and Martin Draw areas in the 

southern Black Hills as motorized trails. This was done 

to increase the trail mileage available to vehicles 65

inches in width and less, and to address requests for 

more family recreation opportunities. 

142/8. 224/11. 483/18. 497/12. 

498/12. 500/12. 531/13. 591/2. 

608 4-121 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-121 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should create more 

loop trails to allow for ample parking and increase 

safety.

The Forest Service generated the action alternatives to 

include looped trail systems, to meet NFAB 

recommendations and public requests. The term 

"Concentrated Motorized Use Area" was used in the 

DEIS to describe these; the term has been changed in 

the FEIS to "Motorized Trail System". The concept is 

the same. The Forest Service in the FEIS has removed 

some dead-end spur routes, and, in Alternative C, 

changed the proposed designation of certain roads in 

the Antelope Springs and Martin Draw areas in the 

southern Black Hills as motorized trails. This was done 

to increase the trail mileage available to vehicles 65

inches in width and less, and to address requests for 

more family recreation opportunities. Alternative C 

proposes the greatest number of trailheads for 

motorized use. Alternative D is designed to reduce the 

182/3.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

135

safety risk to users of non-highway-legal OHVs and 

motorcycles by providing a lower total mileage of 

motorized-mixed-use roads. 

609 4-121 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-121 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should create more 

loop trails to improve the recreation experience 

and provide family recreation.

The Forest Service generated the action alternatives to 

include looped trail systems, to meet NFAB 

recommendations and public requests. The term 

"Concentrated Motorized Use Area" was used in the 

DEIS to describe these; the term has been changed in 

the FEIS to "Motorized Trail System". The concept is 

the same. The Forest Service in the FEIS has removed 

some dead-end spur routes, and, in Alternative C, 

changed the proposed designation of certain roads in 

the Antelope Springs and Martin Draw areas in the 

southern Black Hills as motorized trails. This was done 

to increase the trail mileage available to vehicles 65

inches in width and less, and to address requests for 

more family recreation opportunities. 

453/6.

610 4-121 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-121 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should create more 

loop trails to provide for longer rides for senior 

citizens.

The Forest Service generated the action alternatives to 

include looped trail systems, to meet NFAB 

recommendations and public requests. The term 

"Concentrated Motorized Use Area" was used in the 

DEIS to describe these; the term has been changed in 

the FEIS to "Motorized Trail System". The concept is 

the same. The Forest Service in the FEIS has removed 

some dead-end spur routes, and, in Alternative C, 

changed the proposed designation of certain roads in 

the Antelope Springs and Martin Draw areas in the 

southern Black Hills as motorized trails. This was done 

to increase the trail mileage available to vehicles 65

inches in width and less, and to address requests for 

more family recreation opportunities. Alternative C 

proposes the greatest route mileage of the action 

alternatives. 

216/4.

611 4-121 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-121 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should create more 

loop trails to improve the recreation experience. 

The Forest Service generated the action alternatives to 

include looped trail systems, to meet NFAB 

recommendations and public requests. The term 

"Concentrated Motorized Use Area" was used in the 

DEIS to describe these; the term has been changed in 

the FEIS to "Motorized Trail System". The concept is 

the same. The Forest Service in the FEIS has removed 

447/7. 548/5. 565/3. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

136

some dead-end spur routes, and, in Alternative C, 

changed the proposed designation of certain roads in 

the Antelope Springs and Martin Draw areas in the 

southern Black Hills as motorized trails. This was done 

to increase the trail mileage available to vehicles 65

inches in width and less, and to address requests for 

more family recreation opportunities. 

612 4-122 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-122 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should provide 

connecting trails to avoid overuse.

The Forest Service generated the action alternatives to 

include looped trail systems, to meet NFAB 

recommendations and public requests. The term 

"Concentrated Motorized Use Area" was used in the 

DEIS to describe these; the term has been changed in 

the FEIS to "Motorized Trail System". The concept is 

the same. The Forest Service in the FEIS has removed 

some dead-end spur routes, and, in Alternative C, 

changed the proposed designation of certain roads in 

the Antelope Springs and Martin Draw areas in the 

southern Black Hills as motorized trails. This was done 

to increase the trail mileage available to vehicles 65

inches in width and less, and to address requests for 

more family recreation opportunities. 

261/14. 494/14. 498/13. 

502/14. 503/15. 508/15. 

510/12. 510/14. 

613 4-122 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-122 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should provide 

connecting trails to campgrounds.

The Forest Service generated the action alternatives to 

include looped trail systems, to meet NFAB 

recommendations and public requests. The term 

"Concentrated Motorized Use Area" was used in the 

DEIS to describe these; the term has been changed in 

the FEIS to "Motorized Trail System". The concept is 

the same. The Forest Service in the FEIS has removed 

some dead-end spur routes, and, in Alternative C, 

changed the proposed designation of certain roads in 

the Antelope Springs and Martin Draw areas in the 

southern Black Hills as motorized trails. This was done 

to increase the trail mileage available to vehicles 65

inches in width and less, and to address requests for 

more family recreation opportunities. Alternative C 

proposes the trail system connect to or run immediately 

adjacent to several campgrounds in the Nemo area 

including Dalton Lake because these are heavily used by 

motorized recreationists. In other areas, and in other 

alternatives, the Forest Service decided not to propose 

496/14. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

137

this to minimize conflicts with other users of the Forest. 

614 4-123 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-123 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should avoid closing 

non-looping trails.

The Forest Service considered many routes suggested by 

the public for inclusion in the analysis. Some were not 

included due to resource or other concerns. The 

alternatives consider a number of routes to address the 

purpose and need and the issues in different ways. Sitespecific route analysis is documented in the planning 

record. 

133/3.

615 4-124 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-124 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should support 

development of a looped trail system including 

consideration of the enrolled roadways 

alternative.

The Forest Service generated the action alternatives to 

include looped trail systems, to meet NFAB 

recommendations and public requests. The term 

"Concentrated Motorized Use Area" was used in the 

DEIS to describe these; the term has been changed in 

the FEIS to "Motorized Trail System". The concept is 

the same. The Forest Service in the FEIS has removed 

some dead-end spur routes, and, in Alternative C, 

changed the proposed designation of certain roads in 

the Antelope Springs and Martin Draw areas in the 

southern Black Hills as motorized trails. This was done 

to increase the trail mileage available to vehicles 65

inches in width and less, and to address requests for 

more family recreation opportunities. 

030/2.

616 4-125 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-125 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should improve trail 

connectivity to reduce the number of isolated 

areas.

The Forest Service proposed varying levels and 

dispersions of motorized use in the action alternatives to 

provide a quality experience for a variety of Forest users 

and to reduce the adverse impacts of unmanaged travel. 

These alternatives also address the issues in different 

ways, including effects on natural and cultural resources 

and conflicts with other users. This results in the system 

proposed in each alternative. 

393/14. 429/12. 439/5. 445/5. 

545/3. 546/6. 546/7. 565/1. 

617 4-125 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-125 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should improve trail 

connectivity because it would be more family 

friendly and trails could parallel highways.

The Forest Service generated the action alternatives to 

include looped trail systems, to meet NFAB 

recommendations and public requests. The term has 

been changed in the FEIS to "Motorized Trail System." 

The Forest Service in the FEIS has removed some deadend spur routes, and, in Alternative C, changed the 

proposed designation of certain roads in the Antelope 

Springs and Martin Draw areas in the southern Black 

Hills as motorized trails. This was done to increase the 

trail mileage available to vehicles 65 inches in width and 

216/7. 220/12. 228/12. 230/14. 

426/3. 460/9. 497/15. 534/11. 

535/8. 536/20.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

138

less, and to address requests for more family recreation 

opportunities. The options to increase connectivity in 

ditches along roads of other jurisdictions are outside the 

scope of this proposal. Alternative C provides the 

greatest route mileage for motorized use. Alternative D 

is designed to reduce the safety risk to users of nonhighway-legal OHVs and motorcycles by providing a 

lower total mileage of motorized-mixed-use roads. 

618 4-125 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-125 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should improve trail 

connectivity to increase safety.

The Forest Service generated the action alternatives to 

include looped trail systems, to meet NFAB 

recommendations and public requests. The term has 

been changed in the FEIS to "Motorized Trail System." 

The Forest Service in the FEIS has removed some deadend spur routes, and, in Alternative C, changed the 

proposed designation of certain roads in the Antelope 

Springs and Martin Draw areas in the southern Black 

Hills as motorized trails. This was done to increase the 

trail mileage available to vehicles 65 inches in width and 

less, and to address requests for more family recreation 

opportunities. The options to increase connectivity in 

ditches along roads of other jurisdictions are outside the 

scope of this proposal. Alternative C provides the 

greatest route mileage for motorized use. Alternative D 

is designed to reduce the safety risk to users of nonhighway-legal OHVs and motorcycles by providing a 

lower total mileage of motorized-mixed-use roads. 

499/13. 510/13. 522/5. 

619 4-125 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-125 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should improve trail 

connectivity to reduce the need for licenses for 

OHVs.

The Forest Service generated the action alternatives to 

include looped trail systems, to meet NFAB 

recommendations and public requests. The term has 

been changed in the FEIS to "Motorized Trail System." 

The Forest Service in the FEIS has removed some deadend spur routes, and, in Alternative C, changed the 

proposed designation of certain roads in the Antelope 

Springs and Martin Draw areas in the southern Black 

Hills as motorized trails. This was done to increase the 

trail mileage available to vehicles 65 inches in width and 

less, and to address requests for more family recreation 

opportunities. The options to increase connectivity in 

ditches along roads of other jurisdictions are outside the 

scope of this proposal. Alternative C provides the 

504/11.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

139

greatest route mileage for motorized use. Alternative D 

is designed to reduce the safety risk to users of nonhighway-legal OHVs and motorcycles by providing a 

lower total mileage of motorized-mixed-use roads. 

620 4-125 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-125 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should improve trail 

connectivity to allow unlicensed riders to avoid 

using roads.

The Forest Service generated the action alternatives to 

include looped trail systems, to meet NFAB 

recommendations and public requests. The term has 

been changed in the FEIS to "Motorized Trail System." 

The Forest Service in the FEIS has removed some deadend spur routes, and, in Alternative C, changed the 

proposed designation of certain roads in the Antelope 

Springs and Martin Draw areas in the southern Black 

Hills as motorized trails. This was done to increase the 

trail mileage available to vehicles 65 inches in width and 

less, and to address requests for more family recreation 

opportunities. The options to increase connectivity in 

ditches along roads of other jurisdictions are outside the 

scope of this proposal. Alternative C provides the 

greatest route mileage for motorized use. Alternative D 

is designed to reduce the safety risk to users of nonhighway-legal OHVs and motorcycles by providing a 

lower total mileage of motorized-mixed-use roads. 

299/12. 

621 4-125 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-125 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should improve trail 

connectivity to provide for the safety of young 

riders.

The Forest Service generated the action alternatives to 

include looped trail systems, to meet NFAB 

recommendations and public requests. The term has 

been changed in the FEIS to "Motorized Trail System." 

The Forest Service in the FEIS has removed some deadend spur routes, and, in Alternative C, changed the 

proposed designation of certain roads in the Antelope 

Springs and Martin Draw areas in the southern Black 

Hills as motorized trails. This was done to increase the 

trail mileage available to vehicles 65 inches in width and 

less, and to address requests for more family recreation 

opportunities. The options to increase connectivity in 

ditches along roads of other jurisdictions are outside the 

scope of this proposal. Alternative C provides the 

greatest route mileage for motorized use. Alternative D 

is designed to reduce the safety risk to users of nonhighway-legal OHVs and motorcycles by providing a 

lower total mileage of motorized-mixed-use roads. 

080/3. 394/13. 395/12. 495/12. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

140

622 4-125 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-125 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should improve trail 

connectivity to reduce the need for trailering.

The Forest Service generated the action alternatives to 

include looped trail systems, to meet NFAB 

recommendations and public requests. The term has 

been changed in the FEIS to "Motorized Trail System." 

The Forest Service in the FEIS has removed some deadend spur routes, and, in Alternative C, changed the 

proposed designation of certain roads in the Antelope 

Springs and Martin Draw areas in the southern Black 

Hills as motorized trails. This was done to increase the 

trail mileage available to vehicles 65 inches in width and 

less, and to address requests for more family recreation 

opportunities. The options to increase connectivity in 

ditches along roads of other jurisdictions are outside the 

scope of this proposal. Alternative C provides the 

greatest route mileage for motorized use. Alternative D 

is designed to reduce the safety risk to users of nonhighway-legal OHVs and motorcycles by providing a 

lower total mileage of motorized-mixed-use roads. 

261/12. 262/12. 359/6. 394/12. 

623 4-126 Route Selection, Designation, and Design - Route 

Selection, Designation, and Design -

Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-126 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should consider 

providing parallel trails along connecting roads to 

allow unlicensed riders to have access to 

connecting trails.

Alternative C offers the greatest motorized route 

mileage, and the most connectivity between motorized 

trail systems. Connections are provided where 

appropriate and where the Forest Service has 

jurisdiction on the routes. The opportunity for further 

connectivity was limited in many cases since proposals 

for use in ditches along roads of other jurisdictions is 

outside the scope of this proposal. Safety of users was a 

major consideration in the development of alternatives. 

Alternative D is designed to reduce the safety risk to 

users of non-highway-legal OHVs and motorcycles by 

providing a lower total mileage of motorized-mixed-use 

roads. 

504/14. 507/14.

624 4-127 Route Selection, Designation, and Design - Route 

Selection, Designation, and Design -

Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-127 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should provide a 

continuous system of roads and trails to allow 

OHVs to be legally ridden. 

The purpose and need for this proposal includes the 

element to provide a range of quality experiences for a 

variety of Forest users. The action alternatives were 

developed to provide a range of motorized uses and to 

address the issues. The effects of the alternatives on 

recreation opportunity are disclosed in the FEIS, 

Chapter 3, Recreation section. Concerning connectivity, 

please refer to the responses to PCs 4-125 and 4-126 

above. 

126/241. 496/12.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

141

625 4-128 Route Selection, Designation, and Design - Route 

Selection, Designation, and Design -

Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-128 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should create a 

connecting trail system for vehicles 50-inches and 

less because such a trail system would encompass 

mot motorized users.

Alternative C provides for the greatest motorized use 

mileage. The Forest Service considered several other 

alternatives besides the action alternatives described in 

detail in the EIS. As discussed in Chapter 2, 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed 

Study, the Forest Service considered other routes to 

provide higher levels of motorized use than Alternative 

C, but dismissed these from detailed consideration for 

several reasons. These include possible violation of 

Forest Plan standards for resource protection, need to 

cross other jurisdictions, and possible high noise levels 

near adjacent private lands. 

105/13.

626 4-129 Route Selection, Designation, and Design - Route 

Selection, Designation, and Design -

Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-129 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should ensure that 

areas of heavier motorized trail use be connected 

to each other to ensure that the system is family 

friendly.

Please see responses to PCs 4-121 and 4-125 above. 215/5. 530/13.

627 4-130 Route Selection, Designation, and Design - Route 

Selection, Designation, and Design -

Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-130 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should ensure that 

trails come close to towns so towns can build 

connector trails.

Towns.

The Forest Supervisor met with representatives from 

counties containing lands managed by the Black Hills 

National Forest at the scoping stage of the project. 

Copies of the DEIS were mailed to county 

commissioners for Crook, Weston and Campbell 

Counties in Wyoming; and Lawrence, Meade, 

Pennington, Custer and Fall River Counties in South 

Dakota, as well as numerous municipalities in the area. 

As the comment period ended, the Forest Supervisor 

contacted these counties and municipalities by letter of 

May 7, 2009, to request information on their plans to 

allow access from the Forest into their jurisdictions. An 

additional 30 days were allowed for response to these 

comments. All comments from these entities, 

businesses and the public at large were considered in the 

analysis and will be considered in the decision. 

508/19.

628 4-131 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-131 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should ensure that 

trails connect to towns and businesses to ensure 

access to services.

The Forest Service actively sought interest in Gateway 

Communities from local jurisdictions. No specific 

routes were identified by local jurisdictions during the 

public comment period. All input received will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

215/4. 215/9. 216/6. 216/11. 

217/14. 221/14. 221/19. 

222/14. 222/16. 224/12. 

225/12. 225/13. 247/19. 

261/13. 299/11. 322/16. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

142

378/15. 382/15. 389/11. 

393/15. 426/2. 439/6. 441/5. 

449/9. 450/16. 494/17. 495/13. 

496/11. 499/12. 501/13. 

501/16. 535/6. 593/16. 594/5. 

595/5. 596/5. 597/4. 599/5. 

598/6. 600/5. 601/5. 602/5. 

603/13. 604/14. 605/14. 

606/16. 609/18.

629 4-131 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-131 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should ensure that 

trails connect to towns and businesses to support 

the local economy.

The Forest Supervisor met with representatives from 

counties containing lands managed by the Black Hills 

National Forest at the scoping stage of the project. 

Copies of the DEIS were mailed to county 

commissioners for Crook, Weston and Campbell 

Counties in Wyoming; and Lawrence, Meade, 

Pennington, Custer and Fall River Counties in South 

Dakota, as well as numerous municipalities in the area. 

As the comment period ended, the Forest Supervisor 

contacted these counties and municipalities by letter of 

May 7, 2009, to request information on their plans to 

allow access from the Forest into their jurisdictions. An 

additional 30 days were allowed for response to these 

comments. All comments from these entities, 

businesses and the public at large were considered in the 

analysis and will be considered in the decision. 

222/13. 224/13. 229/14. 

260/12. 351/17. 386/11. 451/5. 

459/13. 460/73. 461/9. 492/6. 

495/14. 499/15. 507/17. 

511/15. 514/14. 526/6. 545/4. 

546/8. 609/18.

630 4-132 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-132 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should acknowledge 

sufficient access to services is being provided.

The Forest Supervisor met with representatives from 

counties containing lands managed by the Black Hills 

National Forest at the scoping stage of the project. 

Copies of the DEIS were mailed to county 

commissioners for Crook, Weston and Campbell 

Counties in Wyoming; and Lawrence, Meade, 

Pennington, Custer and Fall River Counties in South 

Dakota, as well as numerous municipalities in the area. 

As the comment period ended, the Forest Supervisor 

contacted these counties and municipalities by letter of 

May 7, 2009, to request information on their plans to 

allow access from the Forest into their jurisdictions. An 

additional 30 days were allowed for response to these 

comments. All comments from these entities, 

businesses and the public at large were considered in the 

231/12.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

143

analysis and will be considered in the decision. 

631 4-133 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-133 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should eliminate 

roads that do not terminate at a scenic area or 

destination.

The Forest Service recognizes that dead-end roads and 

road spurs that do not lead to specific destinations may 

not be appropriate as parts of a motorized route system. 

Such routes can invite abuse and do not provide the 

loop opportunity sought by many. Alternative D 

includes the lowest mileage of such routes. 

432/5.

632 4-134 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-134 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should clearly mark 

non-looping trails that do not terminate at a 

scenic area or destination because most users 

would prefer not to use dead-end trails.

Please see response to PC 4-133. Routes designated for 

motorized use will be shown on the MVUM. 

534/12.

633 4-135 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Connecting/Looping Trails. 4-135 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should avoid 

creating connector trails in the Silver City area 

because it is unworkable there.

Travel in the vicinity of Silver City is limited to highway 

legal vehicles and licensed operators only in Alternatives 

C, D and E. Connector routes must be open to all 

vehicle types (licensed and unlicensed). 

488/16.

634 4-136 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Trailheads. 4-136 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should increase the number of trailheads 

to support tourism and the local economy.

The number of trailheads available on the motorized 

system varies by alternative. Alternative C would 

provide the most (34) and Alternatives A and E the least 

(7). Trailheads would support more use but would also 

cost more to install and maintain. The effects of the 

alternatives on local economies are discussed in the 

FEIS, Chapter 3, Socio-Economics section. 

228/14. 229/13.

635 4-137 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Trailheads. 4-137 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should include more trailheads near 

service-related businesses and gateway 

communities to support local economic stability.

Please see responses to PCs 4-131 and 4-136. 142/6. 461/27.

636 4-138 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Trailheads. 4-138 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should provide trailheads at every 

community so users can access the trail system 

without trailering.

Please see responses to PCs 4-131 and 4-136. 314/3.

637 4-139 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Trailheads. 4-139 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should reconsider the plan for trailheads 

to avoid damage from concentrated use.

The Forest Service recognizes that the effects of use 

near trailheads may be heavier due to concentration. 

The alternatives propose different numbers of trailheads 

to address different issues such as recreation 

opportunity and effects to natural and cultural 

286/5.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

144

resources. Adjustments can be made to motorized 

trailheads in any selected alternative based on the results 

of monitoring of use and effects. 

6384-139 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Trailheads. 4-139 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should reconsider the plan for trailheads 

to provide for multiple uses and needs of the 

public.

The trailheads proposed in the alternatives would 

primarily serve motorized users because they would be 

located on the motorized travel system. The intent is to 

minimize conflicts between non-motorized and 

motorized recreationists. Trailhead design standards 

would accommodate a variety of users. 

247/26.

6394-139 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Trailheads. 4-139 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should reconsider the plan for trailhead to 

ensure that affected residents and private 

landowners approve the trailheads.

The Forest Service will consider comments from private 

landowners concerning the effects of any motorized 

system on Forest neighbors in the decision on this 

project. Some have supported locating trailheads near 

private lands to facilitate their own quick access to the 

system, while others have objected based on nuisance 

noise or dust, or other grounds. 

456/72.

6404-139 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Trailheads. 4-139 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should reconsider the plan for trailheads 

to ensure they are not sited next to private lands 

or communities.

Please see response to PC 4-139 above. 578/8. 

6414-139 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Trailheads. 4-139 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should reconsider the plan for trailheads 

because many are not adjacent to any trails.

The Forest Service will review the location of proposed 

trailheads before issuing the FEIS. Thank you for your 

suggestions. 

453/7.

6424-140 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Trailheads. 4-140 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should ensure that trailheads connect to 

trails and that sufficient funding is available.

Trailheads would be proposed and developed to support 

any motorized travel system, therefore they would be 

located on or near system routes. Any motorized travel 

system including trailheads would be implemented in a 

staged fashion over time, rather than all at once, subject 

in part to the availability of funding. Prospective 

funding is an important consideration for the decision 

on this project but is outside the scope of the decision, 

and it is speculative at this point to try to identify all 

future possible funding sources. The Redbank trailhead, 

proposed in all alternatives, is located on the Hell 

Canyon Ranger District. More trailheads could be 

proposed in the future based on monitoring of use 

levels and patterns. 

461/8.

6434-141 Route Selection, Designation, and Design - The Forest Service acknowledges there is always some 315/2.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

145

Trailheads. 4-141 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should reconsider locating trailheads in 

backcountry areas to reduce illegal off-road use.

likelihood of vandalism or other damage to remote 

facilities. It is assumed the public will generally comply 

with the terms of the MVUM. Adjustments to the 

system including increased patrol and enforcement can 

be made based on monitoring. 

644 4-142 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Trailheads. 4-142 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should consider using campgrounds as 

trailheads to save money.

Placement of trailheads in the alternatives is intended to 

support the motorized travel system. The Forest 

Service did co-locate several motorized trailheads with 

campgrounds in Alternative C, including the Dalton 

Lake trailhead. However, generally this practice was 

avoided in order to minimize conflicts between different 

Forest users. The estimated costs of the alternatives are 

disclosed in the FEIS, Chapter 3, Engineering and 

Transportation section. 

497/14.

645 4-143 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Trailheads. 4-143 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should provide services at trailheads to 

increase revenue.

Options such as concessionaires at trailheads could be 

considered in the future based on monitoring of use and 

demand, and consistent with agency policy. 

Competition with local businesses would be a necessary 

consideration before implementing such an option. 

503/14.

646 4-144 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Concentrated Motorized Use Areas. 4-144 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should eliminate the 

Concentrated Motorized Use Areas from the plan 

because they may cause confusion for users.

Several commenters noted that they found the term,

Concentrated Motorized Use Areas, confusing in the 

DEIS, and specifically felt it may inadvertently imply 

allowance of cross-country motorized use. The term 

has been replaced in the FEIS with the term, Motorized 

Trail System (MTS). The concept is the same as in the 

DEIS and, as in that document, no unlimited crosscountry motorized travel would be designated within 

these areas. The NFAB felt any motorized system 

should consist of multiple-scale loops. To provide for 

that feature the Forest Service proposes MTSs to 

identify defined areas featuring smaller-scale loop 

routes. The effects of the alternatives on wildlife, soils, 

water, plants and cultural resources are disclosed in the 

FEIS, Chapter 3, in the respective sections. 

319/84. 

647 4-144 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Concentrated Motorized Use Areas. 4-144 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should eliminate the 

Concentrated Motorized Use Areas from the plan 

because "play areas" are not appropriate on public 

land.

Please see response to PC 4-144 above. The term, play 

areas, is not used in the EIS. Alternative C does provide 

three small beginner practice areas totaling ten acres in 

size. These are not intended to be used by advanced 

riders as play areas. Motorized cross-country travel is 

provided for in Alternative B and C only for the 

414/48. 462/65. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

146

purposes of game retrieval or designated camping. The 

effects of the alternatives are disclosed in the FEIS, in 

Chapter 3. 

648 4-144 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Concentrated Motorized Use Areas. 4-144 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should eliminate the 

Concentrated Motorized Use Areas from the plan 

because the impacts on wildlife have not been 

sufficiently evaluated.

Several commenters noted that they found the term, 

Concentrated Motorized Use Areas, confusing in the 

DEIS, and specifically felt it may inadvertently imply 

allowance of cross-country motorized use. The term 

has been replaced in the FEIS with the term, Motorized 

Trail System (MTS). The concept is the same as in the 

DEIS and, as in that document, no unlimited crosscountry motorized travel would be designated within 

these areas. The NFAB felt any motorized system 

should consist of multiple-scale loops. To provide for 

that feature the Forest Service proposes MTSs to 

identify defined areas featuring smaller-scale loop 

routes. The effects of the alternatives on wildlife, soils, 

water, plants and cultural resources are disclosed in the 

FEIS, Chapter 3, in the respective sections. 

326/44. 456/25. 458/16. 

465/17.

649 4-145 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Concentrated Motorized Use Areas. 4-145 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should concentrate 

motorized use as proposed in Alternative C to 

help eliminate illegal riding in closed areas.

Thank you for your comment. 142/2.

650 4-146 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Concentrated Motorized Use Areas. To ensure 

locals are given a range of choices including quiet 

recreation. 4-146 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should consider the impacts to local 

residents of having CMUAs located nearby to 

ensure locals are given a range of choices 

including quiet recreation.

This analysis includes the evaluation of user created 

routes and system routes for possible designation into 

the Forest Travel System. The evaluation of each routes 

considered factors such as compatibility with existing 

land prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the 

resource, wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or 

potential conflicts as well as information provided from 

the public. These routes will also need to meet existing 

objectives, standards and specifications as identified 

within Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes 

that are determined to provide a benefit to the public 

and are consistent with the above factors are likely 

candidates for inclusion into the transportation system. 

The decision may include the designation of some 

routes that currently do not meet established standards 

with the caveat that they be brought up to standard 

prior to being formally included within the 

588/15.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

147

transportation system. 

651 4-146 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Concentrated Motorized Use Areas. 4-146 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should consider the 

impacts to local residents of having CMUAs 

located nearby to address the problem of children 

riding ATVs.

This analysis includes the evaluation of user created 

routes and system routes for possible designation into 

the Forest Travel System. The evaluation of each routes 

considered factors such as compatibility with existing 

land prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the 

resource, wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or 

potential conflicts as well as information provided from 

the public. These routes will also need to meet existing 

objectives, standards and specifications as identified 

within Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes 

that are determined to provide a benefit to the public 

and are consistent with the above factors are likely 

candidates for inclusion into the transportation system. 

The decision may include the designation of some 

routes that currently do not meet established standards 

with the caveat that they be brought up to standard 

prior to being formally included within the 

transportation system. 

588/13.

652 4-146 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Concentrated Motorized Use Areas. 4-146 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should consider the 

impacts to local residents of having CMUAs 

located nearby to address the impact on property 

values.

This analysis includes the evaluation of user created 

routes and system routes for possible designation into 

the Forest Travel System. The evaluation of each routes 

considered factors such as compatibility with existing 

land prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the 

resource, wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or 

potential conflicts as well as information provided from 

the public. These routes will also need to meet existing 

objectives, standards and specifications as identified 

within Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes 

that are determined to provide a benefit to the public 

and are consistent with the above factors are likely 

candidates for inclusion into the transportation system. 

The decision may include the designation of some 

routes that currently do not meet established standards 

with the caveat that they be brought up to standard 

prior to being formally included within the 

transportation system. 

588/14.

653 4-147 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Concentrated Motorized Use Areas. 4-147 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should ensure that 

It is true that an aim of this project is to provide a 

network of routes and loops. The Forest Service 

endeavored to do this to varying degrees in the 

449/7. 536/8.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

148

CMUAs are connected to adjacent areas to 

comply with the objectives of the plan.

alternatives, but was often constrained by one or more 

factors including inability to propose and designate 

parallel routes in the rights-of-way of other jurisdictions, 

potential noise or dust impacts to adjacent private 

landowners, etc. Alternative C provides the greatest 

mileage of motorized routes, while Alternative D 

provided lower route mileage to reduce the safety risk to 

non-highway-legal OHV and motorcycle users. The 

term CMUA was changed in the FEIS to motorized trail 

system (MTS) in response to comments that it was 

confusing. 

654 4-148 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Concentrated Motorized Use Areas. 4-148 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should restrict the 

trails on the periphery of CMUAs to prevent 

conflicts from OHVs leaving the CMUA.

Please see response to PC 4-144. Routes designated 

outside of motorized trail systems (MTSs) would be 

available for motorized use as designated on the 

MVUM, similar to routes within the MTSs. 

488/14.

655 4-149 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Concentrated Motorized Use Areas. 4-149 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should include play 

areas or cross-country practice areas because they 

allow for a variety of users and can become 

tourist attractions.

Alternative C does propose three small beginner 

practice areas totaling ten acres in size. Two would be 

on the Bearlodge Ranger District in Wyoming, a third 

would be on the Northern Hills Ranger District in 

South Dakota. As stated in the FEIS, Chapter 2, in the 

description of Alternative C, these areas could serve as 

practice areas for novice riders. They are not intended 

as play areas for use by advanced riders. Other than 

this, motorized cross-country travel in Alternatives B 

and C would be restricted to game retrieval and 

dispersed camping. The Forest Service believes that 

motorized cross-country use, if concentrated in a small 

area, could cause unacceptable effects to natural and 

cultural resources. 

453/5.

656 4-149 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Concentrated Motorized Use Areas. 4-149 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should include play 

areas or cross-country practice areas to reduce the 

need for open areas.

Motorized cross-country travel is proposed in 

Alternatives B and C only for the purposes of game 

retrieval and dispersed camping. Also see response to 

PC 4-149 above. 

453/5. 508/18.

657 4-150 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Concentrated Motorized Use Areas. 4-150 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should include the 

Prairie Creek CMUA to be consistent with the 

Rule.

In the FEIS, Chapter 1, Alternatives Considered but 

Eliminated from Detailed Study section, it is explained 

that the Forest Service believes that motorized crosscountry use, especially if concentrated in small areas, 

could lead to unacceptable impacts to natural and 

536/12.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

149

cultural resources. The Forest Service changed the 

term, CMUA, in the FEIS to motorized travel system 

(MTS), in response to comments that the public was 

confused by the term. The systems proposed in each 

alternative will be considered in the decision. 

6584-151 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Designations. 4-151 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should revisit the allocation of motorized 

to non-motorized trails to ensure that trail 

designations meet the motorized recreation needs 

of the public. 

The Travel Rule supports the idea that National Forests 

should provide access for both motorized and non-

motorized users in a manner that is environmentally 

sustainable over the long term. Decisions on the type of 

use allowed will be based on factors such as 

compatibility with existing land prescriptions and/or 

designations, impacts to the resource, wildlife objectives, 

safety, existing and/or potential conflicts 

126/76.

6594-152 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Designations. 4-152 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should designate trails at a ratio of 25:1 of 

motorized to non-motorized to more accurately 

reflect the actual usage patterns.

The Travel Rule supports the idea that National Forests 

should provide access for both motorized and non-

motorized users in a manner that is environmentally 

sustainable over the long term. Decisions on the type of 

use allowed will be based on factors such as 

compatibility with existing land prescriptions and/or 

designations, impacts to the resource, wildlife objectives, 

safety, existing and/or potential conflicts 

126/89.

6604-153 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Designations. 4-153 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should designate trails based on a 50/50 

ratio of motorized to non-motorized trails to be 

fair and accurately reflect actual usage patterns.

The Travel Rule supports the idea that National Forests 

should provide access for both motorized and non-

motorized users in a manner that is environmentally 

sustainable over the long term. Decisions on the type of 

use allowed will be based on factors such as 

compatibility with existing land prescriptions and/or 

designations, impacts to the resource, wildlife objectives, 

safety, existing and/or potential conflicts 

126/57.

6614-154 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Designations. 4-154 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should monitor usage of motorized and 

non-motorized users on individual routes and 

make designation decisions based on those 

results.

Implementation of the Travel Management Rule 

including monitoring is a responsibility each National 

Forest is undertaking under the direction of that rule. 

The Black Hills NF plan may incorporate a variety of 

conditions to monitor. Other monitoring protocols are 

being implemented through other direction outlines in 

FS Manuals and Handbooks that resulted from direction 

outlined in the TM Rule.

126/32.

6624-155 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Designations. 4-155 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should provide a wide variety of trails 

The Travel Rule supports the idea that National Forests 

should provide access for both motorized and non-

motorized users in a manner that is environmentally 

126/16.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

150

while ensuring that the quality and quantity of 

motorized trails is at least equal to that of non-

motorized trails.

sustainable over the long term. Decisions on the type of 

use allowed will be based on factors such as 

compatibility with existing land prescriptions and/or 

designations, impacts to the resource, wildlife objectives, 

safety, existing and/or potential conflicts 

6634-156 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Designations. 4-156 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should reconsider the elimination of the 

dual-use designation because the proposal would 

effectively render the project area off-limits to 

OHV use.

Where necessary, a decision on whether to designate 

roads for motorized mixed traffic will be informed by a 

motorized-mixed-use analysis performed by a qualified 

engineer. Depending on the complexity of the situation, 

the analysis may range from documenting engineering 

judgment to an engineering report that addresses many 

factors related to motorized mixed use. The analysis 

considers the safety risks in terms of crash potential and 

crash severity of designating highway-legal- and non-

highway-legal vehicles for concurrent use on the same 

roads.

126/61. 

6644-156 Route Selection, Designation, and Design-

Designations. 4-156 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should reconsider the elimination of the 

dual-use designation to support family-oriented 

OHV recreation. 

State law requires public roads to have valid driver's 

licenses and vehicles to be registered. Where necessary, a 

decision on whether to designate roads for motorized 

mixed traffic will be informed by a motorized-mixed-use 

analysis performed by a qualified engineer. Depending 

on the complexity of the situation, the analysis may 

range from documenting engineering judgment to an 

engineering report that addresses many factors related to 

motorized mixed use. The analysis considers the safety 

risks in terms of crash potential and crash severity of 

designating highway-legal- and non-highway-legal 

vehicles for concurrent use on the same roads.

126/62.

6654-157 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Designations. 4-157 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should include a system of dual-use routes 

because they are essential for family OHV 

recreation and to reduce illegal trail riding.

Where necessary, a decision on whether to designate 

roads for motorized mixed traffic will be informed by a 

motorized-mixed-use analysis performed by a qualified 

engineer. Depending on the complexity of the situation, 

the analysis may range from documenting engineering 

judgment to an engineering report that addresses many 

factors related to motorized mixed use. The analysis 

considers the safety risks in terms of crash potential and 

crash severity of designating highway-legal- and non-

highway-legal vehicles for concurrent use on the same 

roads.

126/60.

6664-158 Route Selection, Designation, and Design - The final decision will include several roads in Wyoming 355/5.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

151

Designations. 4-158 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should reconsider designating roads in the 

Wyoming portion of the BHNF as being for 

licensed vehicles only because there are few 

conflicts between licenses vehicles and ORVs.

that are planned for enrollment in the WY ORV 

program which will allow for use by ORVs with a 

license plate or a WY ORV permit.

667 4-159 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Designations. 4-159 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should avoid designating roads maintained 

by Pennington County as ORV trails to ensure 

that non-licensed drivers and vehicles are not 

accessing public roads. 

The Forest designated system of motorized travel routes 

will not include any roads that are County or other 

government entity jurisdiction. Decisions will only be 

made on FS jurisdictional routes. 

327/4.

668 4-160 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Designations. 4-160 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should convert all roads closed to fullsized vehicles to ATV routes.

The Forest plans to provide access for both highwaylegal and non highway-legal vehicles in a manner that is 

environmentally sustainable over the long term. 

Decisions on the type of use allowed will be based on 

factors such as compatibility with existing land 

prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the 

resource, wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or 

potential conflicts 

126/22.

669 4-161 Route Selection, Designation, and Design -

Designations. 4-161 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should avoid using use levels as a criterion 

for designation because it is not a criteria for nonmotorized trails.

The Travel Rule supports the idea that National Forests 

should provide access for both motorized and nonmotorized users in a manner that is environmentally 

sustainable over the long term. Decisions on the type of 

use allowed will be based on factors such as 

compatibility with existing land prescriptions and/or 

designations, impacts to the resource, wildlife objectives, 

safety, and existing and/or potential conflicts.

126/135.

670 4-162 Route Selection, Designation, and Design - WalkIn Areas. 4-162 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should designate the areas identified as 

exemplary in the Black Hills Community 

Inventory as walk-in-only areas to protect them 

from motorized use.

It is not the purpose of this analysis to designate walk-in 

areas, but rather to designate roads, trails and areas open 

to motorized travel. The Forest Service received 

requests from several sources to reduce or eliminate 

motorized travel in certain areas in favor of nonmotorized uses. The alternatives address this concern 

by balancing uses in different ways to respond to the 

project objectives. The effects of the alternatives on 

resources and non-motorized recreation are disclosed in 

the EIS in Chapter 3 in the Botanical and Recreation 

sections and others, and will be considered in the 

decision on this project. 

357/14.

671 4-163 Route Selection, Designation, and Design - Walk- The route and area configurations in the alternatives 465/19. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

152

In Areas. 4-163 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should consider adding the walk-in areas 

proposed by the Black Hills Sportsmen‟s Club 

and the South Dakota Wildlife Federation.

were designed to meet project objectives and balance 

uses in different ways. Also see response to Public 

Concern 4-162. 

672 4-164 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-164 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should remove trails 

from the Bear Lodge/Creek areas to protect 

sensitive species and plant species of local 

concern.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives 

for the Bearlodge and Bear Creek areas. Alternative D 

offers the least amount of motorized opportunities for 

these areas.

319/30.

673 4-165 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-165 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should eliminate 

motorized activity in Bear/Beaver Gulches, Black 

Fox Valley, Black Fox Sphagnum Wetlands, 

South Fork of Rapid Creek, Rhoads Fork Spring, 

Dugout Gulch, Englewood Springs, Higgins 

Gulch, Grigg‟s Gulch, McIntosh Fen, North Fork 

of Castle Creek, and Upper Sand Creek.

None of the alternatives analyzed included motorized 

routes in the Black Fox area south of the Rochford 

Road and east of Rhoade's Fork. Many roads open to 

highway legal vehicles west of Rhoade's Fork and south 

of the South Fork Rapid Creek in Alternative C were 

eliminated from Alternative D. No additional 

motorized routes in the McIntosh Fen, Rhoades Fork 

Spring, or North Fork Castle Creek areas were included 

in any of the alternatives. All routes including the 

Beaver/Bear Gulch's, Englewood Springs, Higgins 

Gulch, Griggs Gulch were analyzed in the DEIS for 

environmental and social effects and the decision on 

whether or not to include them will be documented in 

the Record of Decision. All impacts to MA 3.1 

Botanical Areas were analyzed in the DEIS and further 

described in the Botany Resource Report. 

280/13.

674 4-166 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-166 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should prohibit 

motorized routes in the Big Hill and Spearfish 

Canyon areas to protect riparian areas.

All routes including Big Hill and Spearfish Canyon areas 

were analyzed in the DEIS for environmental and social 

effects and the decision on whether or not to include 

them will be included in the Record of Decision. A 

discussion on riparian habitat was analyzed in several 

different sections of the DEIS BHNF Travel 

Management Plan. 

414/58.

675 4-167 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-167 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should remove trails 

in the Big Hill Trails (#72) area to protect 

sensitive species and plant species of local 

concern.

Big Hills trails #72 are non-motorized trails and were 

not analyzed under the DEIS BHNF Travel 

Management Plan for sensitive species and species of 

local concern.

319/27.

676 4-168 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-168 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should remove trails 

from the Black Hawk Winter Wildlife Area/Ware 

Roads in the Black Hawk area analyzed in Alternatives 

C, D, and E are closed seasonally. Alternatives B, C and 

D propose closing some routes in the Black Hawk Area 

319/15.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

153

Canyon area to protect elk habitat. and Ware Canyon area. Your comment will be 

considered and the Record of Decision will document 

the rationale for designating routes on the MVUM.

677 4-169 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-169 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should remove trails 

in the Buskala Creek area to protect sensitive 

species and plant species of local concern.

All routes including any in the Buskala area were 

analyzed for botanical issues in pages 231-251 in the 

DEIS BHNF Travel Management Plan. Any decision 

on routes included will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

319/25.

678 4-170 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-170 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should remove trails 

in the Cement Ridge area to protect sensitive 

species and plant species of local concern to 

protect sensitive species and plant species of local 

concern.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives 

for Cement Ridge area. Alternative D offers the least 

amount of motorized opportunities for this area.

319/28.

679 4-171 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-171 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should add trails to 

the Citadel Rock area.

Thank you for your opinion on where routes should be 

added in the Citadel Rock Area. Varying numbers of 

miles of trail were looked at between Alternative A 

through C. Many proposed routes in this area were 

eliminated due to resource concerns for botany, slope 

and archeology. Any decision on routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

538/18.

680 4-172 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-172 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should designate 

Cranberry Springs and the Black Fox and Swede 

Gulch areas as non-motorized only.

The Swede Gulch area is currently designated by the 

Forest Plan as a back country non-motorized area. The 

Black Fox area is designated by the Forest Plan as a 

botanical area, which is closed to motorized vehicles off 

Forest System Roads per Special Order #82. Neither 

was proposed for designation for motorized use in any 

action alternative, so these areas would not be available 

for motorized use under any of these. Designation of 

areas for non-motorized use is beyond the scope of this 

proposal. 

372/11.

681 4-173 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-173 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should include fourwheel access trails in Custer County.

Although there are no designated trails in Custer County 

at this time, this does not limit the Hell Canyon Ranger 

District from consideration of trail designation in the 

future. Additional routes were reviewed and considered, 

and those chosen will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

229/11.

682 4-174 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-174 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should remove trails 

from the Davenport Cave/Beaver Park and Fort 

All route including Davenport Cave/ Beaver Park/Ft 

Meade and Sturgis experimental Watersheds areas were 

analyzed for botanical issues in pages 231-251 in the 

319/22.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

154

Meade Administrative Watershed and Sturgis 

Experimental Watershed areas to protect sensitive 

species and plant species of local concern.

DEIS BHNF Travel Management Plan. Any decision on 

route included will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

683 4-175 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-175 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should remove trails 

from the Ditch Creek area to protect bat habitat.

There are currently no known sites that provide critical 

bat habitat (e.g. hibernacula or maternity roosts) in the 

Ditch Creek area. Alternatives B, C and D propose 

closing some routes in the Ditch Creek area. The 

Record of Decision will document the FS decision 

maker's rationale for designating routes on the MVUM.

319/16.

684 4-176 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-176 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should eliminate 

motorized routes between Dugout Gulch and 

Crow Peak and south of Crook Mountain because 

roads are prohibited within management areas.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives 

for Dugout Gulch. Alternatives A, D, and E do not 

propose any public motorized use within the area. All 

routes including in the Crow Peak area and south of 

Crook mountain were analyzed for environmental 

concerns and any decision on routes included will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. No additional 

routes were considered in the back country nonmotorized areas as designated by the current Forest 

Plan. 

414/62.

685 4-177 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-177 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should remove 

motorized trails from Dugout Gulch to reduce 

disturbance to wildlife.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives 

for Dugout Gulch. Alternatives A, D, and E do not 

propose any public motorized use within the area.

346/33.

686 4-177 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-177 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should remove 

motorized trails from Dugout Gulch because the 

area has rare botanical resources.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives 

for Dugout Gulch. Alternatives A, D, and E do not 

propose any public motorized use within the area.

080/2. 306/1. 479/5.

687 4-177 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-177 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should remove 

motorized trails from Dugout Gulch to protect 

sensitive species and plant species of local 

concern.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives 

for Dugout Gulch. Alternatives A, D, and E do not 

propose any public motorized use within the area.

077/1. 319/23.

688 4-178 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-178 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should remove 

motorized trails from Dugout Gulch and Eagle 

Cliff because the areas have a large nonmotorized user group. 

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives 

for Dugout Gulch. Alternatives A, D, and E do not 

propose any public motorized use within the area. No 

additional motorized routes were considered in any 

alternative in the Eagle Cliff non-motorized trail area. 

548/9.

689 4-179 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-179 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should eliminate 

motorized travel in the watershed of upper 

No additional motorized routes were considered in any 

alternative in the Higgins or Griggs Gulch areas.

280/7.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

155

Higgins Gulch and Grigg‟s Gulch.

690 4-180 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-180 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should prohibit 

motorized routes in Higgins Gulch, Upper Sand 

Creek, and northwest of Custer Peak to protect 

botanical management areas.

No additional motorized routes were considered in any 

alternative in the Higgins Botanical Area. Botanical 

resources were analyzed in the DEIS. Several existing 

and unclassified routes were analyzed north west of 

Custer Peak (Englewood Botanical Area). Any decision 

on routes included will be documented in the Record of 

Decision. The direct and indirect effects of the 

proposed action on botanical resources and habitat were 

analyzed in the DEIS.

414/59.

691 4-181 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-181 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should designate the 

area around Ice Cave as multi-use because it is a 

great family recreation destination for both 

motorized and non-motorized use. 

This route was analyzed as trails open to all or roads 

open to all in Alternatives B, C D and E. This would 

allow for multi-user designation. Any decision on routes 

included will be documented in the Record of Decision.

468/1.

692 4-182 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-182 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should provide more 

trails in the Iron Creek Lake area to provide trails 

for campers in the area.

Varying numbers of miles of trail were looked at in 

Alternatives A, B and C. Many proposed routes in this 

area were eliminated due to resource concerns for 

botany, slope and archeology. Any decision on routes 

will be documented in the Record of Decision.

538/16.

693 4-183 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-183 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should reduce road 

density in the Jasper Burn area.

Thank you for your comment and suggestion. The 

open road density within the Jasper burn area is 

approximately 3.6 miles/square mile. This area was 

considered as a walk-in area, but this proposal was not 

adopted because portions of this area already have 

seasonal closure orders for the purpose of wildlife 

habitat security. Emergency closures to protect 

resources can be applied at any time. 

362/16.

694 4-184 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-184 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should reduce the 

concentration of off-road and single-track trails in 

the Jenny Gulch area.

The motorized single track routes in the Jenny Gulch 

area on were analyzed in Alternatives B and C and 

removed in Alternatives D and E. Any decision about 

routes selected will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

146/1.

695 4-185 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-185 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should remove trails 

from the Jim Creek area to protect red belly snake 

habitat. 

Alternatives B, C and D propose closing routes in the 

Jim Creek area. Your comment will be considered in the 

decision.

319/13.

696 4-186 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-186 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should close the 

roads in Management Area 5.4 to continue 

Many of the motorized routes in MA 5.4 would be 

closed seasonally in the action alternatives. Forest-wide, 

the alternatives vary in how they address Objective 5.4-

179/2.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

156

support of forage, fawning/calving habitat, and 

escape cover for big game species.

207. Alternatives B and C would raise the open road 

density from the current, and Alternative D would lower 

it, and move toward achieving the Forest Plan objective. 

The effects of the alternatives are disclosed in the FEIS, 

Chapter 3, Wildlife section, in the discussion on white-

tailed deer. 

6974-187 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-187 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should continue to 

seasonally close the roads in Management Area 

5.4 to protect needed winter habitat for game 

species.

Many of the motorized routes in MA 5.4 are closed 

seasonally per the Forest Plan in Alternatives C, D, and 

E. Road densities in MA 5.4 were analyzed and 

disclosed in the DEIS. Comment has been evaluated 

and will be considered in the Record of Decision. 

179/1.

6984-188 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-188 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should allow mixed 

uses on all Maintenance Level 2 and 3 routes and 

on most maintenance level 4 routes.

Where necessary, a decision on whether to designate 

roads for motorized mixed traffic will be informed by a 

motorized-mixed-use analysis performed by a qualified 

engineer. Depending on the complexity of the situation, 

the analysis may range from documenting engineering 

judgment to an engineering report that addresses many 

factors related to motorized mixed use. The analysis 

considers the safety risks in terms of crash potential and 

crash severity of designating highway-legal- and non-

highway-legal vehicles for concurrent use on the same 

roads. Varying numbers of miles of roads and trails were 

analyzed in Alternatives A through D for mixed use. 

Any decision on routes will be documented in the 

Record of Decision. 

536/7.

6994-189 Area-Specific Route Requests. Because the influx 

of motorized users has a negative impact on some 

businesses.

Socio Economic concerns, including the Nemo area, 

were analyzed in the DEIS on p89-100. There will be 

varying opinion in any community about whether or not 

a motorized trail system hurts or contributes positively 

to that community. 400/14.

7004-189 Area-Specific Route Requests. To comply with 

the forest plan. 4-189 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should restrict motorized access 

around Nemo because the influx of motorized 

users has a negative impact on some businesses. 

Socio Economic concerns, including the Nemo area, 

were analyzed in the DEIS on p89-100. There will be 

varying opinion in any community about whether or not 

a motorized trail system hurts or contributes positively 

to that community. 456/71.

7014-190 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-190 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should reroute or 

remove motorized trails around residential areas 

in Nemo to reduce the noise impacts on 

residents.

Socio Economic concerns, including the Nemo area, 

were analyzed in the DEIS on p89-100. There will be 

varying opinion in any community about whether or not 

a motorized trail system hurts or contributes positively 

to that community. Any decision on routes will be 

360/5.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

157

documented in the Record of Decision. 

702 4-191 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-191 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should provide 

connecting trails to Nemo so riders could have 

lunch there.

Socio Economic concerns, including the Nemo area, 

were analyzed in the DEIS on p89-100. There will be 

varying opinion in any community about whether or not 

a motorized trail system hurts or contributes positively 

to that community. Any decision on routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. 

519/3.

703 4-192 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-192 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should set aside the 

area near the Norbeck Wilderness area and Custer 

State Park for non-motorized recreation because 

the area is sensitive wildlife habitat and to protect 

pristine hiking and hunting opportunities.

Road 352 is currently open seasonally to highway-legal 

vehicles. This would continue under Alternatives B and 

C, but the road would be closed to use yearlong in 

Alternative D. The comment will be considered in the 

decision on this project. 

013/1. 013/2.

704 4-193 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-193 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should limit the 

roads and trails near creeks feeding the Pactola 

Reservoir to reduce sedimentation.

No new roads or trails are being planned along Castle 

Creek, North Rapid Creek, Rapid Creek, or Slate Creek. 

The design criteria outlined in the document will 

minimize the impacts to the streams on the roads/trails 

that remain open. Existing system roads were analyzed 

as roads open to all or roads open to highway legal 

vehicles in Alternatives B, C, D, and E.

134/1.

705 4-194 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-194 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should reduce the 

trail density near Pactola and Silver City to reduce 

the impacts to elk and bighorn sheep.

Many of the routes included in Alternative C west of 

Highway 385 and north and south of Rapid Creek were 

eliminated in Alternative D.

169/3.

706 4-195 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-195 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should enforce stiff 

fines in the Piedmont Area for illegal off-road use 

to stop the damage that's being done.

The purpose of this DEIS is to analyze routes that will 

be included on the motor vehicle use map and 

contribute toward the FEIS and Record of Decision. 

Once routes are defined motorists will be expected to 

stay on the designated route to reduce resource damage. 

The amount of fines imposed for such violations is 

beyond the scope of this document. Enforcement will 

take place as needed.

369/1.

707 4-196 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-196 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should keep the 

Piedmont area open for riding.

Varying numbers of miles of roads and trails were 

analyzed in Alternatives A through D. Any decision on 

routes will be documented in the Record of Decision.

573/10.

708 4-197 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-197 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should keep roads 

and trails open in the Pleasant Valley area because 

there is little traffic there.

Varying numbers of miles of roads and trails were 

analyzed in Alternatives A through D in the Limestone, 

Red Lake, Eagle Cliff areas. Wildlife, including elk 

habitat, was analyzed in the DEIS p146-229. Any 

decision on routes will be documented in the Record of 565/4.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

158

Decision. 

709 4-198 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-198 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should remove trails 

from the Pleasant Valley Walk-In area to protect 

elk habitat.

This area has been proposed as a walk-in hunting area. 

The Decision Maker for this project will considered this, 

and will document his decision in the Record of 

Decision.

319/18.

710 4-199 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-199 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should add trails to 

the Red Bank Campground area.

Although no trails have been proposed that connect 

directly with Red Banks Spring Campground, there are 

trails proposed in Alternatives B and C that are within 

close proximity to Red Bank Springs Campground. 

Numerous routes west of Ditch Creek Campground are 

included in Alternatives C and D. 

534/23.

711 4-200 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-200 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should designate the 

Red Lake, Limestone, and Eagle Cliff/Dead Ox 

areas as non-motorized to protect the elk ecology 

of the area.

Varying numbers of miles of roads and trails were 

analyzed in Alternatives A through D in the Limestone, 

Red Lake, Eagle Cliff, Hanna, Tinton and Crow Peak 

areas. Any decision on routes will be documented in the 

Record of Decision.

112/1.

712 4-200 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-200 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should designate the 

Red Lake, Limestone, and Eagle Cliff/Dead Ox 

areas as non-motorized because sufficient 

motorized access is allowed elsewhere in the 

forest.

Varying numbers of miles of roads and trails were 

analyzed in Alternatives A through D in the Limestone, 

Red Lake, Eagle Cliff, Hanna, Tinton and Crow Peak 

areas. Any decision on routes will be documented in the 

Record of Decision.

057/2.

713 4-201 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-201 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should create a loop 

trail system in the Riflepit Canyon area.

Varying numbers of miles of roads and trails were 

analyzed in Alternatives A through D in the Rifle Pit 

areas. Any decision on routes will be documented in the 

Record of Decision.

538/22.

714 4-202 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-202 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should provide 

connector trails to Rochford because it is a 

popular OHV stop.

The two access routes in and out of Rochford are under 

other jurisdiction and not Forest Service. County and 

State laws will govern those routes.

534/19. 535/3.

715 4-203 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-203 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should reduce the 

number of roads around the Sand Creek area to 

protect the opportunities for quiet recreation.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS reduced the 

number of routes open to motorized travel around the 

Sand Creek area of the Black Hills.

411/1. 411/2.

716 4-203 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-203 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should reduce the 

number of roads around the Sand Creek area 

because it is relatively wild and is surrounded by 

non-motorized areas.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS reduced the 

number of routes open to motorized travel around the 

Sand Creek area of the Black Hills.

578/28.

717 4-204 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-204 Public Many of the motorized routes in the Schroeder Road 265/3.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

159

Concern: The Forest Service should reconsider 

the designation of routes around Shank‟s Quarry 

to keep motorized users separate from mountain 

bikes.

and Shanks Quarry area that were included in 

Alternative C were eliminated from Alternatives D and 

E.

718 4-204 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-204 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should reconsider 

the designation of routes around Shank‟s Quarry 

because the area has historically been a nonmotorized, mountain biking area.

Many of the motorized routes in the Schroeder Road 

and Shanks Quarry area that were included in 

Alternative C were eliminated from Alternatives D and 

E.

431/5. 434/5.

719 4-205 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-205 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should remove trails 

from Silver City, Canyon City, and Silver areas to 

protect sensitive species and plant species of local 

concern.

Many of the motorized routes in the Silver City and 

Canyon City areas that were included in Alternative C 

were eliminated from Alternative D.

319/29.

720 4-206 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-206 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should reduce the 

number of “motorcycle only” trails around Silver 

City to reduce traffic and preserve the historic 

tranquility of the area.

Many of the motorcycle only routes north of Silver City 

in Alternative C were eliminated from Alternatives D 

and E.

475/6. 475/7.

721 4-207 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-207 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should remove trails 

from South Stagebarn Tributary to protect 

sensitive species and plant species of local 

concern.

All routes, including the south Stagebarn area, were 

analyzed for botanical species of concern in the DEIS 

and the decision on whether or not to include them will 

be documented in the Record of Decision. 

319/24.

722 4-208 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-208 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should increase the 

trails to the Spearfish area.

Varying numbers of miles of routes were considered in 

the Spearfish vicinity in Alternatives A through E of the 

DEIS. The City limits of Spearfish are approximately 2 

miles to the Forest boundary and access is controlled by 

other jurisdictions.

417/12.

723 4-209 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-209 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should create loops 

connecting Spearfish to Custer.

Varying numbers of miles of routes were considered on 

the entire BHNF including between Spearfish and 

Custer. Currently due to resource issues and numerous 

jurisdictions one would have to pass through to get 

from Spearfish to Custer on a trail it is not practical. 

378/13.

724 4-210 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-210 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should increase trails 

around Spearfish Mountain because the area 

would be good for ATV trails.

Varying routes were analyzed in the Spearfish Peak area 

for use by different types of vehicles. Many routes in 

this area are not on NFS land but are in other 

jurisdiction. Any routes in this area are in management 

area 5.4 Big Game Winter Range and if they are 

included in the Record of Decision they will be seasonal.

538/15.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

160

725 4-211 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-211 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should remove trails 

from the Spruce Draw/Gingrass Draw area to 

protect red belly snake habitat.

The effects on Black Hills redbelly snakes are discussed 

in the Biological Evaluation and is summarized in the 

Wildlife Section of Chapter 3 of the FEIS. The analysis 

uses the best available science (literature) combined with 

known occurrence data and assumes the species is 

present in suitable habitat. Extensive surveys would not 

change this assumption nor would it add to the design 

of the route system or enhance the effects analysis.

319/14.

726 4-212 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-212 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should allow 

motorized access to the Stagebarn Canyon to 

allow access for the elderly. 

The Stagebarn Canyon area is currently used during 

special use recreation events for rock crawling. This 

route has been analyzed in Alternatives B, C and D. 

The decision on whether or not to include it will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

559/5.

727 4-213 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-213 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should provide 

better trail access to Sturgis.

Varying routes were analyzed in the Sturgis area for use 

by different types of vehicles. Many routes in this area 

are not on NFS land but are in other jurisdiction. The 

decision on whether or not to include these routes will 

be included in the Record of Decision.

393/12. 396/11.

728 4-214 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-214 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should reduce the 

concentration of motorized trails near Sugar 

Shack and Rapid Creek to preserve the quiet 

recreation opportunities near Silver City and 

Pactola Lake.

Many of the routes in the Silver City area that were 

included in Alternative C were eliminated or are open to 

highway legal vehicles only in Alternatives D and E. 

141/13.

729 4-215 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-215 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should retain the 

roadless nature of Swede Gulch.

Thank you for you comments on Swede Gulch area. 

Any decision to include the spur routes at the edges of 

Swede Gulch will be included in the Record of 

Decision. Hunters and campers use these routes for 

parking.

362/12.

730 4-216 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-216 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should consider 

adding trails near Terry Peak because there are 

several old mines and the area is scenic and 

provides for family-friendly recreation.

Varying routes were considered in the Terry Peak area 

for use by different types of vehicles. Many routes in 

this area are not on NFS land but are in other 

jurisdiction. The decision on whether or not to include 

these routes will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

460/38.

731 4-217 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-217 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should not open any 

new trails in the area once known as the 

Unknown Lands because the area is pristine and 

provides wildlife habitat.

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in 

the Record of Decision.

141/8.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

161

732 4-218 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-218 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should remove trails 

from the Vanocker Canyon – Camp 5, Lost 

Soldier Spring area to protect elk and ruffed 

grouse habitat.

Varying numbers of miles of roads and trails were 

analyzed in Alternatives A through D in the Vanocker, 

Camp 5 and Lost Soldiers spring. Wildlife, including elk 

and ruffed grouse habitat, was analyzed in the DEIS 

p146-229. Any decision on routes will be documented 

in the Record of Decision.

319/17.

733 4-218 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-218 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should remove trails 

from the Vanocker Canyon – Camp 5, Lost 

Soldier Spring area to protect sensitive species 

and plant species of local concern.

Varying numbers of miles of roads and trails were 

analyzed in Alternatives A through E in the Vanocker, 

Camp 5 and Lost Soldiers spring. Sensitive plant habitat, 

was analyzed in the DEIS p321-241. Any decision on 

routes will be documented in the Record of Decision.

319/26.

734 4-219 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-219 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should reduce the 

concentration of roads and trails surrounding the 

property of Boyd Vincent because the 

concentration is disproportionate, unjustified, and 

unwarranted.

Varying numbers of miles of existing roads and 

proposed trails were analyzed in Alternatives A through 

E in the vicinity of Boyd Vincent's property for all of 

the areas he expressed concern about including wildlife 

and botany in the DEIS. The existing system roads that 

are within 300 feet of Mr. Vincent's property were 

proposed as road open to all as it currently exists. Any 

decision on routes that will be included will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

317/17. 317/18. 317/19. 

317/23. 447/1.

735 4-219 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-219 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should reduce the 

concentration of roads and trails surrounding the 

property of Boyd Vincent because it is 

inconsistent with Forest Service criteria.

Varying numbers of miles of existing roads and 

proposed trails were analyzed in Alternatives A through 

E in the vicinity of Boyd Vincent's property for all of 

the areas he expressed concern about including wildlife 

and botany in the DEIS. The existing system roads that 

are within 300 feet of Mr. Vincent's property were 

proposed as road open to all as it currently exists. Any 

decision on routes that will be included will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

317/24. 

736 4-219 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-219 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should reduce the 

concentration of roads and trails surrounding the 

property of Boyd Vincent because the area is a 

haven for wildlife.

Varying numbers of miles of existing roads and 

proposed trails were analyzed in Alternatives A through 

E in the vicinity of Boyd Vincent's property for all of 

the areas he expressed concern about including wildlife 

and botany in the DEIS. The existing system roads that 

are within 300 feet of Mr. Vincent's property were 

proposed as road open to all as it currently exists. Any 

decision on routes that will be included will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. 

317/25.

737 4-219 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-219 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should reduce the 

Varying numbers of miles of existing roads and 

proposed trails were analyzed in Alternatives A through 

317/2. 317/27.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

162

concentration of roads and trails surrounding the 

property of Boyd Vincent because the area has 

been given "Special Designation" by the Norbeck 

Society.

E in the vicinity of Boyd Vincent's property for all of 

the areas he expressed concern about including wildlife 

and botany in the DEIS. The existing system roads that 

are within 300 feet of Mr. Vincent's property were 

proposed as road open to all as it currently exists. Any 

decision on routes that will be included will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. 

738 4-219 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-219 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should reduce the 

concentration of roads and trails surrounding the 

property of Boyd Vincent because there is a 

guzzler on the property.

Varying numbers of miles of existing roads and 

proposed trails were analyzed in Alternatives A through 

E in the vicinity of Boyd Vincent's property for all of 

the areas he expressed concern about including wildlife 

and botany in the DEIS. The existing system roads that 

are within 300 feet of Mr. Vincent's property were 

proposed as road open to all as it currently exists. Any 

decision on routes that will be included will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

317/26. 

739 4-219 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-219 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should reduce the 

concentration of roads and trails surrounding the 

property of Boyd Vincent because the risk of 

trespassing is significant.

Once routes are defined motorists will be expected to 

stay on the designated route. Any trespass on private 

land should be dealt with through the Sheriff's office. 

The Forest Service also maintains cooperative 

relationships with many state and local law enforcement 

agencies that provide mutual support across 

jurisdictional boundaries. Education and cooperative 

relationships with users support our enforcement efforts 

by promoting voluntary compliance.

317/22. 

740 4-220 Area-Specific Route Requests. 4-220 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should reduce the 

number of dead end trails in the vicinity of Boyd 

Vincent‟s property because they increase the risk 

of users going off-road.

Once routes are defined motorists will be expected to 

stay on the designated route. Any trespass on private 

land should be dealt with through the Sheriff's office. 

Spur routes are used by hunters and campers for a place 

to park. Forest Service Law Enforcement personnel play 

a critical role in ensuring compliance with laws and 

regulations, protecting public safety, and protecting 

National Forest Resources.

317/12. 

741 4-221 Area-Specific Route Requests - Northern Hills 

Ranger District. 4-221 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should increase the trails in the 

Northern Hills to support the regional economy 

and provide recreation opportunities.

Varying numbers of miles of routes were considered in 

the Spearfish vicinity in Alternatives A through E of the 

DEIS. These routes include the Iron Creek Lake and 

Cement ridges areas. Routes in the Cheyenne Crossing 

area were not considered due to an existing management 

area prohibiting off road traffic in the Spearfish Canyon 

management area. Any decision on routes that will be 

215/2. 426/5. 439/4. 511/11. 

538/14. 545/2.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

163

included will be documented in the Record of Decision.

742 4-222 Area-Specific Route Requests - Northern Hills 

Ranger District. 4-222 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should improve the connectivity of 

the trails in the Northern Hills to support 

recreational access and the local economy.

Socio Economic concerns, including the Spearfish area, 

were analyzed in the DEIS on p89-100. There will be 

varying opinion in any community about whether or not 

a motorized trail system hurts or contributes positively 

to that community. Any decision on routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. 

217/12. 221/12. 222/12. 

223/12. 225/11. 237/12. 

300/11. 311/11. 382/11. 460/2. 

460/4. 502/12. 503/12. 507/11. 

519/4. 

743 4-222 Area-Specific Route Requests - Northern Hills 

Ranger District. 4-222 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should improve the connectivity of 

the trails in the Northern Hills if snowmobile 

trails can be connected then other trails can be 

too.

Many snowmobile trails pass through private property 

where the FS does not have jurisdiction to use them. 

The snowmobile trail program is run by the State of SD 

and they make agreements with the private land owners 

to pass through the private property. Some portions of 

snowmobile trails also pass through areas that would 

cause resource damage by wheeled vehicles but in the 

winter the ground is frozen and covered with snow and 

does not cause damage. 226/12. 

744 4-222 Area-Specific Route Requests - Northern Hills 

Ranger District. 4-222 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should improve the connectivity of 

the trails in the Northern Hills to allow users to 

access numerous areas from one base camp.

All businesses named in the commenter letter are on 

private property and surrounded by other jurisdiction 

lands. FS does not have authority to authorize routes 

on non FS land. Other agencies or private land owners 

will need to do that. Trails that connect between Ranger 

Districts are being considered in all alternatives.

247/22. 501/11.

745 4-223 Area-Specific Route Requests - Northern Hills 

Ranger District. 4-223 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should reduce the level of 

motorized recreationists travelling through 

Galena because of the noise and traffic.

All routes leading in and out of the Galena area are 

other jurisdiction roads or trails and not FS. Varying 

miles of routes that will connect to the other jurisdiction 

routes were considered in all alternatives. Any decision 

on routes will be documented in the Record of 

Decision. 

356/1.

746 4-224 Area-Specific Route Requests - Hell Canyon 

Ranger District. 4-224 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should increase the trails in the 

Hell Canyon Area to support the regional 

economy and provide recreation opportunities.

It is true that the number of designated trails is fewer 

within the administrative boundary of the Hell Canyon 

Ranger District. However, there are trails designated in 

the northwest portion of the District which connect to 

other trails proposed on the adjacent Mystic Ranger 

District. Furthermore, as opportunities arise, this 

decision would not preclude the designation of 

additional motorized trails in the future. Additional 

routes were reviewed and considered, and those chosen 

will be documented in the Record of Decision.

215/1. 379/11. 403/3. 441/2. 

450/13. 451/2. 495/11. 497/11. 

519/6. 534/15. 593/12. 594/2. 

595/2. 596/2. 597/1. 598/3. 

599/2. 600/2. 601/2. 602/2. 

604/12. 605/12. 607/4. 609/12 

747 4-224 Area-Specific Route Requests - Hell Canyon 

Ranger District. 4-224 Public Concern: The 

The Hell Canyon District resource staff was assigned 

the responsibility of reviewing proposed trail 

216/3. 460/3. 609/13.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

164

Forest Service should increase the trails in the 

Hell Canyon Area to avoid the impression that 

district staff did not do their jobs.

designation routes. This review included staff from 

Botany, Range, Archeology, Timber, Recreation, Fire 

and Fuels, Lands and Planning. This review was 

conducted to ensure that all resources were considered 

and protected according to law, police and regulation.

748 4-224 Area-Specific Route Requests - Hell Canyon 

Ranger District. 4-224 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should increase the trails in the 

Hell Canyon Area because the route designation 

process seems to have been inappropriately 

biased against motorized recreationists.

Both Alternatives B and C do offer designated trails on 

the Hell Canyon Ranger District. Additional routes were 

reviewed and considered, and those chosen will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. It is possible 

that in the future, additional trails could be designated in 

the Southern Hills, but this would need to be considered 

in detail in a separate environmental analysis. There was 

extensive consideration of trails, routes and areas 

submitted by the OHV user groups for the Hell Canyon 

Ranger District. Specialists who participated in this 

review included an Archeologist, Botanist, Range Tech, 

Wildlife Biologist, Recreation Tech, Travel Management 

Specialist, the District Ranger and an environmental 

compliance specialist (NEPA). 

534/16. 535/2.

749 4-224 Area-Specific Route Requests - Hell Canyon 

Ranger District. 4-224 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should increase the trails in the 

Hell Canyon Area because mixed-use routes are 

restricted to street-legal vehicles.

Each alternative to be considered by the Decision 

Maker has various levels of miles of trails designated for 

vehicles less than 65". The drivers license age 

requirements are South Dakota state law requirements, 

and are therefore outside the scope of this project. 

Additional routes were reviewed and considered, and 

those chosen will be documented in the Record of 

Decision. It is possible that in the future, additional 

trails could be designated in the Southern Hills, but this 

would need to be considered in detail in a separate 

environmental analysis. 

404/1. 

750 4-225 Area-Specific Route Requests - Hell Canyon 

Ranger District. 4-225 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include the OHV trails 

proposed by the public in the Hell Canyon 

District to provide a historic and less populated 

recreation opportunity.

It is true that the number of designated trails is fewer 

within the administrative boundary of the Hell Canyon 

Ranger District. However, there are trails designated in 

the northwest portion of the District which connect to 

other trails proposed on the adjacent Mystic Ranger 

District. Furthermore, as opportunities arise, this 

decision would not preclude the designation of 

additional motorized trails in the future. Additional 

routes were reviewed and considered, and those chosen 

will be documented in the Record of Decision.

492/3. 526/3. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

165

751 4-225 Area-Specific Route Requests - Hell Canyon 

Ranger District. 4-225 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include the OHV trails 

proposed by the public in the Hell Canyon 

District to correct errors in the process.

It is true that the number of designated trails is fewer 

within the administrative boundary of the Hell Canyon 

Ranger District. However, there are trails designated in 

the northwest portion of the District which connect to 

other trails proposed on the adjacent Mystic Ranger 

District. Furthermore, as opportunities arise, this 

decision would not preclude the designation of 

additional motorized trails in the future. Additional 

routes were reviewed and considered, and those chosen 

will be documented in the Record of Decision.

233/2. 502/11. 520/4. 

752 4-225 Area-Specific Route Requests - Hell Canyon 

Ranger District. 4-225 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include the OHV trails 

proposed by the public in the Hell Canyon 

District because they should not be eliminated on 

a whim.

It is true that the number of designated trails is fewer 

within the administrative boundary of the Hell Canyon 

Ranger District. However, there are trails designated in 

the northwest portion of the District which connect to 

other trails proposed on the adjacent Mystic Ranger 

District. Furthermore, as opportunities arise, this 

decision would not preclude the designation of 

additional motorized trails in the future. Additional 

routes were reviewed and considered, and those chosen 

will be documented in the Record of Decision.

453/4. 

753 4-226 Area-Specific Route Requests - Hell Canyon 

Ranger District. 4-226 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should clarify why the planning for 

the Hell Canyon District is not protective of nonmotorized users.

The Hell Canyon District resource staff was assigned 

the responsibility of reviewing proposed trail 

designation routes. This review included staff from 

Botany, Range, Archeology, Timber, Recreation, Fire 

and Fuels, Lands and Planning. This review was 

conducted to ensure that all resources were considered 

and protected according to law, police and regulation.

578/6.

754 4-227 Area-Specific Route Requests - Hell Canyon 

Ranger District. 4-227 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should review the proposed routes 

in the Hell Canyon Ranger District to address the 

flaws in the process related to the South Project.

The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) for the South Project 

worked with the Forest Travel Planning, addressing 

both routes to be closed and routes to be open, as well 

as the possibility of a trail system within the South 

project boundary. These discussions are documented in 

the South Project Planning Record. Additional routes 

were reviewed and considered, and those chosen will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. The Decision 

Maker for this Travel Management Plan could consider 

trail designation within the South Project area as part of 

this decision, or under a separate decision in the future.

459/2. 611/2.

755 4-227 Area-Specific Route Requests - Hell Canyon 

Ranger District. 4-227 Public Concern: The 

The Hell Canyon District resource staff was assigned 

the responsibility of reviewing proposed trail 

446/4.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

166

Forest Service should review the proposed routes 

in the Hell Canyon Ranger District to account for 

the shortage of routes in the district and around 

Custer Highlands.

designation routes. This review included staff from 

Botany, Range, Archeology, Timber, Recreation, Fire 

and Fuels, Lands and Planning. This review was 

conducted to ensure that all resources were considered 

and protected according to law, police and regulation.

7564-227 Area-Specific Route Requests - Hell Canyon 

Ranger District. 4-227 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should review the proposed routes 

in the Hell Canyon Ranger District to ensure that 

a sufficient range of opportunities has been 

provided.

Under Alternatives B and C in the Draft EIS, there are 

trails designated for ATV motorized use. Additional 

routes were reviewed and considered, and those chosen 

will be documented in the Record of Decision. 

Although the number of miles designated is less than in 

other areas of the Forest, it is possible that additional 

trail designation could be considered in the future. 

461/4.

7574-228 Area-Specific Route Requests - Hell Canyon 

Ranger District. 4-228 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include trails other than 

multiple-use

trails in the Hell Canyon District because they 

could be sustainable with little impact to the area.

The Hell Canyon District resource staff was assigned 

the responsibility of reviewing proposed trail 

designation routes. This review included staff from 

Botany, Range, Archeology, Timber, Recreation, Fire 

and Fuels, Lands and Planning. This review was 

conducted to ensure that all resources were considered 

and protected according to law, police and regulation.

508/11.

7584-229 Area-Specific Route Requests - Hell Canyon 

Ranger District. 4-229 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should connect the Hell Canyon 

District to the Southern Hills District.

It is true that the number of designated trails is fewer 

within the administrative boundary of the Hell Canyon 

Ranger District. However, there are trails designated in 

the northwest portion of the District which connect to 

other trails proposed on the adjacent Mystic Ranger

District. Furthermore, as opportunities arise, this 

decision would not preclude the designation of 

additional motorized trails in the future. Additional 

routes were reviewed and considered, and those chosen 

will be documented in the Record of Decision.

532/11.

7594-230 Area-Specific Route Requests - Southern and 

Central Hills Areas. 4-230 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should reduce the concentration of 

trails north of Pactola and open more trails in the 

Southern Hills.

Additional routes were reviewed and considered, and 

those chosen will be documented in the Record of 

Decision. Although currently there are fewer trails 

designated on the Southern Hills, it is possible that in 

the future, additional trails could be designated in the 

Southern Hills, but this would need to be considered in 

detail in a separate environmental analysis.

139/4.

7604-231 Area-Specific Route Requests - Southern and 

Central Hills Areas. 4-231 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should reconsider disallowing trails 

in the Southern Hills.

It is true that the number of designated trails is fewer 

within the administrative boundary of the Hell Canyon 

Ranger District. However, there are trails designated in 

the northwest portion of the District which connect to 

142/9.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

167

other trails proposed on the adjacent Mystic Ranger 

District. Furthermore, as opportunities arise, this 

decision would not preclude the designation of 

additional motorized trails in the future. Additional 

routes were reviewed and considered, and those chosen 

will be documented in the Record of Decision.

761 4-232 Area-Specific Route Requests - Southern and 

Central Hills Areas. 4-232 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include more motorized 

trails in the Southern Hills area because they 

would not have significant environmental impacts 

and to avoid the appearance of bias.

The area referred to in your letter dated 4/15/09 located 

between Sidney Park Road and Highway 385 in Sections 

11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24, 25, T 4S., R 4E was considered by 

the Hell Canyon District Staff. The specific reasons for 

not considering these routes as trails include concerns 

with soil and water, known heritage sites that need to be 

protected, livestock grazing conflicts, conflicts with 

adjacent private land owners and the isolated nature of 

this area did not lend itself to provide adequate 

motorized opportunities. Additional routes were 

reviewed and considered within Custer County, and 

those chosen will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

233/8. 262/11. 350/1. 520/4. 

593/12. 606/12. 

762 4-232 Area-Specific Route Requests - Southern and 

Central Hills Areas. 4-232 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include more motorized 

trails in the Southern Hills area and to support the 

local economy and allow for game retrieval.

Alternatives B and C propose designated ATV trails on 

the Hell Canyon Ranger District. Additional routes 

were reviewed and considered, and those chosen will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. It is possible 

that in the future, additional trails could be designated in 

the Southern Hills, but this would need to be considered 

in detail in a separate environmental analysis. There was 

extensive consideration of trails, routes and areas 

submitted by the OHV user groups for the Hell Canyon 

Ranger District. Specialists who participated in this 

review included an Archeologist, Botanist, Range Tech, 

Wildlife Biologist, Recreation Tech, Travel Management 

Specialist, the District Ranger and an environmental 

compliance specialist (NEPA). 

222/11. 223/11. 226/11. 

302/11. 514/11. 

763 4-232 Area-Specific Route Requests - Southern and 

Central Hills Areas. 4-232 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include more motorized 

trails in the Southern Hills area to support familyfriendly recreation.

Alternatives B and C propose designated ATV trails on 

the Hell Canyon Ranger District. Additional routes 

were reviewed and considered, and those chosen will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. It is possible 

that in the future, additional trails could be designated in 

the Southern Hills, but this would need to be considered 

in detail in a separate environmental analysis. There was 

450/14. 593/13. 595/3. 596/3. 

597/2. 598/4. 599/3. 601/3. 

606/13.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

168

extensive consideration of trails, routes and areas 

submitted by the OHV user groups for the Hell Canyon 

Ranger District. Specialists who participated in this 

review included an Archeologist, Botanist, Range Tech, 

Wildlife Biologist, Recreation Tech, Travel Management 

Specialist, the District Ranger and an environmental 

compliance specialist (NEPA). 

764 4-232 Area-Specific Route Requests - Southern and 

Central Hills Areas. 4-232 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include more motorized 

trails in the Southern Hills area because one 

person should not be able to exclude an entire 

area.

Alternatives B and C propose designated ATV trails on 

the Hell Canyon Ranger District. Additional routes 

were reviewed and considered, and those chosen will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. It is possible 

that in the future, additional trails could be designated in 

the Southern Hills, but this would need to be considered 

in detail in a separate environmental analysis. There was 

extensive consideration of trails, routes and areas 

submitted by the OHV user groups for the Hell Canyon 

Ranger District. Specialists who participated in this 

review included an Archeologist, Botanist, Range Tech, 

Wildlife Biologist, Recreation Tech, Travel Management 

Specialist, the District Ranger and an environmental 

compliance specialist (NEPA). 

119/2. 262/11. 606/12. 

765 4-232 Area-Specific Route Requests - Southern and 

Central Hills Areas. 4-232 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include more motorized 

trails in the Southern Hills area to spread the use 

throughout the forest.

Alternatives B and C propose designated ATV trails on 

the Hell Canyon Ranger District. Additional routes 

were reviewed and considered, and those chosen will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. It is possible 

that in the future, additional trails could be designated in 

the Southern Hills, but this would need to be considered 

in detail in a separate environmental analysis. There was 

extensive consideration of trails, routes and areas 

submitted by the OHV user groups for the Hell Canyon 

Ranger District. Specialists who participated in this 

review included an Archeologist, Botanist, Range Tech, 

Wildlife Biologist, Recreation Tech, Travel Management 

Specialist, the District Ranger and an environmental 

compliance specialist (NEPA). 

375/2. 426/4. 439/3. 486/2. 

503/11. 510/11. 

766 4-232 Area-Specific Route Requests - Southern and 

Central Hills Areas. 4-232 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include more motorized 

trails in the Southern Hills area to allow full 

access to the Forest.

Alternatives B and C propose designated ATV trails on 

the Hell Canyon Ranger District. Additional routes 

were reviewed and considered, and those chosen will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. It is possible 

that in the future, additional trails could be designated in 

221/11. 324/3. 362/21. 445/10. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

169

the Southern Hills, but this would need to be considered 

in detail in a separate environmental analysis. There was 

extensive consideration of trails, routes and areas 

submitted by the OHV user groups for the Hell Canyon 

Ranger District. Specialists who participated in this 

review included an Archeologist, Botanist, Range Tech, 

Wildlife Biologist, Recreation Tech, Travel Management 

Specialist, the District Ranger and an environmental 

compliance specialist (NEPA). 

767 4-232 Area-Specific Route Requests - Southern and 

Central Hills Areas. 4-232 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include more motorized 

trails in the Southern Hills area including 

conditionally including routes that were removed 

due to unresolved easement issues.

Alternatives B and C propose designated ATV trails on 

the Hell Canyon Ranger District. Additional routes 

were reviewed and considered, and those chosen will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. It is possible 

that in the future, additional trails could be designated in 

the Southern Hills, but this would need to be considered 

in detail in a separate environmental analysis. There was 

extensive consideration of trails, routes and areas 

submitted by the OHV user groups for the Hell Canyon 

Ranger District. Specialists who participated in this 

review included an Archeologist, Botanist, Range Tech, 

Wildlife Biologist, Recreation Tech, Travel Management 

Specialist, the District Ranger and an environmental 

compliance specialist (NEPA). 

461/24.

768 4-233 Area-Specific Route Requests - Southern and 

Central Hills Areas. 4-233 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should ensure sufficient motorized 

trail access in the Southern Hills to allow riders 

under 16 to have trail access.

Each alternative to be considered by the Decision 

Maker has various levels of miles of trails designated for 

vehicles less than 65". The drivers license age 

requirements are South Dakota state law requirements, 

and are therefore outside the scope of this project. It 

is possible that in the future, additional trails could be 

designated in the Southern Hills, but this would need to 

be considered in detail in a separate environmental 

analysis. 

470/7. 498/11.

769 4-234 Area-Specific Route Requests - Southern and 

Central Hills Areas. 4-234 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should seek out alternative routes 

in the Southern Hills to mitigate for the closure of 

routes.

Thank you for your comments regarding the Black Hills 

National Forest Travel Management Plan DEIS. In 

response to the rock crawling trails in the Southern 

Black Hills: Both the Hell Canyon District Ranger, 

Lynn Kolund and the District Archeologist, Anthony 

King hiked some of these trails to become familiar with 

the interest and concerns. These trails were submitted 

as a rock crawling trail route to be considered in the 

393/11. 470/9.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

170

Travel Management planning process. The Decision 

Maker will consider this request. If this trail is not 

designated during this planning process it is possible 

that in the future additional trails could be designated in 

the Southern Hills. However, this would need to be 

considered in detail in a separate environmental analysis. 

770 4-235 Area-Specific Route Requests - Southern and 

Central Hills Areas. 4-235 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should connect the Southern Hills 

to the greater Black Hills.

It is true that the number of designated trails is fewer 

within the administrative boundary of the Hell Canyon 

Ranger District. However, there are trails designated in 

the northwest portion of the District which connect to 

other trails proposed on the adjacent Mystic Ranger 

District. Furthermore, as opportunities arise, this 

decision would not preclude the designation of 

additional motorized trails in the future. Additional 

routes were reviewed and considered, and those chosen 

will be documented in the Record of Decision.

530/11.

771 4-236 Area-Specific Route Requests - Southern and 

Central Hills Areas. 4-236 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should provide access to nongravel roads in the Southern Hills.

I appreciate your thoughts and insights into this Travel 

management process thus far. Your comments and 

recommendations will be considered by the Decision 

Maker.

261/11.

772 4-237 Area-Specific Route Requests - Southern and 

Central Hills Areas. 4-237 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should limit road access in the area 

west of 385, north of 16, south of 85 and east of 

the Wyoming border to make the Central Hills a 

haven for wildlife and provide for future 

sustainability.

I appreciate your thoughts and insights into this Travel 

management process thus far. Your comments and 

recommendations will be considered by the Decision 

Maker.

516/3.

773 4-238 Area-Specific Route Requests - Southern and 

Central Hills Areas. 4-238 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should revisit the proposed rockcrawling trails in the Southern Hills because they 

do not accurately reflect the public's requests.

Thank you for your comments regarding the Black Hills 

National Forest Travel Management Plan DEIS. In 

response to the rock crawling trails in the Southern 

Black Hills: Both the Hell Canyon District Ranger, 

Lynn Kolund and the District Archeologist, Anthony 

King hiked some of these trails to become familiar with 

the interest and concerns. These trails were submitted 

as a rock crawling trail route to be considered in the 

Travel Management planning process. The Decision 

Maker will consider this request. If this trail is not 

designated during this planning process it is possible 

that in the future additional trails could be designated in 

the Southern Hills. However, this would need to be 

470/2.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

171

considered in detail in a separate environmental analysis. 

774 4-239 Area-Specific Route Requests - Southern and 

Central Hills Areas. 4-239 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should reduce trail concentration 

in the Central Hills and increase the concentration 

in the Southern Hills to more evenly distribute 

motorized travel.

I appreciate your thoughts and insights into this Travel 

management process thus far. Your comments and 

recommendations will be considered by the Decision 

Maker.

141/5.

775 4-240 Area-Specific Route Requests - Southern and 

Central Hills Areas. 4-240 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should add the Edgemont area to 

the rock crawling trails in the Southern Hills 

because the area is sparsely populated.

Thank you for your comments regarding the Black Hills 

National Forest Travel Management Plan DEIS. In 

response to the rock crawling trails in the Southern 

Black Hills: Both the Hell Canyon District Ranger, 

Lynn Kolund and the District Archeologist, Anthony 

King hiked some of these trails to become familiar with 

the interest and concerns. These trails were submitted 

as a rock crawling trail route to be considered in the 

Travel Management planning process. The Decision 

Maker will consider this request. If this trail is not 

designated during this planning process it is possible 

that in the future additional trails could be designated in 

the Southern Hills. However, this would need to be 

considered in detail in a separate environmental analysis. 

With respect to your concerns for youth under 16 years 

of age, this is a licensing requirement of the State of 

South Dakota, which the Forest Service has no control 

of. The benefit of mixed use designation is that all 

motorized users would be allowed on this roads, instead 

of limiting the use to only one type. 467/1.

776 4-241 Area-Specific Route Requests - Bearlodge 

District. 4-241 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should acknowledge that increasing the 

areas in Bearlodge that are accessible only by 

OHVs will result in additional illegal roads and 

resource damage.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives 

for motorized opportunities. While Alternative C 

offered the greatest opportunity for motorized access on 

the Bearlodge District, Alternative D offers the least 

amount of motorized access. Each alternative was 

analyzed in detail and effects on natural resources 

documented in Chapter 3.

346/26. 346/27.

777 4-242 Area-Specific Route Requests - Bearlodge 

District. 4-242 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should justify the open road densities in 

the Bearlodge District because they are lower than 

the other districts.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives 

for motorized opportunities. While Alternative C 

offered the greatest opportunity for motorized access on 

the Bearlodge District, Alternative D offers the least 

amount of motorized access. Each alternative was 

analyzed in detail and effects on natural resources 

346/2.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

172

documented in Chapter 3.

778 4-243 Area-Specific Route Requests - Bearlodge 

District. 4-243 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should open more roads in the Bearlodge 

District to motorized travel because the proposed 

densities in this district are lower than the others.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives 

for motorized opportunities. Alternatives B and C 

offers more motorized opportunities than Alternatives 

D and E on the central Bearlodge District. Many of the 

roads currently closed to motorized use under 

Alternative A are proposed to be open to either less 

than 50-inch vehicles under Alternative B or open to all 

vehicles under Alternative C to increase opportunities 

for motorized recreation in the central Bearlodge 

Mountains. Each alternative was analyzed in detail and 

effects on natural resources documented in Chapter 3.

346/30. 355/1.

779 4-243 Area-Specific Route Requests - Bearlodge 

District. 4-243 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should open more roads in the Bearlodge 

District to motorized travel because the majority 

of roads in the southern Bearlodge District are 

gated and closed.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives 

for motorized opportunities. Alternative C offered the 

greatest opportunity for motorized access on the 

Bearlodge District. Each alternative was analyzed in 

detail and effects on natural resources documented in 

Chapter 3.

355/2.

780 4-244 Area-Specific Route Requests - Bearlodge 

District. 4-244 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should reduce motorized access in the 

central Bearlodge District because OHV 

operation disturbs game animals.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives 

for motorized opportunities. While Alternative C 

offered the greatest opportunity for motorized access on 

the Bearlodge District, Alternative D offers the least 

amount of motorized access. Each alternative was 

analyzed in detail and effects on natural resources 

documented in Chapter 3.

346/25.

781 4-245 Area-Specific Route Requests - Bearlodge 

District. 4-245 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should open an area in the southern 

Bearlodge District for OHV travel only to allow 

current levels of motorized access.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives 

for motorized opportunities. Each alternative was 

analyzed in detail and effects on natural resources 

documented in Chapter 3.

346/34.

782 4-246 Area-Specific Route Requests - Bearlodge 

District. 4-246 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should retain walk-in-only access to the 

Wood Canyon, Cook Lake, Rednose, and 

Sundance areas in Bearlodge District to provide 

more walk-in access.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives 

for motorized game retrieval opportunities. Under all 

alternatives, the currently established walk-in only areas 

of Wood Canyon, Cook Lake, Rednose, and Sundance 

Burn have been retained as non-motorized areas. Each 

alternative was analyzed in detail and effects on natural 

resources documented in Chapter 3.

346/29.

783 4-247 Area-Specific Route Requests - Bearlodge 

District. 4-247 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should maintain walk-in-only access to the 

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives 

for motorized game retrieval opportunities. Under all 

alternatives, the currently established walk-in only areas 

346/32.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

173

Dugout, North Sand Creek, Hamilton, Sand 

Creek Roadless, and Upper Sand Creek Botanical 

Areas to balance the increased road densities in 

other areas of the Bearlodge District.

of Dugout, North Sand Creek, Hamilton, Sand Creek 

Roadless, and Upper Sand Creek have been retained as 

non-motorized areas. Each alternative was analyzed in 

detail and effects on natural resources documented in 

Chapter 3.

784 4-248 Area-Specific Route Requests - Bearlodge 

District. 4-248 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should close the Scott-Hardy Spring area 

in the Bearlodge District to motor vehicles 

because the area provides big game and wild 

turkey habitat.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives 

for motorized opportunities. No motorized 

opportunities were considered under any alternative for 

the Scott-Hardy Springs area. Each alternative was 

analyzed in detail and effects on natural resources 

documented in Chapter 3.

346/31.

785 4-249 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

249 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

ensure that sufficient funding is available to 

implement the plan.

The Forest is committed to using whatever funds it has 

available to accomplish the purposes of the final 

decision in a targeted, efficient manner. Funding could 

include appropriations, cooperative relationships with 

other government entities, volunteer agreements, and 

user fees. 

247/16. 362/22.

786 4-250 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

250 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

ensure sufficient funds are available for 

enforcement, management, construction, and 

maintenance to lessen resource damage.

The Forest is committed to using whatever funds it has 

available to accomplish the purposes of the final 

decision in a targeted, efficient manner. Funding could 

include appropriations, cooperative relationships with 

other government entities, volunteer agreements, and 

user fees. For enforcement; FS law enforcement 

personnel play a critical role in ensuring compliance 

with laws and regulations, protecting public safety, and 

protecting NF resources. The FS also maintains 

cooperative relationships with many State and local law 

enforcement agencies that provide mutual support 

across jurisdictional boundaries. Education and 

cooperative relationships with users will support 

enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance. The Forest Service projects costs of 

operating and maintaining the system. This will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

305/2. 

787 4-250 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

250 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

ensure sufficient funds are available for 

enforcement, management, construction, and 

maintenance because without sufficient funds the 

plan is unenforceable and unsustainable.

The Forest is committed to using whatever funds it has 

available to accomplish the purposes of the final 

decision in a targeted, efficient manner. Funding could 

include appropriations, cooperative relationships with 

other government entities, volunteer agreements, and 

user fees. For enforcement; FS law enforcement 

327/1. 406/5. 419/3. 449/1. 

465/38. 473/21. 578/40.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

174

personnel play a critical role in ensuring compliance 

with laws and regulations, protecting public safety, and 

protecting NF resources. The FS also maintains 

cooperative relationships with many State and local law 

enforcement agencies that provide mutual support 

across jurisdictional boundaries. Education and 

cooperative relationships with users will support 

enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance. 

788 4-250 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

250 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

ensure sufficient funds are available for 

enforcement, management, construction, and 

maintenance because they haven't had the funds 

to manage the system they have now.

The Forest is committed to using whatever funds it has 

available to accomplish the purposes of the final 

decision in a targeted, efficient manner. Funding could 

include appropriations, cooperative relationships with 

other government entities, volunteer agreements, and

user fees. For enforcement; FS law enforcement 

personnel play a critical role in ensuring compliance 

with laws and regulations, protecting public safety, and 

protecting NF resources. The FS also maintains 

cooperative relationships with many State and local law 

enforcement agencies that provide mutual support 

across jurisdictional boundaries. Education and 

cooperative relationships with users will support 

enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance. 

474/24. 544/2.

789 4-251 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

251 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

ensure sufficient funding is available for 

enforcement to support the objective of the plan.

The Forest is committed to using whatever funds it has 

available to accomplish the purposes of the final 

decision in a targeted, efficient manner. Funding could 

include appropriations, cooperative relationships with 

other government entities, volunteer agreements, and 

user fees. For enforcement; FS law enforcement 

personnel play a critical role in ensuring compliance 

with laws and regulations, protecting public safety, and 

protecting NF resources. The FS also maintains 

cooperative relationships with many State and local law 

enforcement agencies that provide mutual support 

across jurisdictional boundaries. Education and 

cooperative relationships with users will support 

enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance. 

372/10. 475/13.

790 4-252 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4- The Forest is committed to using whatever funds it has 270/3. 412/1. 443/2. 456/146. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

175

252 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

ensure that the size of the road system is 

commensurate with the size of available funds.

available to accomplish the purposes of the final 

decision in a targeted, efficient manner. Funding could 

include appropriations, cooperative relationships with 

other government entities, volunteer agreements, and 

user fees. 

459/11. 465/2. 465/39. 611/11.

791 4-253 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

253 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

clarify where funding will come from to ensure 

successful management is possible.

The Forest is committed to using whatever funds it has 

available to accomplish the purposes of the final 

decision in a targeted, efficient manner. Funding could 

include appropriations, cooperative relationships with 

other government entities, volunteer agreements, and 

user fees. 

319/53. 456/59. 458/54. 

462/42.

792 4-254 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

254 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

provide support for their estimate of maintenance 

costs.

Maintenance costs will vary widely based on physical 

location of the work, amount of use on the route, route 

surface type and condition, economic climate, and 

whether the work is performed by agency employees or 

contractors. Generally, average costs used for the 

purpose of comparing alternatives were based on similar 

work on other Region 2 Forests. Implementation will 

occur based on resource availability and decisions on the 

amount of maintenance needed will be based on 

monitoring of actual conditions.

456/151. 456/152.

793 4-255 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

255 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

use the cost estimating model created by Dr. 

Michael Wing because it provides a 

comprehensive approach.

Thank you for your suggestion. A comprehensive cost 

analysis was conducted by Forest Service recreation and 

engineering staff. The results of the cost analysis is 

contain in Chapter 3 of the DEIS.

456/58. 458/53.

794 4-256 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

256 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that a managed trail system is more 

expensive than an unmanaged system because 

there are numerous additional costs.

Maintenance costs will vary widely based on physical 

location of the work, amount of use on the route, route 

surface type and condition, economic climate, and 

whether the work is performed by agency employees or 

contractors. Generally, average costs used for the 

purpose of comparing alternatives were based on similar 

work on other Region 2 Forests. Implementation will 

occur based on resource availability and decisions on the 

amount of maintenance needed will be based on 

monitoring of actual conditions.

319/47. 456/51. 458/46. 

462/36.

795 4-257 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

257 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that the maintenance costs have 

been underestimated.

Maintenance costs will vary widely based on physical 

location of the work, amount of use on the route, route 

surface type and condition, economic climate, and 

whether the work is performed by agency employees or 

319/48. 319/49. 456/52. 

456/53. 458/47. 458/48. 

462/37. 462/38.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

176

contractors. Generally, average costs used for the 

purpose of comparing alternatives were based on similar 

work on other Region 2 Forests. Implementation will 

occur based on resource availability and decisions on the 

amount of maintenance needed will be based on 

monitoring of actual conditions.

796 4-258 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

258 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

minimize costs associated with use of motorized 

vehicles including lawsuits and health care costs

Costs and user safety on motorized systems proposed in 

the alternatives were considered in the effects analysis. 

See FEIS, Chapter 3, Engineering and Transportation 

section. 

456/129.

797 4-258 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

258 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

minimize costs associated with use of motorized 

vehicles including dust treatment costs.

The alternatives address the proximity of motorized 

routes near private lands and non-motorized trails in 

different ways. It is difficult to estimate the need for 

dust abatement measures since these will depend on 

levels of use, surface conditions, weather, etc. Costs and 

fugitive dust emissions from use of motorized systems 

under each alternative were considered in the effects 

analysis in the EIS, Chapter 3, Engineering and 

Transportation section. 

456/128.

798 4-258 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

258 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

minimize costs associated with use of motorized 

vehicles including costs from loss of plant and 

animal species.

The alternatives address the effects of motorized use on 

plant and animal habitat in different ways. All action 

alternatives reduce the area available for motorized 

cross-country use from current levels. It is difficult to 

estimate the need for habitat enhancement since this 

may depend on a variety of factors. Costs of motorized 

systems under each alternative were considered in the 

effects analysis in the EIS, Chapter 3, Engineering and 

Transportation section. Effects on plant and animal 

species are disclosed in the Botanical and Wildlife 

sections. 

456/132.

799 4-258 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

258 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

minimize costs associated with use of motorized 

vehicles including costs of long-term monitoring.

The alternatives address the effects of motorized use on 

plant and animal species in different ways. All action 

alternatives reduce the area available for motorized 

cross-country use from current levels. Long-term 

monitoring of habitat elements is conducted under 

Forest Plan monitoring, and further monitoring needs 

are identified in the FEIS. Costs of motorized systems 

under each alternative were considered in the effects 

analysis in the EIS, Chapter 3, Engineering and 

Transportation section. Effects on plant and animal 

456/125.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

177

species are disclosed in the Botanical and Wildlife 

sections. 

800 4-258 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

258 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

minimize costs associated with use of motorized 

vehicles including incremental costs of 

Maintenance level 2 roads.

Costs associated with mixed-use on Maintenance Level 

2 and other roads were analyzed and disclosed in the 

FEIS, Chapter 3, Engineering and Transportation 

section. 

431/7. 456/126.

801 4-258 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

258 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

minimize costs associated with use of motorized 

vehicles including the cost of being unable to 

establish walk-in-only areas.

The purpose of this proposal is to designate roads, trails 

and areas for motorized use. The analysis did not 

change allocations made in the Forest Plan. The effects 

of motorized use on non-motorized recreation are 

disclosed in the FEIS in Chapter 3, in the Recreation 

section. 

456/130.

802 4-258 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

258 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

minimize costs associated with use of motorized 

vehicles including the costs to local 911 

responders.

Costs and user safety on motorized systems proposed in 

the alternatives were considered in the effects analysis. 

See FEIS, Chapter 3, Engineering and Transportation 

section. 

456/131.

803 4-258 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

258 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

minimize costs associated with use of motorized 

vehicles including the costs of diverting Forest 

Service personnel and funding away from other 

projects.

Congressional appropriations are beyond the scope of 

this analysis. The Forest Service will implement 

programs according to budgets provided. 

456/133.

804 4-258 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

258 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

minimize costs associated with use of motorized 

vehicles including costs of rehabilitating damage 

already done.

One of the elements of the purpose and need for this 

project is to reduce adverse impacts caused by 

unmanaged cross-country and road and trail use. Route 

closure and rehabilitation is not the focus of this 

analysis, but can be proposed in future project decisions 

based on monitoring of resource needs. 

456/127.

805 4-259 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

259 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

increase enforcement to ensure the effectiveness 

of the plan.

The Forest is committed to using whatever funds it has 

available to accomplish the purposes of the final 

decision in a targeted, efficient manner. Funding could 

include appropriations, cooperative relationships with 

other government entities, volunteer agreements, and 

user fees. For enforcement; FS law enforcement 

personnel play a critical role in ensuring compliance 

with laws and regulations, protecting public safety, and 

protecting NF resources. The FS also maintains 

cooperative relationships with many State and local law 

232/4. 277/5. 319/11. 319/43. 

343/3. 356/6. 414/10. 414/28. 

452/2. 456/41. 456/98. 458/35. 

458/74. 461/29. 462/11. 

462/32. 548/11. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

178

enforcement agencies that provide mutual support 

across jurisdictional boundaries. Education and 

cooperative relationships with users will support 

enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance.

806 4-259 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

259 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

increase enforcement to protect the Black Hills 

National Forest.

Forest Service law enforcement personnel play a critical 

role in ensuring compliance with laws and regulations, 

protecting public safety, and protecting National Forest 

resources. The Forest Service also maintains 

cooperative relationships with many State and local law 

enforcement agencies that provide mutual support 

across jurisdictional boundaries. Education and 

cooperative relationships with users support 

enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance. The final rule will not increase the agency's 

budget or the number of law enforcement officers. 

However, the final rule will enhance enforcement by 

substituting a regulatory prohibition for closure orders 

and providing for a motor vehicle use map 

supplemented by signage.

121/4. 151/1. 423/1. 424/4. 

427/2. 436/3. 486/4. 527/3.

807 4-259 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

259 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

increase enforcement including fining illegal offroad use.

The Forest is committed to using whatever funds it has 

available to accomplish the purposes of the final 

decision in a targeted, efficient manner. Funding could 

include appropriations, cooperative relationships with 

other government entities, volunteer agreements, and 

user fees. For enforcement; FS law enforcement 

personnel play a critical role in ensuring compliance 

with laws and regulations, protecting public safety, and 

protecting NF resources. The FS also maintains 

cooperative relationships with many State and local law 

enforcement agencies that provide mutual support 

across jurisdictional boundaries. Education and 

cooperative relationships with users will support 

enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance. Enforcement will be conducted as 

necessary. Means of enforcement is beyond the scope 

of this analysis. 

123/5. 156/3. 181/2. 214/4. 

341/4. 342/4. 344/5. 

808 4-259 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

259 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

increase enforcement to reduce the number of 

The Forest is committed to using whatever funds it has 

available to accomplish the purposes of the final 

decision in a targeted, efficient manner. Funding could 

121/3. 426/6. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

179

user-created trails. include appropriations, cooperative relationships with 

other government entities, volunteer agreements, and 

user fees. For enforcement; FS law enforcement 

personnel play a critical role in ensuring compliance 

with laws and regulations, protecting public safety, and 

protecting NF resources. The FS also maintains 

cooperative relationships with many State and local law 

enforcement agencies that provide mutual support 

across jurisdictional boundaries. Education and 

cooperative relationships with users will support 

enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance. Enforcement will be conducted as 

necessary. Means of enforcement is beyond the scope 

of this analysis. 

809 4-259 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

259 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

increase enforcement because current levels of 

enforcement are not sufficient.

The Forest is committed to using whatever funds it has 

available to accomplish the purposes of the final 

decision in a targeted, efficient manner. Funding could 

include appropriations, cooperative relationships with 

other government entities, volunteer agreements, and 

user fees. For enforcement; FS law enforcement 

personnel play a critical role in ensuring compliance 

with laws and regulations, protecting public safety, and 

protecting NF resources. The FS also maintains 

cooperative relationships with many State and local law 

enforcement agencies that provide mutual support 

across jurisdictional boundaries. Education and 

cooperative relationships with users will support 

enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance. Enforcement will be conducted as 

necessary. Means of enforcement is beyond the scope 

of this analysis. 

157/1. 357/7. 474/14. 522/3. 

810 4-259 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

259 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

increase enforcement because motorized users 

frequently break the rules.

The Travel Management Rule places more responsibility 

on Forest users to comply with the terms of the Rule 

and the MVUM. The Forest has no evidence to suggest 

that most users of the Black Hills National Forest will 

not comply, and the analysis assumes that most users 

will comply with the terms of the MVUM. Appropriate 

adjustments can be made based on monitoring. 

Enforcement will be conducted as needed. 

479/2.

811 4-260 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4- The Travel Management Rule places more responsibility 047/4. 319/44. 319/45. 414/29. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

180

260 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that significant number of OHV 

riders knowingly break the law.

on Forest users to comply with the terms of the Rule 

and the MVUM. The Forest has no evidence to suggest 

that most users of the Black Hills National Forest will 

not comply, and the analysis assumes that most users 

will comply with the terms of the MVUM. Appropriate 

adjustments can be made based on monitoring. 

414/30. 456/42. 456/43. 

458/36. 458/37. 462/33. 

462/34. 

812 4-261 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

261 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

enforce the rules that are already in place 

including confiscation of offenders' vehicles.

Enforcement will be conducted as needed. The means 

of enforcement is beyond the scope of this analysis. 

162/1. 163/2.

813 4-261 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

261 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

enforce the rules that are already in place 

including issuing tickets to offenders.

Enforcement will be conducted as needed. The means 

of enforcement is beyond the scope of this analysis. 

115/2. 146/4. 212/5.

814 4-262 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

262 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

enforce current rules rather than creating more 

restrictions.

The Travel Rule supports the idea that National Forests 

should provide access for both motorized and nonmotorized users in a manner that is environmentally 

sustainable over the long term.

046/2. 327/5.

815 4-263 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

263 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

provide sufficient law enforcement officers to 

enforce the proposed plan to ensure the 

enforcement is adequate and safe. 

The Forest is committed to using whatever funds it has 

available to accomplish the purposes of the final 

decision in a targeted, efficient manner. Funding could 

include appropriations, cooperative relationships with 

other government entities, volunteer agreements, and 

user fees. For enforcement; FS law enforcement 

personnel play a critical role in ensuring compliance 

with laws and regulations, protecting public safety, and 

protecting NF resources. The FS also maintains 

cooperative relationships with many State and local law 

enforcement agencies that provide mutual support 

across jurisdictional boundaries. Education and 

cooperative relationships with users will support 

enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance.

052/2. 125/1. 152/2. 479/3. 

479/9. 

816 4-263 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

263 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

provide sufficient law enforcement officers to 

enforce the proposed plan because without 

adequate enforcement the plan is pointless. 

The Forest is committed to using whatever funds it has 

available to accomplish the purposes of the final 

decision in a targeted, efficient manner. Funding could 

include appropriations, cooperative relationships with 

other government entities, volunteer agreements, and 

user fees. For enforcement; FS law enforcement 

personnel play a critical role in ensuring compliance 122/4. 245/6. 479/14
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

181

with laws and regulations, protecting public safety, and 

protecting NF resources. The FS also maintains 

cooperative relationships with many State and local law 

enforcement agencies that provide mutual support 

across jurisdictional boundaries. Education and 

cooperative relationships with users will support 

enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance.

817 4-264 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

264 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

provide adequate enforcement of the plan to 

allow for non-motorized as well as motorized 

access.

The Forest is committed to using whatever funds it has 

available to accomplish the purposes of the final 

decision in a targeted, efficient manner. Funding could 

include appropriations, cooperative relationships with 

other government entities, volunteer agreements, and 

user fees. For enforcement; FS law enforcement 

personnel play a critical role in ensuring compliance 

with laws and regulations, protecting public safety, and 

protecting NF resources. The FS also maintains 

cooperative relationships with many State and local law 

enforcement agencies that provide mutual support 

across jurisdictional boundaries. Education and 

cooperative relationships with users will support 

enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance. The alternatives provide for different levels 

of motorized use as described in the FEIS, Chapter 2. 034/2. 043/2.

818 4-264 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

264 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

provide adequate enforcement of the plan to 

ensure that ATV users close gates, stay on trails, 

and don't drive through water dugouts.

The Forest is committed to using whatever funds it has 

available to accomplish the purposes of the final 

decision in a targeted, efficient manner. Funding could 

include appropriations, cooperative relationships with 

other government entities, volunteer agreements, and 

user fees. For enforcement; FS law enforcement 

personnel play a critical role in ensuring compliance 

with laws and regulations, protecting public safety, and 

protecting NF resources. The FS also maintains 

cooperative relationships with many State and local law 

enforcement agencies that provide mutual support 

across jurisdictional boundaries. Education and 

cooperative relationships with users will support 

enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance. The analysis assumes that most users will 

comply with the MVUM and requirements. Options are 113/2. 150/2. 172/2. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

182

available to address situations based on monitoring. 

819 4-265 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

265 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

develop a comprehensive enforcement strategy to 

minimize resource damage

Thank you for your suggestions. Temporary closures 

can always be undertaken to address resource damage. 

Specific enforcement strategies are beyond the scope of 

this analysis. 

176/1. 319/46. 414/31. 456/44. 

458/38. 462/35.

820 4-266 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

266 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

avoid creating a forest police force or a trail 

grooming agency.

Thank you for your comment. 420/6.

821 4-267 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

267 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

explain how the motor vehicle use map will be 

used to aid enforcement.

The nationally standardized Motor Vehicle Use Map is 

the primary enforcement tool for law enforcement. 

While the map format is standardized, we will have 

choices on scale and size. Every effort will be made to 

ensure the MVUM is clear and legible.

474/21.

822 4-268 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

268 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

reconsider relying on local residents to help 

enforce the rules because it is unrealistic.

The Forest is committed to using whatever funds it has 

available to accomplish the purposes of the final 

decision in a targeted, efficient manner. Funding could 

include appropriations, cooperative relationships with 

other government entities, volunteer agreements, and 

user fees. For enforcement; FS law enforcement 

personnel play a critical role in ensuring compliance 

with laws and regulations, protecting public safety, and 

protecting NF resources. The FS also maintains 

cooperative relationships with many State and local law 

enforcement agencies that provide mutual support 

across jurisdictional boundaries. Education and 

cooperative relationships with users will support 

enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance.

474/19.

823 4-269 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

269 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

reconsider relying on volunteers for enforcement 

because volunteer groups are not always effective.

The Forest is committed to using whatever funds it has 

available to accomplish the purposes of the final 

decision in a targeted, efficient manner. Funding could 

include appropriations, cooperative relationships with 

other government entities, volunteer agreements, and 

user fees. For enforcement; FS law enforcement 

personnel play a critical role in ensuring compliance 

with laws and regulations, protecting public safety, and 

protecting NF resources. The FS also maintains 

cooperative relationships with many State and local law 

enforcement agencies that provide mutual support 

474/18.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

183

across jurisdictional boundaries. Education and 

cooperative relationships with users will support 

enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance.

824 4-270 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

270 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

consider working with citizen volunteers to 

ensure adequate enforcement.

There are many ways that interested individuals and 

groups can assist the Forest Service during the 

implementation of the travel plan. Successful 

implementation will be highly dependent upon the 

publics help and support, including assistance with road 

and trail maintenance, signing, education and even 

enforcement. Cooperative agreements with other 

Federal, State and local agencies to provide assistance 

are another method available to expand enforcement 

capabilities.

050/2. 314/7. 504/18. 

825 4-271 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

271 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

implement the proposed trail ranger program to 

support responsible OHV operation, education 

and enforcement.

There are many ways that interested individuals and 

groups can assist the Forest Service during the 

implementation of the travel plan. Successful 

implementation will be highly dependent upon the 

publics help and support, including assistance with road 

and trail maintenance, signing, education and even 

enforcement. Cooperative agreements with other 

Federal, State and local agencies to provide assistance 

are another method available to expand enforcement 

capabilities.

030/6.

826 4-272 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

272 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

increase use of cameras for enforcement of 

Alternative C to allow for cost-effective 

identification of trouble areas and miscreants.

Enforcement means are beyond the scope of this 

analysis. 

093/2.

827 4-273 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

273 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

include clear definitions of how changes to the 

system will be made and how enforcement and 

maintenance will occur.

Thank you for your suggestions. They will be taken into 

consideration as the Forest begins moving toward 

implementation of the final decision. The 

implementation plan will address a variety of topics. 

Some changes to routes and uses may need to be 

addressed in future environmental analysis and 

decisions. 

247/17.

828 4-274 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

274 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

strictly control motorized use of the Forest to 

protect wildlife and scenic values and increase 

The purpose of this analysis includes reducing adverse 

impacts of unmanaged cross-country and road and trail 

use. The analysis includes the evaluation of user created 

routes and system routes for possible designation into 

254/5.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

184

safety. the Forest Travel System. The evaluation of each route 

considered land and resource management needs 

(including fire) as well as factors such as compatibility 

with existing land prescriptions and/or designations, 

impacts to the resource, wildlife objectives, safety, 

existing and/or potential conflicts as well as information 

provided from the public. These routes will also need 

to meet existing objectives, standards and specifications 

as identified within Forest Service Manuals and 

Handbooks. Routes that are determined to provide a 

benefit to the public and are consistent with the above 

factors are candidates for inclusion into the 

transportation system. Effects of the alternatives are 

disclosed in the FEIS in Chapter 3. 

829 4-275 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

275 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

reduce the number of trails allotted to motorized 

recreation to increase the enforcement per mile.

The purpose and need for this proposal is to designate a 

motorized trail system. Reasons for this proposal 

include to reduce potential for damaging natural 

resources, improve user experience through a betterdesigned system, improve enforcement capability, and 

to comply with national direction. Issue 3 in Chapter 1 

of the EIS recognizes the concern for system design 

relative to management capability including 

enforcement. The alternatives address this issue in 

different ways. 141/7. 

830 4-275 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

275 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

reduce the number of trails allotted to motorized 

recreation because a large motorized trail system 

exceeds the Forest's capacity for maintenance and 

enforcement.

The purpose and need for this proposal is to designate a 

motorized trail system. Reasons for this proposal 

include to reduce potential for damaging natural 

resources, improve user experience through a betterdesigned system, improve enforcement capability, and 

to comply with national direction. Issue 3 in Chapter 1 

of the EIS recognizes the concern for system design 

relative to management capability including 

enforcement. The alternatives address this issue in 

different ways.

066/2. 179/4. 

831 4-276 Implementation, Enforcement, and Funding. 4-

276 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

limit the areas open to motorized access to 

facilitate enforcement.

The purpose and need for this proposal is to designate a 

motorized trail system. Reasons for this proposal 

include to reduce potential for damaging natural 

resources, improve user experience through a betterdesigned system, improve enforcement capability, and 

to comply with national direction. Issue 3 in Chapter 1 

027/3.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

185

of the EIS recognizes the concern for system design 

relative to management capability including 

enforcement. The alternatives address this issue in 

different ways. 

832 4-277 Licensing. 4-277 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should require licensing for all motorized 

vehicles using National Forest lands to facilitate 

the identification of law breakers.

License requirements are addressed by state statutes for 

SD/WY. On FS roads you will need a driver's license. 

Underage drivers will only be allowed on trails.

091/6. 280/14. 474/16.

833 4-277 Licensing. 4-277 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should require licensing for all motorized 

vehicles using National Forest lands to reduce 

enforcement issues and avoid underage driving.

These are why we have alternatives. We will reduce 

trails/ roads by using one of the alternatives. 

Enforcement will always be an issue, we will do the very 

best we can with the LEO's and FPO's that we have.

037/3. 331/3.

834 4-278 Licensing. 4-278 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should avoid requiring licenses because 

additional licensing requirements are equivalent to 

double taxation.

License requirements are addressed by state statues for 

SD/WY, not the FS.

321/5. 508/16.

835 4-279 Licensing. 4-279 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should implement a simple process to 

license OHVs.

License requirements are addressed by state statues for 

SD/WY, not the FS.

030/3.

836 4-280 Licensing. 4-280 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should decide whether to allow unlicensed 

vehicles on routes within its jurisdiction regardless 

of State or local rules on connecting nonjurisdictional roads.

This is addressed to different degrees in Alternatives B, 

C & D.

459/18. 611/18.

837 4-281 Licensing. 4-281 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should require that all operators be at least 

12 years old and meet minimum safety training 

requirements to mitigate liability issues.

It is the responsibility of the State to set age limits for 

those that ride on the roads. There will be no age limit 

while riding on Forest Service trails.

030/9.

838 4-282 Licensing. 4-282 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should require the operators of motorized 

vehicles be licensed, insured, and at least 14 years 

old because children present a danger to 

themselves and others.

Driver license requirements are addressed by State 

statutes on the roads. The Forest Service will not set 

such a limit on trails.

456/37. 456/38. 458/31. 

458/32. 458/33.

839 4-283 Licensing. 4-283 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should require that operators of 

motorized vehicles be licensed and be at least 16 

years old to avoid lawsuits.

License requirements are addressed by state statutes for 

SD/WY. No restrictions on trails.

091/7.

840 4-284 Licensing. 4-284 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should reconsider licensing requirements 

that restrict underage operators to support familyLicense requirements for vehicle drivers are imposed by 

state law. The alternatives in the FEIS present different 

sets of opportunities for riders, including families, and 

142/11.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

186

friendly recreation. the effects of these alternatives are disclosed in the 

Recreation section in Chapter 3.

841 4-285 Licensing. 4-285 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should work with the State to provide 

legal exceptions to the licensing requirements to 

allow underage drivers to access motorized forest 

trails.

License requirements for vehicle drivers are imposed by 

state law. The alternatives in the FEIS present different 

sets of opportunities for riders, including families, and 

the effects of these alternatives are disclosed in the 

Recreation section in Chapter 3.

247/21. 461/15. 536/6. 600/3.

842 4-286 Licensing. 4-286 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should take into consideration possible 

action by the State to eliminate licensing for 

ATVs to ensure that motorized access is not 

overly restricted. 

The Forest Service cannot speculate on possible future 

changes in State law. The decision will designate a 

motorized travel system recognizing provisions of 

current State law as appropriate. 

196/4.

843 4-287 Licensing. 4-287 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should clarify the difference between 

vehicles that are street legal and those that are 

not.

The glossary in the EIS provides definitions for 

highway-legal and non-highway-legal vehicles. A 

highway-legal vehicle is defined as one that is licensed or 

certified under State law for general operation on all 

public roads within the State. Operators of such 

vehicles are subject to State traffic law including any 

requirements for operator licensing. 

578/7. 585/6.

844 4-288 Licensing. 4-288 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should clarify what further restrictions 

and requirements may be implemented.

We will have a use permit and a sound limit of 96 

decibels.

438/1.

845 4-289 Licensing. 4-289 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should require all off-highway vehicles to 

have a spark-arresting muffler to prevent OHVs 

from causing fires.

This is already a FS regulation. 471/2.

846 4-290 Licensing. 4-290 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should require all riders to take a training 

course to decrease damaging behavior and 

impacts to the forest.

Rider education is beyond the scope of this decision. 292/2.

847 4-291 Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-291 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should impose significant fees 

on motorized recreational vehicles as well as 

significant fines for illegal activities to fund repairs 

of already damaged lands.

Fines are already used in enforcement. 539/3.

848 4-292 Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-292 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should ensure that the 

proposed action can be enforced and should 

disclose the fines that could be imposed.

The FS will enforce regulations to the best of its ability. 

The fines imposed for violators are reassessed every year 

through the Federal Judicial system and are subject to 

change.

025/2. 138/4. 140/4.

849 4-293 Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-293 Public Concern: The FS will enforce regulations to the best of its ability. 166/2. 435/2. 437/2. 591/5.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

187

The Forest Service should impose stiff fines for 

violations because these fines would address 

frequent infractions and would help fund 

maintenance of the system.

The fines imposed for violators are reassessed every year 

through the Federal Judicial system and are subject to 

change.

850 4-294 Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-294 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should adopt a user fee to 

cover the administrative costs of the trail system.

We intend to implement a user fee, authorized by the 

Recreation Enhancement Act, upon implementation of 

the future decision. We agree that costs and revenues 

should be accounted for. Costs and revenues for the 

road system, and those anticipated for the entire 

motorized travel system, are discussed in the FEIS in 

the Engineering and Transportation section of Chapter 

3. In this section the FEIS acknowledges that full 

implementation of Alternatives B, C and D would be 

costly and that additional resources would be needed. 

This and other relevant information will be considered 

in the decision. 

033/2. 434/6. 608/3. 

851 4-294 Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-294 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should adopt a user fee to 

cover maintenance costs.

We intend to implement a user fee, authorized by the 

Recreation Enhancement Act, upon implementation of 

the future decision. We agree that costs and revenues 

should be accounted for. Costs and revenues for the 

road system, and those anticipated for the entire 

motorized travel system, are discussed in the FEIS in 

the Engineering and Transportation section of Chapter 

3. In this section the FEIS acknowledges that full 

implementation of Alternatives B, C and D would be 

costly and that additional resources would be needed. 

This and other relevant information will be considered 

in the decision. 

047/3.

852 4-294 Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-294 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should adopt a user fee 

because users should be responsible for the costs 

associated with ATV use.

We intend to implement a user fee, authorized by the 

Recreation Enhancement Act, upon implementation of 

the future decision. We agree that costs and revenues 

should be accounted for. Costs and revenues for the 

road system, and those anticipated for the entire 

motorized travel system, are discussed in the FEIS in 

the Engineering and Transportation section of Chapter 

3. In this section the FEIS acknowledges that full 

implementation of Alternatives B, C and D would be 

costly and that additional resources would be needed. 

This and other relevant information will be considered 

in the decision. 

150/3. 151/2. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

188

853 4-294 Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-294 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should adopt a user fee to 

fund enforcement.

We intend to implement a user fee, authorized by the 

Recreation Enhancement Act, upon implementation of 

the future decision. We agree that costs and revenues 

should be accounted for. Costs and revenues for the 

road system, and those anticipated for the entire 

motorized travel system, are discussed in the FEIS in 

the Engineering and Transportation section of Chapter 

3. In this section the FEIS acknowledges that full 

implementation of Alternatives B, C and D would be 

costly and that additional resources would be needed. 

This and other relevant information will be considered 

in the decision. 

046/3. 054/4. 482/8.

854 4-294 Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-294 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should adopt a user fee 

because sufficient funding will result in improved 

search and rescue, fire fighting access, and wildlife 

corridors.

We intend to implement a user fee, authorized by the 

Recreation Enhancement Act, upon implementation of 

the future decision. We agree that costs and revenues 

should be accounted for. Costs and revenues for the 

road system, and those anticipated for the entire 

motorized travel system, are discussed in the FEIS in 

the Engineering and Transportation section of Chapter 

3. In this section the FEIS acknowledges that full 

implementation of Alternatives B, C and D would be 

costly and that additional resources would be needed. 

This and other relevant information will be considered 

in the decision. 

030/4. 

855 4-295 Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-295 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should approve the proposed 

annual user fee to cover the costs of road and trail 

maintenance. 

We intend to implement a user fee, authorized by the 

Recreation Enhancement Act, upon implementation of 

the future decision. We agree that costs and revenues 

should be accounted for. Costs and revenues for the 

road system, and those anticipated for the entire 

motorized travel system, are discussed in the FEIS in 

the Engineering and Transportation section of Chapter 

3. In this section the FEIS acknowledges that full 

implementation of Alternatives B, C and D would be 

costly and that additional resources would be needed. 

This and other relevant information will be considered 

in the decision. 

006/2. 015/3. 471/7.

856 4-296 Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-296 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should clarify why ATVs that 

have DMV-issued tags should have to pay an 

additional fee.

The Forest Service does not receive any funding support 

necessary for trail construction, signing or maintenance 

from State DMV's or DOT's.

224/14.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

189

857 4-297 Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-297 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should implement a fee or 

licensing to pay for facilities and trail 

maintenance.

We intend to implement a user fee, authorized by the 

Recreation Enhancement Act, upon implementation of 

the future decision. We agree that costs and revenues 

should be accounted for. Costs and revenues for the 

road system, and those anticipated for the entire 

motorized travel system, are discussed in the FEIS in 

the Engineering and Transportation section of Chapter 

3. In this section the FEIS acknowledges that full 

implementation of Alternatives B, C and D would be 

costly and that additional resources would be needed. 

This and other relevant information will be considered 

in the decision. 

265/5.

858 4-298 Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-298 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should not implement a fee or 

new licensing requirements.

The Recreation Enhancement Act authorizes the Forest 

Service to implement fees for such things as OHV trail 

systems.

420/5. 483/21.

859 4-299 Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-299 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should implement a fee and 

require out of state users to pay double.

Separate but related to the current planning process, the 

Forest is proposing to implement a special recreation 

permit authorized under the Recreation Enhancement 

Act.

375/7.

860 4-300 Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-300 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should consider an auction 

system to establish the price of user permits to 

ensure sufficient funding and discourage 

environmentally irresponsible behavior. 

Separate but related to the current planning process, the 

Forest is proposing to implement a special recreation 

permit authorized under the Recreation Enhancement 

Act (REA). The REA permit process requires 

development of a business plan to address costs 

associated with management of an OHV trail system.

474/26.

861 4-301 Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-301 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should implement an annual 

user fee for OHV users to ensure that those who 

benefit pay the costs of route construction, 

maintenance, enforcement, and rehabilitation of 

damaged areas.

Separate but related to the current planning process, the 

Forest is proposing to implement a special recreation 

permit authorized under the Recreation Enhancement 

Act (REA). The REA permit process requires 

development of a business plan to address costs 

associated with management of an OHV trail system.

002/2. 417/13. 474/25. 475/12.

862 4-302 Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-302 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should only apply the $25 fee 

to off-road vehicles that operate on National 

Forest lands.

Separate but related to the current planning process, the 

Forest is proposing to implement a special recreation 

permit authorized under the Recreation Enhancement 

Act (REA). The REA permit process requires 

development of a business plan to address costs 

associated with management of an OHV trail system.

009/2. 

863 4-303 Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-303 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should consider an annual fee 

greater than $20 to ensure sufficient funs are 

Separate but related to the current planning process, the 

Forest is proposing to implement a special recreation 

permit authorized under the Recreation Enhancement 

465/37. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

190

available for maintenance and administration. Act (REA). The REA permit process requires 

development of a business plan to address costs 

associated with management of an OHV trail system.

864 4-304 Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-304 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should clarify whether the 

state license plate fee will be accepted as the fee 

for access to the BHNF.

Separate but related to the current planning process, the 

Forest is proposing to implement a special recreation 

permit authorized under the Recreation Enhancement 

Act (REA). The REA permit process requires 

development of a business plan to address costs 

associated with management of an OHV trail system. 

Motor vehicles with State license plates will not be 

required to purchase to REA permits for operation on 

Forest System Roads. However, permits will be 

required for operation on all Forest System trails.

438/2.

865 4-305 Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-305 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should issue stickers or tags to 

fee-paying to fund mitigation of damage caused 

by motorized vehicles.

Separate but related to the current planning process, the 

Forest is proposing to implement a special recreation 

permit authorized under the Recreation Enhancement 

Act (REA). The REA permit process requires 

development of a business plan to address costs 

associated with management of an OHV trail system.

492/4. 526/4.

866 4-305 Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-305 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should issue stickers or tags to 

fee-paying users to facilitate self-policing and 

enforcement.

Separate but related to the current planning process, the 

Forest is proposing to implement a special recreation 

permit authorized under the Recreation Enhancement 

Act (REA). The REA permit process requires 

development of a business plan to address costs 

associated with management of an OHV trail system.

055/2.

867 4-306 Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-306 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should give user fee revenues 

to emergency service agencies to offset the 

increased costs of providing emergency services 

to the BHNF.

This is beyond the scope of this project. 482/9.

868 4-307 Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-307 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should use the proposed fee 

to hire more trail rangers.

Separate but related to the current planning process, the 

Forest is proposing to implement a special recreation 

permit authorized under the Recreation Enhancement 

Act (REA). The REA permit process requires 

development of a business plan to address costs 

associated with management of an OHV trail system.

005/2.

869 4-308 Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-308 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should use OHV gas tax 

revenues for maintenance, education, and 

construction of motorized recreation 

This is beyond the scope of this project. 126/228. 126/270. 126/229. 

126/230.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

191

opportunities.

870 4-308 Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-308 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should use OHV gas tax 

revenues to expand and enhance OHV programs.

This is beyond the scope of this project. 126/227.

871 4-309 Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-309 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should improve the process 

for using OHV grant money for motorized trail 

projects because too often the projects are never 

implemented.

We agree. 126/131.

872 4-310 Funding, Fees, and Fines. 4-310 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should enter into a 

Memorandum of Understanding with the State of 

Wyoming to allow a single permit for both the 

Wyoming and South Dakota portions of the 

Forest.

This is beyond the scope of this project. OHV program 

fee reciprocity is outside the scope of this planning 

effort.

236/4.

873 4-311 Speed Limits. 4-311 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should enforce a speed limit of 25 miles 

per hour on all trails.

Speed limits are determined by engineers, based on trail 

classification standards.

134/6. 139/5.

874 4-312 Speed Limits. 4-312 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should enforce a speed limit of 30 miles 

per hour to better control dust, speed, and noise.

Speed limits are determined by engineers, based on trail 

classification standards.

264/2. 378/12. 488/5.

875 4-313 Speed Limits. 4-313 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should restrict speeds around residences 

to reduce excessive dust.

Speed limits are determined by engineers, based on trail 

classification standards.

134/7.

876 4-314 Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-314 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

implement and enforce the proposed exhaust 

noise limitations.

Thank you for your comment. 030/7. 475/11. 508/17.

877 4-315 Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-315 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

implement the proposed sound limit because the 

methodology behind the limit is well established. 

The proposal in the DEIS to establish a 96 dB(A) sound 

limit based on the SAE J1287 stationary test procedure 

is carried forward to the FEIS. This is discussed 

further, and effects disclosed, in the EIS, Chapter 3, 

Engineering and Transportation section. 

445/2. 461/21.

878 4-316 Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-316 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should lower 

the allowed noise emission limits to reduce 

disturbance to game, hunters, and visitors.

The 96 dB(A) limit is proposed because it is consistent 

with current standards for original equipment and would 

not require vehicle owners to further modify equipment 

compliant with these standards. The alternatives 

propose varying mileages and areas where motorized 

vehicle travel would be designated. 

362/4.

879 4-317 Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-317 The Black Hills National Forest proposes to adopt a 96 473/19.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

192

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

reconsider the proposed noise levels because of 

the impacts on private homeowners.

dB(A) sound limit based on the Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) J1287 Stationary Test. This limit has 

been selected because 96 dB(A) is the lowest limit that 

does not prohibit the use of OHVs meeting the EPA 

sound limits. EPA standards will pre-empt the adoption 

of more stringent state standards. Most vehicles able to 

pass the 96 dB(A) stationary test meet or exceed the 

EPA test. The SAE J1287 Stationary Test is the most 

practical for the field and for enforcement testing. 

Sound level is discussed in the EIS in Chapter 3, 

Engineering and Transportation section. 

880 4-318 Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-318 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

reconsider the proposed 96-decibel noise limit 

because it is outside safety allowances.

The Black Hills National Forest proposes to adopt a 96 

dB(A) sound limit based on the Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) J1287 Stationary Test. This limit has 

been selected because 96 dB(A) is the lowest limit that 

does not prohibit the use of OHVs meeting the EPA 

sound limits. EPA standards will pre-empt the adoption 

of more stringent state standards. Most vehicles able to 

pass the 96 dB(A) stationary test meet or exceed the 

EPA test. The SAE J1287 Stationary Test is the most 

practical for the field and for enforcement testing. 

Sound level is discussed in the EIS in Chapter 3, 

Engineering and Transportation section. 

465/8.

881 4-319 Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-319 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should reduce 

the noise limit to 70 decibels near residential areas 

because the 96 decibel limit is too high.

The Black Hills National Forest proposes to adopt a 96 

dB(A) sound limit based on the Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) J1287 Stationary Test. This limit has 

been selected because 96 dB(A) is the lowest limit that 

does not prohibit the use of OHVs meeting the EPA 

sound limits. EPA standards will pre-empt the adoption 

of more stringent state standards. Most vehicles able to 

pass the 96 dB(A) stationary test meet or exceed the 

EPA test. The SAE J1287 Stationary Test is the most 

practical for the field and for enforcement testing. 

Sound level is discussed in the EIS in Chapter 3, 

Engineering and Transportation section. 

319/79. 414/43. 456/45. 

458/39. 458/40. 462/60.

882 4-320 Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-320 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should set the 

noise limit to 70 decibels and require mufflers.

The Black Hills National Forest proposes to adopt a 96 

dB(A) sound limit based on the Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) J1287 Stationary Test. This limit has 

been selected because 96 dB(A) is the lowest limit that 

does not prohibit the use of OHVs meeting the EPA 

456/74.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

193

sound limits. EPA standards will pre-empt the adoption 

of more stringent state standards. Most vehicles able to 

pass the 96 dB(A) stationary test meet or exceed the 

EPA test. The SAE J1287 Stationary Test is the most 

practical for the field and for enforcement testing. 

Sound level is discussed in the EIS in Chapter 3, 

Engineering and Transportation section. 

8834-321 Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-321 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should reduce 

the noise limit to 60 decibels.

The Black Hills National Forest proposes to adopt a 96 

dB(A) sound limit based on the Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) J1287 Stationary Test. This limit has 

been selected because 96 dB(A) is the lowest limit that 

does not prohibit the use of OHVs meeting the EPA 

sound limits. EPA standards will pre-empt the adoption 

of more stringent state standards. Most vehicles able to 

pass the 96 dB(A) stationary test meet or exceed the 

EPA test. The SAE J1287 Stationary Test is the most 

practical for the field and for enforcement testing. 

Sound level is discussed in the EIS in Chapter 3, 

Engineering and Transportation section. 

488/4.

8844-322 Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-322 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should adopt 

the Federal Highway Administration‟s sound 

limits.

The Federal Highway Administration's sound limits 

mentioned in EPA's comment are based on Society of 

Automotive Engineers (SAE) ON-HIGHWAY test 

procedure J2825. The Black Hills National Forest 

proposes to adopt a sound limit based on SAE off-road 

test procedure J1287. See also responses to Public 

Concerns 4-317 and 4-330.

473/20.

8854-323 Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-323 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

include noise and speed regulations for 

motorcycles.

The Black Hills National Forest proposes to adopt a 96 

dB(A) sound limit based on the Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) J1287 Stationary Test. This limit has 

been selected because 96 dB(A) is the lowest limit that 

does not prohibit the use of OHVs meeting the EPA 

sound limits. EPA standards will pre-empt the adoption 

of more stringent state standards. Most vehicles able to 

pass the 96 dB(A) stationary test meet or exceed the 

EPA test. The SAE J1287 Stationary Test is the most 

practical for the field and for enforcement testing. 

Sound level is discussed in the EIS in Chapter 3, 

Engineering and Transportation section. Vehicles 

traveling on public roads would be subject to legal speed 

limits. 

169/5.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

194

886 4-324 Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-324 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

require mufflers on motorized

vehicles to reduce noise.

The Black Hills National Forest proposes to adopt a 96 

dB(A) sound limit based on the Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) J1287 Stationary Test. This limit has 

been selected because 96 dB(A) is the lowest limit that 

does not prohibit the use of OHVs meeting the EPA 

sound limits. EPA standards will pre-empt the adoption 

of more stringent state standards. Most vehicles able to 

pass the 96 dB(A) stationary test meet or exceed the 

EPA test. The SAE J1287 Stationary Test is the most 

practical for the field and for enforcement testing. 

Sound level is discussed in the EIS in Chapter 3, 

Engineering and Transportation section. 

413/4. 420/1.

887 4-324 Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-324 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

require mufflers on motorized vehicles to avoid 

needing to move trailheads or trails.

The Black Hills National Forest proposes to adopt a 96 

dB(A) sound limit based on the Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) J1287 Stationary Test. This limit has 

been selected because 96 dB(A) is the lowest limit that 

does not prohibit the use of OHVs meeting the EPA 

sound limits. EPA standards will pre-empt the adoption 

of more stringent state standards. Most vehicles able to 

pass the 96 dB(A) stationary test meet or exceed the 

EPA test. The SAE J1287 Stationary Test is the most 

practical for the field and for enforcement testing. 

Sound level is discussed in the EIS in Chapter 3, 

Engineering and Transportation section. 

432/2.

888 4-324 Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-324 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

require mufflers on motorized vehicles to provide 

for quiet recreation.

The Black Hills National Forest proposes to adopt a 96 

dB(A) sound limit based on the Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) J1287 Stationary Test. This limit has 

been selected because 96 dB(A) is the lowest limit that 

does not prohibit the use of OHVs meeting the EPA 

sound limits. EPA standards will pre-empt the adoption 

of more stringent state standards. Most vehicles able to 

pass the 96 dB(A) stationary test meet or exceed the 

EPA test. The SAE J1287 Stationary Test is the most 

practical for the field and for enforcement testing. 

Sound level is discussed in the EIS in Chapter 3, 

Engineering and Transportation section. 

578/43.

889 4-325 Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-325 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should limit 

noise from ATVs to provide children with the 

opportunity to experience quiet.

The Forest Service recognizes that Forest visitors seek 

different experiences. The alternatives address this in 

different ways which include different locations and 

mileages of routes and areas open to motorized vehicle 

527/2.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

195

travel. The effects of the alternatives on resources and 

recreation including non-motorized recreation are 

disclosed in the EIS in Chapter 3, Recreation and other 

sections. 

890 4-326 Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-326 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should not 

use sound levels as a reason to limit motorized 

access because the noise from OHVs is less than 

or equal to ambient noise levels.

The Black Hills National Forest proposes to adopt a 96 

dB(A) sound limit based on the Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) J1287 Stationary Test. This limit has 

been selected because 96 dB(A) is the lowest limit that 

does not prohibit the use of OHVs meeting the EPA 

sound limits. EPA standards will pre-empt the adoption 

of more stringent state standards. Most vehicles able to 

pass the 96 dB(A) stationary test meet or exceed the 

EPA test. The SAE J1287 Stationary Test is the most 

practical for the field and for enforcement testing. 

Sound level is discussed in the EIS in Chapter 3, 

Engineering and Transportation section. 

126/199. 126/200. 

891 4-326 Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-326 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should not 

use sound levels as a reason to limit motorized 

access because motorized vehicles are quieter 

then formerly and establishing a reasonable sound 

limit would more equitably address the problem.

The Black Hills National Forest proposes to adopt a 96 

dB(A) sound limit based on the Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) J1287 Stationary Test. This limit has 

been selected because 96 dB(A) is the lowest limit that 

does not prohibit the use of OHVs meeting the EPA 

sound limits. EPA standards will pre-empt the adoption 

of more stringent state standards. Most vehicles able to 

pass the 96 dB(A) stationary test meet or exceed the 

EPA test. The SAE J1287 Stationary Test is the most 

practical for the field and for enforcement testing. 

Sound level is discussed in the EIS in Chapter 3, 

Engineering and Transportation section. 

126/262. 126/203.

892 4-327 Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-327 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should create 

noise zones that would set aside some areas for 

noisy vehicles while other areas could be accessed 

by quieter vehicles.

The 96 dB(A) limit is proposed because it is consistent 

with current standards for original equipment and would 

not require vehicle owners to further modify equipment 

compliant with these standards. The alternatives 

propose varying mileages and areas where motorized 

vehicle travel would be designated. 

583/3. 584/1. 585/5.

893 4-328 Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-328 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should clarify 

how the noise limits will be

enforced because current restrictions are not 

enforced.

The Forest Service assumes that most Forest visitors 

using the motorized system will generally comply with 

requirements and restrictions including those pertaining 

to noise levels. The agency intends to educate users as 

to those requirements and restrictions applicable on 

NFS lands, and to enforce them when needed. 

464/33. 464/34.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

196

894 4-328 Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-328 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should clarify 

how the noise limits will be enforced because 

users could remove required mufflers post 

inspection.

The Forest Service assumes that most Forest visitors 

using the motorized system will generally comply with 

requirements and restrictions including those pertaining 

to noise levels. The agency intends to educate users as 

to those requirements and restrictions applicable on 

NFS lands, and to enforce them when needed. 

479/10.

895 4-329 Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-329 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

provide visitors and wildlife with quiet.

The Forest Service recognizes that Forest visitors seek 

different experiences. The alternatives address this in 

different ways which include different locations and 

mileages of routes and areas open to motorized vehicle 

travel. The effects of the alternatives on resources and 

recreation including non-motorized recreation are 

disclosed in the EIS in Chapter 3, Recreation and other 

sections. 

517/2.

896 4-330 Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-330 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

provide citations for statements asserting that 96 

dB(A) is an EPA-approved limit.

EPA approved sound limits are currently 80 dB(A) for 

vehicles displacing less that 171cc and 82 dB(A) for 

those over 170cc, based on a precise, engineering 

acceleration test measured from a distance of 50 feet. 

Because the EPA test procedure is not practical for infield enforcement, the Motorcycle Industry Council 

worked with the Society of Automotive Engineers 

(SAE) to develop a quick, easy and economical 

stationary sound test procedure, SAE J1287. 96 dB(A) 

utilizing SAE J1287 is the lowest limit that does not 

prohibit the use of OHVs meeting the EPA sound 

limits. Reference cited: Sound Advice, Motorcycle 

Sound Working Group – AMA, July 2005.

473/18.

897 4-331 Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-331 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should clarify 

the difference between the EPA‟s street-legal and 

off-road vehicle noise rules and should explain 

the meaning of the difference in decibels

The Federal Highway Administration recommends 

sound limits of 60dB(A) in some areas, and employs the 

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) test procedure 

J2825. The Black Hills National Forest proposes to 

adopt a sound limit of 96 dB(A) based on SAE off-road 

test procedure J1287. See response to Public Concern 

4-317 for more information. 

578/42. 585/4.

898 4-332 Exhaust, Dust, and Noise Limitations. 4-332 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should create 

no-dust zones around residential areas, trailheads, 

horses, hikers, fishermen, and riparian areas.

Nuisance dust was an issue addressed in the alternatives. 

See response to Public Concern 4-325. 

488/3.

899 4-333 Trail Marking and Maps. 4-333 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should provide a well-marked 

Forest roads will be signed with the appropriate road 

number to match the motorized vehicle use map 

237/14.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

197

system like that for snowmobiles in the Northern 

Hills.

produced for the designated motorized system. 

Marking of the trail system is not a requirement of the 

decision for designation of a motorized travel system for 

the DEIS or FEIS.

900 4-334 Trail Marking and Maps. 4-334 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should improve the quality of 

the signs marking trails to ensure that they are not 

easily removed.

Forest roads will be signed with the appropriate road 

number to match the motorized vehicle use map 

produced for the designated motorized system. 

Marking of the trail system is not a requirement of the 

decision for designation of a motorized travel system for 

the DEIS or FEIS.

010/2. 086/2.

901 4-334 Trail Marking and Maps. 4-334 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should improve the quality of 

the signs marking trails to reduce confusion and 

user conflicts.

Forest roads will be signed with the appropriate road 

number to match the motorized vehicle use map 

produced for the designated motorized system. 

Marking of the trail system is not a requirement of the 

decision for designation of a motorized travel system for 

the DEIS or FEIS.

126/251. 126/252. 267/1. 

326/42. 

902 4-335 Trail Marking and Maps. 4-335 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should improve signage and 

increase penalties and enforcement to reduce 

violations.

Forest roads will be signed with the appropriate road 

number to match the motorized vehicle use map 

produced for the designated motorized system. Increase 

of penalties is outside the jurisdiction of the Forest 

Service and beyond the scope of this project.

279/4. 366/11.

903 4-336 Trail Marking and Maps. 4-336 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should avoid the use of orange 

signs to avoid confusion.

Forest roads will be signed with the appropriate road 

number to match the motorized vehicle use map 

produced for the designated motorized system. 

Marking of the trail system is not a requirement of the 

decision for designation of a motorized travel system for 

the DEIS or FEIS.

326/43.

904 4-337 Trail Marking and Maps. 4-337 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should clearly mark dead-end 

trails to avoid creating more cross-country travel 

and trash dumping.

Forest roads will be signed with the appropriate road 

number to match the motorized vehicle use map 

produced for the designated motorized system. 

Marking of the trail system is not a requirement of the 

decision for designation of a motorized travel system for 

the DEIS or FEIS.

369/6.

905 4-338 Trail Marking and Maps. 4-338 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should provide a detailed list 

of all roads that will be re-opened to ATV use.

Alternative A of the DEIS and FEIS shows the roads 

that are currently open to motorized use for the public. 

This alternative can be compared with the remaining 

alternatives to determine what would be re-opened to 

ATV use.

116/2.

906 4-339 Trail Marking and Maps. 4-339 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should ensure the maps are 

To the best of our knowledge, working with County 

records, the maps of the FEIS will show the most up398/1. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

198

accurate because the plan maps show private 

roads as public roads.

to-date information of ownership for routes. No route 

outside the jurisdiction of Forest Service lands would be 

designated under this Travel Management Program.

907 4-340 Trail Marking and Maps. 4-340 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should provide clearly defined 

motor vehicle use maps to facilitate enforcement.

As with the DEIS, it is anticipated that the Black Hills 

National Forest would have three Motor Vehicle Use 

Maps for the Forest to provide clearly defined routes. 

015/2. 030/5. 108/1. 161/4. 

346/35. 414/52. 456/31. 

461/25. 462/69. 473/3. 

908 4-341 Trail Marking and Maps. 4-341 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should provide a color Motor 

Vehicle Use Map that shows seasonal dates, nonmotorized trails, and other use areas to improve 

public compliance.

The Motor Vehicle Use Map will follow National 

direction and symbology to be consistent with the 

overall program nation-wide. It will not likely contain 

any non-motorized trails. Non-motorized trail 

brochures are currently available for all designated trail 

systems on the Black Hills.

326/41.

909 4-342 Trail Marking and Maps. 4-342 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should ensure that the trails 

are well marked on the maps to compensate for 

the loss of cross-country travel.

Forest roads will be signed with the appropriate road 

number to match the motorized vehicle use map 

produced for the designated motorized system. 

Marking of the trail system is not a requirement of the 

decision for designation of a motorized travel system for 

the DEIS or FEIS.

237/14. 369/4. 

910 4-343 Trail Marking and Maps. 4-343 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should include primitive and 

semi primitive areas on the Motor Vehicle Use 

Map to aid non-motorized users in avoiding 

conflicts with motorized users.

The Motor Vehicle Use Map will follow National 

direction and symbology to be consistent with the 

overall program nation-wide. It will not likely contain 

any additional information pertaining to semi-primitive 

or primitive areas.

473/14.

911 4-344 Trail Marking and Maps. 4-344 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should postpone 

implementing a new travel management plan until 

all the maps, signs, and gates are in place.

The Motor Vehicle Use Map will display those routes 

that are ready for implementation on-the-ground. 

Additional routes will be added to the map as the 

implementation is completed.

355/7.

912 4-345 Trail Marking and Maps. 4-345 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should establish an OHV 

program that includes a fee schedule and mapping 

to set an example for the nation.

The Travel Rule requires that a Motorized Vehicle Use 

Map (MVUM) be issued to show routes open to public 

use. Legally, the MVUM is the single source for this 

information for each national forest. The Forest will 

issue an MVUM. Other maps may eventually be issued 

based on available funds and partnerships. We intend to 

implement a user fee, authorized by the Recreation 

Enhancement Act, upon implementation of the future 

decision. We agree that costs and revenues should be 

accounted for. Costs and revenues for the road system, 

and those anticipated for the entire motorized travel 

system, are discussed in the FEIS in the Engineering 

and Transportation section of Chapter 3. In this section 

009/3. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

199

the FEIS acknowledges that full implementation of 

Alternatives B, C and D would be costly and that 

additional resources would be needed. This and other 

relevant information will be considered in the decision. 

913 4-346 Trail Marking and Maps. 4-346 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should use a national standard 

for mapping to reduce confusion and 

environmental justice issues.

The Motor Vehicle Use Map will follow National 

direction and symbology to be consistent with the 

overall program nation-wide. 

126/109.

914 4-347 Construction and Maintenance. 4-347 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should include 

construction of new trails in the plan to allow for 

the creation of a reasonable system of loops.

We agree. 126/37.

915 4-348 Construction and Maintenance. 4-348 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should properly 

restore or repair all designated routes to prevent 

washouts and stream sedimentation.

We agree. 319/39. 462/28. 511/14.

916 4-349 Construction and Maintenance. 4-349 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should provide a 

system to rehabilitate damage cause by motorized 

recreation.

Rehabilitation of routes is not the focus of this project. 

This may be proposed in other projects, as needed, 

based on monitoring or assessment of ground 

conditions.

319/55. 319/59. 456/61. 

456/65. 458/56. 458/58. 

462/44. 462/48.

917 4-350 Construction and Maintenance. 4-350 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should ensure that

routes are constructed and maintained using 

appropriate design standards and best 

management practices to ensure they are 

environmentally sustainable.

We agree. 456/33. 458/27.

918 4-351 Construction and Maintenance. 4-351 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should ensure that 

roads are sufficiently maintained to allow for fire 

management.

This analysis includes the evaluation of user created 

routes and system routes for possible designation into 

the Forest Travel System. The evaluation of each route 

considered land and resource management needs 

(including fire) as well as factors such as compatibility 

with existing land prescriptions and/or designations, 

impacts to the resource, wildlife objectives, safety, 

existing and/or potential conflicts as well as information 

provided from the public. These routes will also need 

to meet existing objectives, standards and specifications 

as identified within Forest Service Manuals and 

Handbooks. Routes that are determined to provide a 

benefit to the public and are consistent with the above 

factors are likely candidates for inclusion into the 

269/3.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

200

transportation system. 

919 4-352 Construction and Maintenance. 4-352 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should ensure 

sufficient funds are available for construction and 

maintenance because there is already a significant 

maintenance backlog.

Separate but related to the current planning process, the 

Forest is proposing to implement a special recreation 

permit authorized under the Recreation Enhancement 

Act (REA). The REA permit process requires 

development of a business plan to address costs 

associated with management of an OHV trail system. 

Our strategy, as we go to a designated trail system, is to 

provide the economic means for operation and 

maintenance. With volunteer support, permit fees, and 

grants, we will be able to support the designated trail 

system. The system will be open as the economics can 

provide.

456/47. 456/55. 458/42. 

458/50.

920 4-352 Construction and Maintenance. 4-352 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should ensure 

sufficient funds are available for construction and 

maintenance to comply with the Forest Service 

Manual, 36 CFR Section 212.

Separate but related to the current planning process, the 

Forest is proposing to implement a special recreation

permit authorized under the Recreation Enhancement 

Act (REA). The REA permit process requires 

development of a business plan to address costs 

associated with management of an OHV trail system.

456/48. 456/49. 456/50. 

458/42. 458/43. 458/44. 

458/45.

921 4-353 Construction and Maintenance. 4-353 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should ensure that 

trail maintenance costs are shared by all users, 

including campgrounds.

Separate but related to the current planning process, the 

Forest is proposing to implement a special recreation 

permit authorized under the Recreation Enhancement 

Act (REA). The REA permit process requires 

development of a business plan to address costs 

associated with management of an OHV trail system. 

Use of campground fees is beyond the scope of this 

project. 

445/9.

922 4-354 Construction and Maintenance. 4-354 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should use road 

decommissioning funds for road maintenance to 

benefit the public and the environment.

Separate but related to the current planning process, the 

Forest is proposing to implement a special recreation 

permit authorized under the Recreation Enhancement 

Act (REA). The REA permit process requires 

development of a business plan to address costs 

associated with management of an OHV trail system.

126/110.

923 4-355 Construction and Maintenance. 4-355 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should acknowledge 

that the maintenance backlog is overstated 

because motorized recreationists value the 

challenge presented by primitive unmaintained 

trails.

Forest Service System Roads and Trails will be designed, 

constructed and maintained to meet trail classification 

standards.

126/195.

924 4-356 Construction and Maintenance. 4-356 Public Separate but related to the current planning process, the 066/3.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

201

Concern: The Forest Service should require OHV 

users to pay for the maintenance and construction 

of motorized trails to reduce the damage done to 

private property by OHV users.

Forest is proposing to implement a special recreation 

permit authorized under the Recreation Enhancement 

Act (REA). The REA permit process requires 

development of a business plan to address costs 

associated with management of an OHV trail system.

925 4-357 Construction and Maintenance. 4-357 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should avoid 

opening new routes until needed rehabilitation on 

existing routes is complete.

Rehabilitation of routes is not the focus of this project. 

This may be proposed in other projects, as needed, 

based on monitoring or assessment of ground 

conditions.

357/6.

926 4-358 Construction and Maintenance. 4-358 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should enlist the 

help of the off-road community to help maintain 

trails because they are willing.

We agree. 395/13. 508/20.

927 4-359 Construction and Maintenance. 4-359 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should enlist the 

help of volunteers to help maintain trails.

We agree. 292/3.

928 4-360 Construction and Maintenance. 4-360 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should acknowledge 

that OHV and 4x4 trails could be maintained 

using a SWECO trail machine.

Thank you for your suggestions. The Forest owns the 

type of equipment you mention and has trained staff 

available. Use of this equipment and personnel are one 

of many possible methods that will be used for 

necessary construction and maintenance work.

126/43.

929 4-361 Construction and Maintenance. 4-361 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should ensure that 

necessary road closures due to fire, logging, or 

maintenance be as brief as possible.

The Forest will attempt to minimize closures of the 

designated OHV system.

286/2.

930 4-362 Construction and Maintenance. 4-362 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should open 

abandoned logging roads to ATV use because 

ATV users will assist in maintaining the roads as 

fire access routes.

The alternatives include a variety of routes including 

some created by users and others remaining from earlier 

management activities. Access for fire suppression is 

not expected to be materially different under any 

alternative. 

144/4.

931 4-363 Land Designations. 4-363 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should manage public lands, 

including Roadless Areas and Wilderness Study 

Areas, for multiple use to comply with applicable 

regulations and reduce excess allocation of 

resources to non-motorized uses.

The purpose of this project is to designate roads, trails 

and areas for motorized travel as appropriate, and not to 

make changes to uses allowed on areas of the Forest. 

Changes to existing land allocations as suggested in this 

comment are beyond the scope of this analysis and 

more suited to a forest plan revision effort. 

126/83.

932 4-364 Land Designations. 4-364 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should encourage users who value 

quiet recreation to use Wilderness Areas rather 

than setting aside more areas for their use.

Allocation of the Forest to various uses is more 

appropriately done in a forest plan revision. The 

purpose and need of this travel planning effort is stated 

in Chapter 1 of the EIS, and includes elements of 

126/80.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

202

providing for a range of quality experiences for a variety 

of Forest users, and reducing adverse impacts of 

unmanaged cross-country and route use. The 

alternatives as described in Chapter 2 of the EIS address 

these objectives in different ways. 

9334-365 Land Designations. 4-365 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that areas 

designated as Wilderness or Roadless are used for 

non-motorized recreation because these areas 

contribute to the imbalance of recreation 

activities.

The Forest Service has undertaken this planning effort 

to comply with the 2005 Travel Management Rule 

which directs the agency to designate roads, trails and 

areas where motorized use may occur. The Forest 

Service recognizes that Forest visitors seek different 

experiences. The alternatives address this in different 

ways with different locations and mileages of routes and 

areas open to motorized vehicle travel considering the 

characteristics of lands specific to the Forest and issues 

expressing a number of public concerns. The effects of 

the alternatives on resources and recreation are 

disclosed in the EIS in Chapter 3, Recreation and other 

sections. 

126/73.

9344-366 Land Designations. 4-366 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include stipulations 

requiring public access as part of private/public 

land exchanges to offset the impacts on 

motorized recreationists.

Each proposal for land exchange or easement is unique 

and is evaluated on its own merits. 

126/220.

9354-367 Land Designations. 4-367 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should not create de facto 

Wilderness areas because only Congress has such 

authority.

Land allocations to various multiple uses and wilderness 

are appropriately done as part of a forest plan revision. 

This travel planning effort will be a project decision and 

not a forest plan revision. The Forest Service 

recognizes that Forest visitors seek different 

experiences. The alternatives provide a range of options 

for motorized travel opportunities. 

126/72.

9364-368 Land Designations. 4-368 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should avoid managing multiple-

use lands as wilderness because doing so does not 

meet the public need, nor is it a reasonable or 

equitable goal.

The purpose and need for this project includes an 

element to identify an official travel system, to comply 

with the 2005 Travel Management Rule. It is not 

designed to change land allocations as currently shown 

in the Forest Plan. The alternatives as described in the 

EIS, Chapter 2, provide a range of options for 

motorized travel opportunities to meet the purpose and 

need, within existing management allocations. 

Alternative C provides the greatest mileage and number 

of routes, and the greatest number of acres available for 

126/265.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

203

off-road game retrieval and dispersed camping. 

937 4-369 Land Designations. 4-369 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that the public 

is satisfied with the current number of Wilderness 

Areas.

Public desires for wilderness are outside the scope of 

this proposal. 

126/82.

938 4-370 Land Designations. 4-370 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that areas with 

no roads, like Swede Gulch, look like de facto 

Wilderness designations.

It is the intent of the Black Hills NF to provide access 

for both motorized and non-motorized users in a 

manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long 

term. As stated in the Travel Rule, National Forests are 

managed by law for multiple use. National Forests are 

not reserved for the exclusive use of any one group, nor 

must every use be accommodated on every acre. It is 

entirely appropriate for different areas of the National 

Forests to provide different opportunities for recreation. 

An interdisciplinary process was used to identify routes 

suitable for public motorized use designation, including 

all identified non-system routes, in the range of 

alternatives. The analysis process included identifying 

natural and cultural resource concerns, recreation, access 

needs, and other related considerations consistent with 

the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule to develop the range of 

alternatives. The analysis results can be found in 

Chapter 3 of the FEIS.

241/4. 247/14.

939 4-371 Land Designations. 4-371 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should prohibit motorized 

recreation on all Inventoried Roadless Areas.

The Forest Service has undertaken this planning effort 

to comply with the 2005 Travel Management Rule 

which directs the agency to designate roads, trails and 

areas where motorized use may occur. The Forest 

Service recognizes that Forest visitors seek different 

experiences. The alternatives address this in different 

ways with different locations and mileages of routes and 

areas open to motorized vehicle travel considering the 

characteristics of lands specific to the Forest and issues 

expressing a number of public concerns. The effects of 

the alternatives on resources and recreation are 

disclosed in the EIS in Chapter 3, Recreation and other 

sections. 

319/60. 414/32. 462/49.

940 4-372 Land Designations. 4-372 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should reduce roads around the 

Sand Creek Roadless Area to maintain low 

evidence of humans in the area.

Land allocations to various multiple uses including ROS 

designations, the subject of this comment, are 

appropriately evaluated as part of a forest plan revision. 

This travel planning effort will be a project decision and 

588/12.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

204

not a forest plan revision. The Forest Service 

recognizes that Forest visitors seek different 

experiences. The alternatives provide a range of options 

for motorized travel opportunities. 

941 4-373 Land Designations. 4-373 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should designate the Hop 

Creek/Swede Gulch area as Roadless because it 

has been damaged by mining, illegal OHV use, 

and grazing.

Land allocations and the Forest roadless area inventory, 

the subject of this comment, are appropriately evaluated 

as part of a forest plan revision. This travel planning 

effort will be a project decision and not a forest plan 

revision. The Forest Service recognizes that Forest 

visitors seek different experiences. The alternatives 

provide a range of options for motorized travel 

opportunities. Effects of the alternatives on resources 

and recreation opportunities are disclosed in the EIS in 

Chapter 3. 

254/1. 329/2.

942 4-374 Impact Analysis. 4-374 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should perform a mixed-use 

analysis before selecting a preferred alternative.

In 2009, motorized mixed use analyses (professional 

engineering studies) were conducted on selected ML 2 –

ML 5 roads by the forest‟s engineering department. 

These roads are the forest‟s arterials and collectors and 

the main access routes that the public uses to get to the 

forest. Professional engineering analysis and judgment 

was used to evaluate the potential for a crash as well as 

the severity of an accident should a crash occur. The 

crash potential rating is based on roadway factors such 

as traffic volume and type, surface type and condition, 

sight distances, driving speeds, and roadway alignment 

(horizontal and vertical curves). Crash severity ratings 

were based on roadside conditions (natural ground 

slopes, slope/height of embankments, and large 

unyielding features next to the road), speed, and traffic 

types (the larger the difference in size of vehicles, the 

greater the severity). The final decision on designation 

of motorized mixed use roads will be informed by these 

studies.

326/40. 459/17. 611/17.

943 4-374 Impact Analysis. 4-374 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should perform a mixed-use 

analysis to justify the selection of Alternative B.

In 2009, motorized mixed use analyses (professional 

engineering studies) were conducted on selected ML 2 –

ML 5 roads by the forest‟s engineering department. 

These roads are the forest‟s arterials and collectors and 

the main access routes that the public uses to get to the 

forest. Professional engineering analysis and judgment 

was used to evaluate the potential for a crash as well as 

459/1. 611/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

205

the severity of an accident should a crash occur. The 

crash potential rating is based on roadway factors such 

as traffic volume and type, surface type and condition, 

sight distances, driving speeds, and roadway alignment 

(horizontal and vertical curves). Crash severity ratings 

were based on roadside conditions (natural ground 

slopes, slope/height of embankments, and large 

unyielding features next to the road), speed, and traffic 

types (the larger the difference in size of vehicles, the 

greater the severity). The final decision on designation 

of motorized mixed use roads will be informed by these 

studies.

9444-374 Impact Analysis. 4-374 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should perform a mixed-use 

analysis to ensure that identified routes are not 

illusory.

In 2009, motorized mixed use analyses (professional 

engineering studies) were conducted on selected ML 2 –

ML 5 roads by the forest‟s engineering department. 

These roads are the forest‟s arterials and collectors and 

the main access routes that the public uses to get to the 

forest. Professional engineering analysis and judgment 

was used to evaluate the potential for a crash as well as 

the severity of an accident should a crash occur. The 

crash potential rating is based on roadway factors such 

as traffic volume and type, surface type and condition, 

sight distances, driving speeds, and roadway alignment 

(horizontal and vertical curves). Crash severity ratings 

were based on roadside conditions (natural ground 

slopes, slope/height of embankments, and large 

unyielding features next to the road), speed, and traffic 

types (the larger the difference in size of vehicles, the 

greater the severity). The final decision on designation 

of motorized mixed use roads will be informed by these 

studies.

461/7. 

9454-375 Impact Analysis. 4-375 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should provide site-specific 

qualitative analysis to comply with the national 

OHV decision.

The alternatives include a variety of routes including 

some created by users and others remaining from earlier 

management activities. The effects of the alternatives 

on recreation opportunities are disclosed in the FEIS, 

Chapter 3, Recreation section. 

126/125.

9464-375 Impact Analysis. 4-375 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should provide site-specific 

qualitative analysis to ensure sufficient 

information is available to assist decision makers 

The alternatives were developed to address the issues in 

different ways, and include a variety of routes suggested 

by the public or proposed by the Forest Service. We 

agree that some routes may provide more opportunities 

578/18.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

206

and the public. than others, or may be more sensitive to impacts of use. 

Recreation opportunities and specific routes and areas 

important to motorized users were identified in 

numerous public comments prior to and during scoping, 

and in comments on the DEIS. These comments were

used to develop the alternatives, and are documented in 

the project record. Routes and route segments were 

evaluated by interdisciplinary team resource specialists 

and ranger district personnel familiar with them This 

site-specific analysis is documented in the project record 

in the form of maps, reports and other data; and in the 

FEIS in such places as Appendix B, Design Criteria for 

Botanical Resources, Hydrology and Fisheries, and 

Wildlife; and, in Chapter 3, in these and other resource 

sections. 

947 4-376 Impact Analysis. 4-376 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include detailed, sitespecific analysis of each road or trail proposed for 

closure to ensure both site-specific and 

cumulative impacts are addressed.

This project does not propose to close roads, trails or 

areas, but rather to designate routes and areas open to 

use. The effects on motorized recreation opportunities 

of each of the alternatives are disclosed in the FEIS, 

Chapter 3, Recreation section. The cumulative effects 

of other actions on recreation opportunities are 

addressed there as well. 

126/31.

948 4-377 Impact Analysis. 4-377 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should evaluate all existing routes 

including those meeting national OHV rule 

guidelines and currently closed routes.

The alternatives were developed to address the issues in 

different ways, and include a variety of routes suggested 

by the public or proposed by the Forest Service. 

Recreation opportunities and specific routes and areas 

important to motorized users were identified in 

numerous public comments prior to and during scoping, 

and in comments on the DEIS. These comments were 

used to develop the alternatives, and are contained in 

the project record. Effects of the alternatives on 

motorized recreation opportunities are disclosed in the 

FEIS, Chapter 3, Recreation section. 

126/5.

949 4-378 Impact Analysis. 4-378 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include impacts from roads 

used for timber management in the cumulative 

impact assessment.

We agree. Roads used for timber harvest and other uses 

are included in the cumulative effects analysis where 

applicable. See FEIS, Chapter 3, various Resource 

Sections and FEIS, Appendix E.

319/34. 414/22. 456/112. 

458/88. 462/23.

950 4-379 Impact Analysis. 4-379 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should analyze the costs of 

trailhead development.

Completing designs and detailed cost estimates are 

beyond the scope of this analysis. Estimated costs for a 

typical trailhead were utilized in the analysis for 

319/51. 456/56. 458/51. 

462/40.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

207

comparative purposes. Specific decisions regarding 

implementation and possibly construction will be based 

on the resources available.

951 4-380 Impact Analysis. 4-380 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should provide a more detailed 

map and analysis of all trailheads located near 

communities and private land to include 

discussion of the impact of concentrated OHV 

use on neighborhoods.

The alternatives addressed the concern about motorized 

use near private lands in different ways. Alternative C 

proposes 11 trailheads within 3 miles of a potential 

gateway community, while Alternative D proposes 7; 

Alternatives A and E each propose none. Similarly, the 

number of miles of designated routes within 300 feet of 

lands of other ownerships varies by alternative. The 

effects of motorized use on neighbors and communities 

are disclosed in the FEIS in Chapter 3, in the 

Recreation, Engineering and Transportation, and SocioEconomic sections. Effects of each of the alternatives 

with respect to noise levels are addressed in the 

Engineering and Transportation section. 

585/1.

952 4-381 Impact Analysis. 4-381 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include a comparison and 

analysis of trailheads in Wilderness Areas versus 

trailheads in OHV areas to make clear the existing 

imbalance.

One of the elements of the purpose and need for this 

project is to develop a transportation system to provide 

a range of quality experiences for a variety of Forest 

users. The Forest Service intends to provide facilities 

on any adopted motorized system that meet standards 

and public expectations. The rate at which any system 

can be fully implemented will depend on available 

funding including fees and appropriations. 

126/130. 

953 4-382 Impact Analysis. 4-382 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should improve the discussion of 

decibel levels to include a discussion of the 

impact of increases on listeners.

The discussion of actual noise levels under the 

alternatives in the DEIS has been carried forward into 

the FEIS, Engineering and Transportation section, 

largely unchanged because no changes were made to the 

alternatives. The comment asks for discussion of what 

noise actually means to listeners. The discussion in the 

Socio-Economics section on noise impacts has been 

expanded somewhat to address this. However, since 

stimuli such as noise evoke different reactions among 

different people, it is difficult to estimate what a given 

noise level may mean to one or more individuals at any 

given time or place. Expectations of visitors are an 

important consideration. Public information about 

opportunities provided on the Forest can help visitors 

to develop realistic expectations. In addition, factors 

such as topography, vegetation cover, and wind 

578/41.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

208

direction can affect noise perceptions at a given time 

and place. The alternatives provide varying levels of 

motorized travel opportunities and address the issue of 

noise in different ways. The effects are disclosed in the 

EIS in Chapter 3. 

954 4-383 Impact Analysis. 4-383 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should use a reasonable test to 

assess the significance of impacts from closing 

routes to motorized access including 

consideration of available alternatives to closure.

The Forest plans to provide access for both highwaylegal and non highway-legal vehicles in a manner that is 

environmentally sustainable over the long term. The 

decision on the type of use allowed will be based on 

factors such as compatibility with existing land 

prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the 

resource, wildlife objectives, safety, and existing and/or 

potential conflicts.

126/128.

955 4-384 Impact Analysis. 4-384 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should analyze the impacts of 

changing the responsibility for determining which

areas are open to motorized use because the new 

policy places responsibility on the public to 

determine which areas are open.

OPEN

Routes available to the public for motorized use will be 

shown on the Motor Vehicle Use Map. The Forest 

Service may also sign designated routes on the ground 

based on resource availability. If a route is not shown 

on the MVUM, it is not available for public motorized 

use.

419/1.

956 5-1 Access to the National Forest (Chapter 5: 

Recreation Management). 5-1 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should support family-focused 

outdoor recreation in these poor economic times.

There are many motorized and non-motorized 

opportunities for families to recreate on the National 

Forest. The DEIS and FEIS considered a variety of 

recreation activities throughout the alternatives for 

family activities and disclosed the effects in Chapter 3, 

pages 46-66.

387/11

957 5-2 Access to the National Forest. 5-2 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should ensure that 

all user groups are provided for.

National Forests are managed for multiple use activities. 

Each user group was considered in the development of 

the DEIS and FEIS and categorized into two groups; 

motorized and non-motorized. Each alternative of the 

DEIS and FEIS varies in opportunities for each of these 

recreation areas, pages 46-66.

425/12. 461/18. 461/26. 

958 5-3 Access to the National Forest. 5-3 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should avoid overlystrict reduction in access to allow for multiple use 

access and access for the limitedly able.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of motorized 

opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. 

Persons with disabilities have the same access 

opportunities as those without disabilities. 

304/2. 

959 5-4 Motorized Access. 5-4 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that 

motorized users are given substantial recreational 

resources.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of motorized 

opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. 

458/23.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

209

960 5-5 Motorized Access. 5-5 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should distinguish between the 

various types of motorized vehicles because they 

don't all cause the same level of damage.

The DEIS and FEIS considered the various types of 

motorized vehicles utilizing the Forest roads and trails 

and the effects each may cause on natural resources in 

Chapter 3.

322/12.

961 5-6 Motorized Access. 5-6 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should disclose the magnitude of 

the taking of motorized access constituted by the 

proposed plan.

The DEIS and FEIS identified the miles of roads open 

to motorized use within the Forest. The DEIS and 

FEIS also identified the miles of roads outside Forest 

Service jurisdiction, pages 66-89.

197/2.

962 5-7 Motorized Access. 5-7 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that the 

increasing use of OHVs indicates that the public 

is increasing their use of the Forest.

The DEIS and FEIS disclosed the increase in sales of 

OHVs nationwide and the estimated number of 

motorized visitors to the Forest, pages 50-51. Chapter 3 

discloses the effects increased OHV use on the Forest 

could do to natural resources without regulations. 

201/1.

963 5-8 Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized Access. 

5-8 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

limit motorized access because many citizens are 

opposed to motorized use of the BHNF.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provided the 

highest limitation on motorized access to the Forest. 

The natural resource effects analysis for this alternative 

is in Chapter 3.

171/1. 406/6. 

964 5-8 Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized Access. 

5-8 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

limit motorized access to reduce the damage to 

public lands and conflicts with non-motorized 

users.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provided the 

highest limitation on motorized access to the Forest. 

The natural resource effects analysis for this alternative 

is in Chapter 3.

037/2. 037/4. 064/2. 090/2. 

105/9. 288/2. 318/1. 331/4. 

356/2. 376/5. 424/7. 479/12. 

488/7. 529/1. 

965 5-8 Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized Access. 

5-8 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

limit motorized access to reduce damage to roads 

and trails, thereby increasing safety.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provided the 

highest limitation on motorized access to the Forest. 

The natural resource effects analysis for this alternative 

is in Chapter 3.

026/2. 

966 5-8 Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized Access. 

5-8 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

limit motorized access to reduce damage to roads 

and trails.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provided the 

highest limitation on motorized access to the Forest. 

The natural resource effects analysis for this alternative 

is in Chapter 3.

401/1. 536/14.

967 5-8 Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized Access. 

5-8 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

limit motorized access to reduce damage to roads 

and wildlife.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provided the 

highest limitation on motorized access to the Forest. 

The natural resource effects analysis for this alternative 

is in Chapter 3.

163/1.

968 5-8 Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized Access. 

5-8 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

limit motorized access to reduce damage to the 

ecosystem and to reduce oil consumption.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provided the 

highest limitation on motorized access to the Forest. 

The natural resource effects analysis for this alternative 

is in Chapter 3.

152/1. 372/2. 

969 5-8 Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized Access. 

5-8 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provided the 

highest limitation on motorized access to the Forest. 

090/1. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

210

limit motorized access because OHVs are noisy 

and dust-producing and many users engage in 

unsafe practices.

The natural resource effects analysis for this alternative 

is in Chapter 3.

970 5-8 Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized Access. 

5-8 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

limit motorized access to reduce contributions to 

global warming.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provided the 

highest limitation on motorized access to the Forest. 

The natural resource effects analysis for this alternative 

is in Chapter 3.

320/10. 474/27.

971 5-8 Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized Access. 

5-8 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

limit motorized access to preserve the natural 

beauty and quiet recreation of the forest.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provided the 

highest limitation on motorized access to the Forest. 

The natural resource effects analysis for this alternative 

is in Chapter 3.

090/4. 028/1. 050/1. 066/1. 

257/1. 488/2. 518/4.

972 5-9 Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized Access. 

5-9 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

restrict motorized access to public lands because 

motorized users should not be allowed to damage 

public lands.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provided the 

highest limitation on motorized access to the Forest. 

The natural resource effects analysis for this alternative 

is in Chapter 3. 

443/3.

973 5-10 Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized Access. 

5-10 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

limit motorized recreation to existing state and 

federal highways, county roads, and existing forest 

system roads with a constructed roadbed and 

gravel surface to mitigate the effects of climate 

change.

Federal and State highways and County roads are 

outside the jurisdiction of the Forest Service and have 

not been included in the DEIS and FEIS for motorized 

recreation. Forest Service system roads have been 

included to varied degrees in the DEIS and FEIS 

alternatives and effects disclosed in Chapter 3.

458/12.

974 5-11 Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized Access. 

5-11 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

reconsider the scale of off-road travel allowed to 

comply with the intent of MUSYA.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives provide a range of offroad travel opportunities. Effects to these alternatives 

on natural resources are disclosed in Chapter 3. 

458/4.

975 5-12 Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized Access. 

5-12 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

reduce the number of motorized routes to allow 

for more non-motorized, quiet recreation.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provided the 

highest limitation on motorized access to the Forest. 

The natural resource effects analysis for this alternative 

is in Chapter 3. 

027/2.

976 5-12 Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized Access. 

5-12 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

reduce the number of motorized routes to protect 

the quality of the recreation experience for nonmotorized users.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provided the 

highest limitation on motorized access to the Forest. 

The natural resource effects analysis for this alternative 

is in Chapter 3. 

067/1. 171/2. 

977 5-12 Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized Access. 

5-12 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

reduce the number of motorized routes because 

motorized recreation causes noise and pollution.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provided the 

highest limitation on motorized access to the Forest. 

The natural resource effects analysis for this alternative 

is in Chapter 3.

410/2. 172/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

211

978 5-12 Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized Access. 

5-12 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

reduce the number of motorized routes because 

off-highway riders engage in illegal and 

destructive behavior.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provided the 

highest limitation on motorized access to the Forest. 

The natural resource effects analysis for this alternative 

is in Chapter 3. 

452/1.

979 5-13 Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized Access. 

5-13 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

reduce motorized access to the forest to protect 

wildlife and plant species and wetland and riparian 

areas.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provided the 

highest limitation on motorized access to the Forest. 

The natural resource effects analysis for this alternative 

is in Chapter 3. 

115/1.

980 5-13 Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized Access. 

5-13 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

reduce motorized access to the forest to reduce 

damage to the forest and improve wildlife habitat.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provided the 

highest limitation on motorized access to the Forest. 

The natural resource effects analysis for this alternative 

is in Chapter 3. 

157/2. 475/2. 518/1.

981 5-13 Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized Access. 

5-13 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

reduce motorized access to

the forest to allow for quiet recreation.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provided the 

highest limitation on motorized access to the Forest. 

The natural resource effects analysis for this alternative 

is in Chapter 3. 

062/1. 

982 5-14 Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized Access. 

5-14 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

not expand the motorized trail system to reduce 

conflicts with non-motorized users.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provides the least 

amount of motorized trail access to the Forest. The 

natural resource effects analysis for this alternative is in 

Chapter 3. 

058/1. 

983 5-15 Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized Access. 

5-15 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

choose the smallest motorized travel system 

possible to ensure optimal management and 

reduce user conflicts.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provides the least 

amount of motorized access to the Forest. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative is in Chapter 

3. 

058/1. 122/2.

984 5-16 Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized Access. 

5-16 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

prohibit all motorized recreational access to 

protect remaining natural areas.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provides the 

greatest amount of protection from motorized access to 

natural areas and wilderness on the Forest. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative is in Chapter 

3. 

089/1. 258/1. 406/2. 422/1. 

458/1.

985 5-16 Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized Access. 

5-16 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

prohibit all motorized recreational access because 

many motorized users don't obey the rules and 

don't participate in trail maintenance.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provides the least 

amount of motorized access to the Forest. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative is in Chapter 

3. 

072/1.

986 5-16 Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized Access. 

5-16 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

prohibit all motorized recreational access because 

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provides the least 

amount of motorized access to the Forest. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative is in Chapter 

150/4.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

212

non-motorized access is healthier. 3. 

987 5-17 Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized Access. 

5-17 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

limit the number of OHV only areas to reduce 

user-created roads and resource damage.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provides the 

greatest limitation on the number of OHV-only areas 

and the amount of motorized access to the Forest. The 

natural resource effects analysis for this alternative is in 

Chapter 3. 

346/24.

988 5-18 Motorized Access - Limiting Motorized Access. 

5-18 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

narrow access to motorcycles and ATVs to 

mitigate the impacts of larger vehicles and 

minimize ongoing impacts to forest ecology.

Motorized opportunities vary by alternative in the DEIS 

and FEIS. Some motorized users may be restricted on 

routes under one alternative and allowed access in 

another. Effects to natural resources on these varied 

degrees of motorized access are disclosed in Chapter 3.

322/13.

989 5-19 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining 

Current Motorized Access. 5-19 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should support motorized 

recreation to support the local economy and 

culture.

Forest visitors recreate on the Forest for a variety of 

reasons. The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of 

motorized opportunities and disclosed effects in 

Chapter 3.

126/11. 126/34. 144/3. 253/2. 

325/1. 382/16. 408/13. 442/1.

990 5-19 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining 

Current Motorized Access. 5-19 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should support motorized 

recreation to support the economy of Piedmont.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of motorized 

opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. 

403/1.

991 5-19 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining 

Current Motorized Access. 5-19 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should support motorized 

recreation to support family recreation.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of motorized 

opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. 

253/3. 598/1. 

992 5-19 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining 

Current Motorized Access. 5-19 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should support motorized 

recreation to help combat the increase in 

overweight and obesity.

The potential conflicts of motorized recreation with 

natural and cultural resources, and other uses of the 

Forest, as well as the social and economic effects of 

various levels of use were issues identified in Chapter 1. 

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of motorized 

opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. 

126/158.

993 5-20 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining 

Current Motorized Access. 5-20 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should not reduce motorized 

access to be consistent with Congressional intent 

and meet the needs of the public.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of motorized 

opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. 

Alternative C provides the highest amount of motorized 

opportunities for the Black Hills. 

126/51. 126/81. 323/1. 450/11. 

450/17. 461/14.

994 5-20 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining 

Current Motorized Access. 5-20 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should not reduce motorized 

access because the area used by motorized trails is 

insignificant and is at a reasonable level.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of motorized 

opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. 

084/1. 104/1. 126/51. 220/13. 

230/17. 408/12.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

213

995 5-20 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining 

Current Motorized Access. 5-20 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should not reduce motorized 

access because concentrating use will increase the 

damage done in the high use areas.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of motorized 

opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. 

144/2. 321/2.

996 5-21 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining 

Current Motorized Access. 5-21 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should preserve existing 

motorized access to comply with the intent of 

NEPA and because the trails contribute to 

culture, history, and traditions.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of motorized 

opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. 

Alternatives B and C of the DEIS and FEIS provide 

the greatest motorized opportunities.

126/10. 126/243. 260/11. 

325/4. 

997 5-21 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining 

Current Motorized Access. 5-21 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should preserve existing 

motorized access because limiting and 

concentrating use would increase damage to those 

areas.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of motorized 

opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. 

126/36. 220/13. 359/1. 

998 5-22 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining 

Current Motorized Access. 5-22 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should open all trails to 

motorized users because motorized users have 

historically provided significant maintenance to 

trails.

Alternative C of the DEIS and FEIS provided the 

highest concentration of motorized routes for the 

Forest. Effects on natural resources and maintenance 

costs are disclosed in Chapter 3.

126/196.

999 5-23 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining 

Current Motorized Access. 5-23 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should not restrict access to 

any of the existing roads and trails on National 

Forest System lands.

This analysis includes the evaluation of user created 

routes and system routes for possible designation into 

the Forest Travel System. The evaluation of each route 

considered factors such as compatibility with existing 

land prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the 

resource, wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or 

potential conflicts as well as information provided from 

the public. These routes will also need to meet existing 

objectives, standards and specifications as identified 

within Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes 

that are determined to provide a benefit to the public 

and are consistent with the above factors are likely 

candidates for inclusion into the transportation system. 

Some restrictions to motorized access are necessary due 

to the sensitivity of resources along particular routes. 

Alternative C of the DEIS and FEIS provided the 

highest concentration of motorized routes for the 

009/1. 385/11. 592/3.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

214

Forest. Effects on natural resources are disclosed in 

Chapter 3. 

1000 5-24 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining 

Current Motorized Access. 5-24 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should avoid changing the 

current travel management plan to preserve the 

current level of motorized access.

Alternative A reflects the current travel management 

plan and is considered in the DEIS and FEIS. 

126/78. 504/15. 531/11.

1001 5-25 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining 

Current Motorized Access. 5-25 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should include as much 

motorized access as possible to avoid noncompliance issues, which would result in further 

restrictions.

Alternative C of the DEIS and FEIS provided the 

highest concentration of motorized routes for the 

Forest. Effects on natural resources are disclosed in 

Chapter 3.

236/5. 477/8. 614/8.

1002 5-26 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining 

Current Motorized Access. 5-26 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should allow liberal motorized 

use of National Forest System lands because 

adjacent areas provide sufficient non-motorized 

access.

Alternative C of the DEIS and FEIS provided the 

highest concentration of motorized routes for the 

Forest. Effects on natural resources are disclosed in 

Chapter 3.

178/1.

1003 5-27 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining 

Current Motorized Access. 5-27 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should increase motorized 

access because most motorized users do not cause 

environmental damage or violate current rules.

Alternative C of the DEIS and FEIS provided the 

highest concentration of motorized routes for the 

Forest. Effects on natural resources are disclosed in 

Chapter 3.

060/1. 415/1. 571/10.

1004 5-27 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining 

Current Motorized Access. 5-27 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should increase motorized 

access to allow users to access the interior of the 

BHNF.

Alternative C of the DEIS and FEIS provided the 

highest concentration of motorized routes for the 

Forest. Effects on natural resources are disclosed in 

Chapter 3.

503/18. 

1005 5-27 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining 

Current Motorized Access. 5-27 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should increase motorized 

access to reduce illegal use and improve the OHV 

experience.

Alternative C of the DEIS and FEIS provided the 

highest concentration of motorized routes for the 

Forest. Effects on natural resources are disclosed in 

Chapter 3.

126/44. 126/271. 313/4. 448/1. 

512/12. 512/13. 513/11. 

1006 5-28 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining 

Current Motorized Access. 5-28 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should address the current and 

future needs of motorized recreationists and 

provide them with equal opportunity.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of motorized 

opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. 

126/4. 510/17.

1007 5-29 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of motorized 075/1. 126/122. 126/123.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

215

Current Motorized Access. 5-29 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should work proactively to 

accommodate the increasing popularity of OHV 

recreation.

opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. 

1008 5-30 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining 

Current Motorized Access. 5-30 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should explain why nonmotorized user needs are provided for at a higher 

level than motorized user needs.

There are many motorized and non-motorized 

opportunities on the National Forest. The DEIS and 

FEIS considered a range of recreation activities 

throughout the alternatives and disclosed the effects in 

Chapter 3.

126/30.

1009 5-31 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining 

Current Motorized Access. 5-31 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should designate a sufficient 

number of trails as motorized to avoid user 

conflicts and concentrating use in small areas.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed 

effects in Chapter 3. The greatest motorized trail 

opportunities are in Alternatives B and C.

105/10. 128/2.

1010 5-31 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining 

Current Motorized Access. 5-31 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should designate a sufficient 

number of trails as motorized to avoid over 

concentration and resulting safety and 

environmental impacts.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed 

effects in Chapter 3. The greatest motorized trail 

opportunities are in Alternatives B and C.

084/3. 105/10. 126/66. 403/6.

1011 5-31 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining 

Current Motorized Access. 5-31 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should designate a sufficient 

number of trails as motorized to provide 

motorized users a variety of new trail to explore.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed 

effects in Chapter 3. The greatest motorized trail 

opportunities are in Alternatives B and C.

514/13. 534/21.

1012 5-31 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining 

Current Motorized Access. 5-31 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should designate a sufficient 

number of trails as motorized to increase 

compliance with the plan.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed 

effects in Chapter 3. The greatest motorized trail 

opportunities are in Alternatives B and C.

128/2.

1013 5-32 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining 

Current Motorized Access. 5-32 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should not close off-road 

motorized trails to support family recreation.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

recreation opportunities for family activities and 

disclosed the effects in Chapter 3..

154/1.

1014 5-33 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining 

Current Motorized Access. 5-33 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should reconsider the size of 

the reduction of motorized trails because many of 

the problems could be solved with greater 

enforcement.

Alternative A, page 21 of the DEIS, represents the legal 

motorized opportunities for the Forest. By comparison, 

Alternatives B, C, and D; pages 24, 26, and 29 

respectively, of the DEIS, provides an increase to the 

legal motorized trail opportunities for the Forest. 

045/1. 054/1. 459/14. 611/14.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

216

1015 5-34 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining 

Current Motorized Access. 5-34 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should reconsider restrictions 

on motorized access because restrictions would 

concentrate use, congest parking areas, and cause 

more enforcement issues.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed 

effects in Chapter 3. Effects of the Alternatives 

regarding the need to trailer ATVs and parking 

congestion have been disclosed in Chapter 3 of the 

DEIS, pages 46-66.

103/1.

1016 5-34 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining 

Current Motorized Access. 5-34 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should reconsider restrictions 

on motorized access to reduce damage caused by 

concentrating use on a smaller number of trails.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed 

effects in Chapter 3. Alternative C of the DEIS and 

FEIS provided the highest concentration of motorized 

routes for the Forest.

045/2. 054/2. 178/2. 504/12.

1017 5-34 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining 

Current Motorized Access. 5-34 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should reconsider restrictions 

on motorized access because there are already 

sufficient areas set aside for non-motorized 

recreation.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed

effects in Chapter 3.

012/4. 531/17. 

1018 5-34 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining 

Current Motorized Access. 5-34 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should reconsider restrictions 

on motorized access because motorized 

recreation is very popular in the Black Hills area.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed 

effects in Chapter 3. Alternative C of the DEIS and 

FEIS provided the highest concentration of motorized 

routes for the Forest.

023/1. 084/4. 286/6. 407/12. 

446/5. 

1019 5-34 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining 

Current Motorized Access. 5-34 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should reconsider restrictions 

on motorized access because most motorized 

recreationists do not break the law and should not 

be penalized for the bad actions of a few.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed 

effects in Chapter 3.

012/1.

1020 5-34 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining 

Current Motorized Access. 5-34 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should reconsider restrictions 

on motorized access because motorized 

recreation causes less damage than other uses, 

such as grazing.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed 

effects of these alternatives on natural resources in 

Chapter 3.

012/2. 486/1.

1021 5-34 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining 

Current Motorized Access. 5-34 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should reconsider restrictions 

on motorized access to avoid impacts on the local 

economy.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed 

effects in Chapter 3.

211/2. 

1022 5-35 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 126/63.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

217

Current Motorized Access. 5-35 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should acknowledge that 

closing areas to OHVs exacerbates illegal use.

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed 

effects in Chapter 3. Alternative C of the DEIS and 

FEIS provided the highest concentration of motorized 

routes for the Forest. 

1023 5-36 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining 

Current Motorized Access. 5-36 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should increase the number of 

motorized roads in the Wyoming portion of the 

BHNF because higher user numbers would 

benefit the local economy.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed 

effects in Chapter 3. 

128/3. 161/3.

1024 5-36 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining 

Current Motorized Access. 5-36 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should increase the number of 

motorized roads in the Wyoming portion of the 

BHNF because there is little non-motorized use 

there.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed 

effects in Chapter 3. Alternative C of the DEIS and 

FEIS provided the highest concentration of motorized 

routes for the Forest. 

355/4.

1025 5-36 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining 

Current Motorized Access. 5-36 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should increase the number of 

motorized roads in the Wyoming portion of the 

BHNF to reduce illegal riding

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed 

effects in Chapter 3. 

142/13.

1026 5-37 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining 

Current Motorized Access. 5-37 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should increase publication 

and sponsorship of motorized recreation events 

to reduce the appearance of bias against 

motorized recreation.

The Forest Service web site, www.fs.fed.us, has a link 

for motorized recreation including a link for Forests 

with completed Motor Vehicle Use Maps that are 

available on-line. The Black Hills National Forest 

intends to make their Motor Vehicle Use Map available 

on-line when the decision is made of authorized routes. 

Private entities sponsoring any recreation events are 

normally responsible for publicizing such events. The 

Forest Service may consider partnerships as appropriate. 

126/234.

1027 5-38 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining 

Current Motorized Access. 5-38 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should provide adequate 

motorized access within a short distance of urban 

areas to conserve energy. 

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road, trail and trailhead opportunities and 

disclosed effects in Chapter 3. 

126/174.

1028 5-39 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining 

Current Motorized Access. 5-39 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should open multiple-use 

lands to motorized vehicles and equipment 

because these areas should not be managed as 

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities within areas open 

to multiple use activities and disclosed effects in Chapter 

3. 

126/27.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

218

wilderness. 

1029 5-40 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining 

Current Motorized Access. 5-40 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should only close those areas 

deemed sensitive or that have been damaged to 

avoid a one-size fits all plan.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed 

effects in Chapter 3. 

103/2.

1030 5-41 Motorized Access - Increasing or Maintaining 

Current Motorized Access. 5-41 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should select Alternative C 

because it would allow a wide range of motorized 

access.

Alternative C of the DEIS and FEIS does provide the 

widest range of motorized opportunities for the Forest. 

Thank you for your comment.

249/1.

1031 5-42 Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails and 

Motorcycle Access. 5-42 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should designate all single-track 

trails as open to motorized use to be consistent 

with the Civil Rights Act.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed 

effects in Chapter 3. Non-motorized trails may not be 

environmentally appropriate for motorized use due to 

design or location. Where non-motorized trails overlap 

with motorized roads proposals for shared interests 

between user groups was incorporated into the 

alternatives.

126/23.

1032 5-42 Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails and 

Motorcycle Access. 5-42 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should designate all single-track 

trails as open to motorized use because off-road 

motorcycling has a long tradition and is very 

popular.

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided 

for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS. 

Effects to the natural resources for this activity are 

disclosed in Chapter 3.

351/12. 451/3. 483/11. 604/15.

1033 5-42 Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails and 

Motorcycle Access. 5-42 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should designate all single-track 

trails as open to motorized use because singletrack trails appear natural and can be shared with 

other users.

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided 

for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS. 

Effects to the natural resources for this activity are 

disclosed in Chapter 3.

126/132. 126/133. 351/15. 

1034 5-42 Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails and 

Motorcycle Access. 5-42 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should designate all single-track 

trails as open to motorized use to provide a 

variety of challenging trails.

Not all the trails currently used for single-track are open 

to motorized activities. Some trails are resulting in 

damage to sensitive resources. Opportunities for singletrack trails have been provided for in Alternatives B, C, 

and D of the DEIS and FEIS. Effects to the natural 

resources for this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

449/8. 460/6. 535/5. 536/23. 

609/15. 609/16.

1035 5-42 Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails and 

Motorcycle Access. 5-42 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should designate all single-track 

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided 

for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS. 

Effects to the natural resources for this activity are 

500/11. 501/12. 530/12.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

219

trails as open to motorized use because 

motorcyclists are responsible users and there is a 

shortage of quality trails.

disclosed in Chapter 3.

1036 5-43 Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails and 

Motorcycle Access. 5-43 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should allow motorcycles to access 

trails currently open to them because 

motorcyclists have been good stewards and are 

willing to help with trail maintenance. 

Not all the trails currently used for single-track are open 

to motorized activities. Some trails are resulting in 

damage to sensitive resources. Opportunities for singletrack trails have been provided for in Alternatives B, C, 

and D of the DEIS and FEIS. Effects to the natural 

resources for this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

359/7. 445/7. 483/12.

1037 5-44 Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails and 

Motorcycle Access. 5-44 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include all user-created 

single-track trails in the system because 

motorcycling has a long history on the BHNF 

and is popular.

Not all the trails currently used for single-track are open 

to motorized activities. Some trails are resulting in 

damage to sensitive resources. Opportunities for singletrack trails have been provided for in Alternatives B, C, 

and D of the DEIS and FEIS. Effects to the natural 

resources for this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

322/17. 449/6. 534/22. 535/4.

1038 5-45 Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails and 

Motorcycle Access. 5-45 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should not provide more singletrack trails.

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided 

for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS 

to varying degrees. Effects to the natural resources for 

this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

218/11. 219/11. 231/11. 

296/11. 338/11. 505/11. 

506/11.

1039 5-46 Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails and 

Motorcycle Access. 5-46 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should provide more single-track 

trails to increase safety.

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided 

for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS 

to varying degrees. Effects to the natural resources for 

this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3. The Forest 

reviewed the user submitted single-track trails for 

resource and safety concerns and included those routes 

that could be environmentally sustained into the 

alternatives.

262/13. 298/11. 447/3. 

502/13. 531/12. 536/15. 

1040 5-46 Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails and 

Motorcycle Access. 5-46 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should provide more single-track 

trails to reduce non-compliance issues.

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided 

for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS 

to varying degrees. Effects to the natural resources for 

this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

447/2.

1041 5-46 Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails and 

Motorcycle Access. 5-46 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should provide more single-track 

trails to provide a variety of experiences.

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided 

for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS 

to varying degrees. Effects to the natural resources for 

this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

215/3. 216/5. 217/13. 247/25. 

297/11. 302/12. 303/11. 

311/12. 351/14. 359/3. 384/11. 

403/4. 407/11. 408/11. 416/11. 

417/11. 421/11. 425/11. 

429/11. 430/11. 439/1. 460/5. 

483/17. 483/20. 484/11. 

485/11. 503/13. 504/13. 

507/12. 515/11. 521/11. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

220

536/16. 562/11. 570/10.

1042 5-46 Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails and 

Motorcycle Access. 5-46 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should provide more single-track 

trails because single-track users need more miles 

of trails than other motorized users.

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided 

for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS 

to varying degrees. Effects to the natural resources for 

this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

347/1. 351/14. 379/13. 447/2. 

460/5. 461/5. 483/20. 508/13. 

570/10. 593/17. 594/3. 602/3. 

605/15. 606/17. 609/14.

1043 5-46 Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails and 

Motorcycle Access. 5-46 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should provide more single-track 

trails because ATV and motorcycle users prefer to 

have separate trails.

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided 

for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS 

to varying degrees. Effects to the natural resources for 

this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

220/11. 297/11. 444/1. 461/5. 

499/11. 511/12. 519/7. 

1044 5-46 Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails and 

Motorcycle Access. 5-46 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should provide more single-track 

trails because the single-track community has 

been a good steward.

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided 

for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS 

to varying degrees. Effects to the natural resources for 

this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

447/1. 

1045 5-46 Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails and 

Motorcycle Access. 5-46 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should provide more single-track 

trails because they tend to have low nonmotorized use rates, which would effectively 

separate users.

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided 

for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS 

to varying degrees. Effects to the natural resources for 

this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

230/12.

1046 5-47 Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails and 

Motorcycle Access. 5-47 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that 

establishing a single-track trail system would be 

inexpensive because little construction would be 

required.

The cost of single-track trail construction and 

maintenance was disclosed in Chapter 3 of the DEIS, 

pages 66-89.

536/17.

1047 5-48 Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails and 

Motorcycle Access. 5-48 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should provide greater access for 

dirt bikes to be equitable. 

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided 

for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS 

to varying degrees. Effects to the natural resources for 

this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

049/2.

1048 5-48 Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails and 

Motorcycle Access. 5-48 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should provide greater access for 

dirt bikes to reduce congestion and increase 

safety.

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided 

for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS 

to varying degrees. Effects to the natural resources for 

this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

049/1.

1049 5-48 Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails and 

Motorcycle Access. 5-48 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should provide greater access for 

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided 

for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS 

to varying degrees. Effects to the natural resources for 

562/12.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

221

dirt bikes because motorcycles are fewer in 

number than four-wheeled vehicles and do less 

damage.

this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

1050 5-49 Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails and 

Motorcycle Access. 5-49 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should provide designated 

motorcycle trails to increase safety.

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided 

for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS 

to varying degrees. Effects to the natural resources for 

this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

229/12. 382/12. 497/13.

1051 5-49 Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails and 

Motorcycle Access. 5-49 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should provide designated 

motorcycle trails to reduce user-created trails and 

illegal off-road riding.

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided 

for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS 

to varying degrees. Effects to the natural resources for 

this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

142/5.

1052 5-50 Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails and 

Motorcycle Access. 5-50 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should combine mountain bike and 

motorcycle trails to increase the available singletrack trails for motorcycles.

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided 

for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS 

to varying degrees. Effects to the natural resources for 

this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3. Non-motorized 

trails may not be environmentally appropriate for 

motorized use due to design or location. Where nonmotorized trails overlap with motorized roads, 

proposals for shared interests between user groups was 

incorporated into the alternatives. 

221/13. 536/18. 

1053 5-50 Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails and 

Motorcycle Access. 5-50 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should combine mountain bike and 

motorcycle trails as has been done in Idaho.

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided 

for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS 

to varying degrees. Effects to the natural resources for 

this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3. Non-motorized 

trails may not be environmentally appropriate for 

motorized use due to design or location. Where nonmotorized trails overlap with motorized roads, 

proposals for shared interests between user groups was 

incorporated into the alternatives. 

126/25.

1054 5-50 Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails and 

Motorcycle Access. 5-50 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should combine mountain bike and 

motorcycle trails because there is no 

documentation of a wide-spread problem with 

multiple use on these trails.

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided 

for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS 

to varying degrees. Effects to the natural resources for 

this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3. Non-motorized 

trails may not be environmentally appropriate for 

motorized use due to design or location. Where nonmotorized trails overlap with motorized roads, 

proposals for shared interests between user groups was 

incorporated into the alternatives. 

126/134.

1055 5-51 Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails and Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided 447/4.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

222

Motorcycle Access. 5-51 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should allow motorcycles on game 

trails and livestock trails because other Forests do 

so.

for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS 

to varying degrees. Effects to the natural resources for 

this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3. Game and 

livestock trails are not always located in environmentally 

sustainable areas. These types of trails follow creeks and 

riparian areas that are not suitable for motorized use. 

Where game and livestock trails follow roads open to 

motorized use, the trails would be incorporated as part 

of the road.

1056 5-52 Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails and 

Motorcycle Access. 5-52 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that 

Alternative C provides adequate single-track trails.

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided 

for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS 

to varying degrees. Effects to the natural resources for 

this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3. Alternative C 

does provide the highest amount of single-track trails of 

all the action alternatives.

228/11.

1057 5-53 Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails and 

Motorcycle Access. 5-53 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should ensure that areas closed to 

motorcycle travel are also closed to nonmotorized travel because the impacts are the 

same.

This analysis did not focus on the effects to natural 

resources caused by non-motorized activities. Nonmotorized recreation may occur within areas that are 

closed to motorized activities. Specifically designating 

non-motorized uses, such as development of a new trail, 

would require additional environmental analysis outside 

this document. 

126/181.

1058 5-54 Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails and 

Motorcycle Access. 5-54 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should consider establishing 

corridors rather than individual trails for 

motorcycles because parallel trails could allow for 

different skill levels.

The Rule provides for a motorcycle only trail 

designation, but not for a motorcycle corridor. The 

concept of corridors is categorized under the Rule as 

cross-country areas where motorized travel is allowed. 

There are three areas totaling 10 acres proposed in 

Alternative C as beginner practice areas. In addition to 

the 771 miles of trails open to motorcycles, Alternative 

C also proposes 134 miles of motorcycle-only trails.

178/3.

1059 5-55 Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails and 

Motorcycle Access. 5-55 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should not allow new trails for 

motorcycles because motorcycles can use ATV 

trails.

Single-track routes considered in Alternatives B, C, and 

D of the DEIS and FEIS are existing on-the-ground 

and currently being used by this user group. Some 

reconstruction of these proposed routes may be needed 

to sustain them and protect the environment. The DEIS 

and FEIS considered a range of motorized 

opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. 

118/2. 237/13.

1060 5-56 Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails and 

Motorcycle Access. 5-56 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should eliminate or greatly reduce 

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided 

for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS 

to varying degrees and differ from the existing illegal 

138/1. 140/1. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

223

motorcycle access because motorcycle use 

conflicts with other uses and contributes to 

erosion.

system of single-track trails. Effects to the natural 

resources for this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

1061 5-57 Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails and 

Motorcycle Access. 5-57 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should reduce the number of 

motorcycle trails and impose noise and speed 

restrictions on the remaining trails.

Opportunities for single-track trails have been provided 

for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS 

to varying degrees and differ from the existing illegal 

system of single-track trails. Effects to the natural 

resources for this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3. 

Proposed sound limits associated with all action 

alternatives are disclosed in Chapter 2, page 22 (DEIS). 

169/4. 169/5. 354/2. 374/1. 

374/2. 374/3. 374/4. 

1062 5-58 Motorized Access - Single-Track Trails and 

Motorcycle Access. 5-58 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should not allow dedicated trails 

for motorcycles to reduce erosion.

Motorcycles are a recognized motorized user group of 

the National Forest. Opportunities for single-track trails 

have been provided for in all alternatives of the DEIS 

and FEIS to varying degrees. Effects to the natural 

resources for this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

141/4. 365/5.

1063 5-59 Motorized Access - Two-Track Roads. 5-59 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

reconsider closing two-track roads because they 

provide access for hunting and cattle 

management.

Some two-track roads are not appropriate for continued 

motorized access due to the sensitive natural resources. 

Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS retain 

to varying degrees some two-track routes for motorized 

use. Administrative uses of the forest, such as grazing 

permits, may be exempt from the general public 

motorized restrictions by the appropriate ranger district 

office.

198/2.

1064 5-60 Motorized Access - Two-Track Roads. 5-60 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should not 

close existing two-track roads because sufficient 

roads have already been closed.

Some two-track roads are not appropriate for continued 

motorized access due to the sensitive natural resources. 

Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS retain 

to varying degrees some two-track routes for motorized 

use. 

198/1.

1065 5-60 Motorized Access - Two-Track Roads. 5-60 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should not 

close existing two-track roads because ATVs are 

causing damage, not four-wheel drive vehicles.

Some two-track roads are not appropriate for continued 

motorized access due to the sensitive natural resources. 

Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS and FEIS retain 

to varying degrees some two-track routes for motorized 

use. 

166/1.

1066 5-61 Motorized Access - Two-Track Roads. 5-61 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

provide a trail system for vehicles less than 50 

inches wide to accommodate increasing user 

numbers.

Trail opportunities for vehicles less than 50-inches have 

been provided for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the 

DEIS and FEIS to varying degrees. Effects to the 

natural resources for this activity are disclosed in 

Chapter 3.

233/6.

1067 5-62 Motorized Access - Four-Wheel Motorized 

Access. 5-62 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of motorized 

opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. 

250/1. 315/1. 331/2.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

224

should restrict four-wheel access to ensure private 

landowners are allowed quiet enjoyment of their 

properties.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provides the 

greatest limitation on the amount of motorized access to 

the Forest. The natural resource effects analysis for this 

alternative is in Chapter 3. 

1068 5-63 Motorized Access - Four-Wheel Motorized 

Access. 5-63 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should provide ORV-only areas because ORVs 

do not cause significant damage.

Trail opportunities for vehicles less than 50-inches have 

been provided for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the 

DEIS and FEIS to varying degrees. Effects to the 

natural resources for this activity are disclosed in 

Chapter 3.

285/1. 355/6.

1069 5-64 Motorized Access - Sport Utility Vehicles. 5-64 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

restrict SUV access but should not restrict access 

for smaller ATVs because SUVs cause more 

damage and ATV users should not be penalized 

for the behavior of other users.

Motorized opportunities for all vehicle types have been 

provided for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS 

and FEIS to varying degrees. Effects to the natural 

resources for this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

170/1. 

1070 5-65 Motorized Access - Utility Terrain Vehicles. 5-65 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

provide more trails for vehicles over 50 inches 

wide to accommodate the increased popularity of 

UTVs.

Trail opportunities for vehicles over 50-inches have 

been provided for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the 

DEIS to varying degrees. Effects to the natural 

resources for this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3. For 

the FEIS, motorized trails in South Dakota have been 

re-evaluated as less than 65 inch widths, while Wyoming 

trails remain 50 inches wide or less due to State law. The 

Forest recognizes the growing popularity of UTVs, and 

the FEIS specifically allows for use of certain UTVs on 

some routes in South Dakota. Effects to natural 

resources for this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

142/7.

1071 5-65 Motorized Access - Utility Terrain Vehicles. 

Utility Terrain Vehicles 5-65 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should provide more trails for

vehicles over 50 inches wide to allow for side by 

side and UTV vehicles.

Trail opportunities for vehicles over 50-inches have 

been provided for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the 

DEIS and FEIS to varying degrees. In the FEIS the 

analysis was expanded in Alternatives B, C, D and E to 

consider use of OHV's up to 65 inches in width on 

routes in South Dakota, while Wyoming trails remain 50 

inches wide or less due to State law. Effects to the 

natural resources for this activity are disclosed in 

Chapter 3.

321/1.

1072 5-66 Motorized Access - Utility Terrain Vehicles. 5-66 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should clarify 

its reasons for restricting access for vehicles over 

50 inches wide.

Travel Management Rule defines a trail as a route 50 

inches or less in width or a route over 50 inches wide 

that is identified and managed as a trail and a road as a 

motor vehicle route over 50 inches wide, unless 

identified and managed as a trail. In addition, some of 

052/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

225

the routes designated in the alternatives of the DEIS 

and FEIS as open to less than 50-inches are only 

constructed to a width of 48-50-inches wide making it 

unsafe for larger vehicles to traverse the trail. For the 

FEIS, motorized trails in South Dakota have been reevaluated as less than 65 inch widths, while Wyoming 

trails remain 50 inches wide or less due to State law.

1073 5-67 Motorized Access - Utility Terrain Vehicles. 5-67 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

increase the number of 50-inch-wide trails be at 

least 500 miles.

Trail opportunities for vehicles less than 50-inches have 

been provided for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the 

DEIS and FEIS to varying degrees. Effects to the 

natural resources for this activity are disclosed in 

Chapter 3. The Forest considered all available routes 

for less than 50-inch vehicles under Alternative C. For 

the FEIS, motorized trails in South Dakota have been 

re-evaluated as less than 65 inches widths, while 

Wyoming trails remain 50 inches wide or less due to 

State law.

448/3.

1074 5-68 Motorized Access - Utility Terrain Vehicles. 5-68 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

increase the 50-inch limit to 60 inches to allow 

UTVs.

The DEIS was written following national direction to 

implement the Travel Management Rule. The Travel 

Management Rule defines a trail as a route 50 inches or 

less in width and a route over 50 inches wide can be 

managed as a trail or a road. For the FEIS, motorized 

trails in South Dakota have been re-evaluated as less 

than 65 inch widths while Wyoming trails remain 50 

inches wide or less due to State law.

197/4. 432/6.

1075 5-69 Motorized Access - Utility Terrain Vehicles. 5-69 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

increase the 50-inch limit to 64 inches for ATVs 

and UTVs.

The DEIS was written following national direction to 

implement the Travel Management Rule. The Travel 

Management Rule defines a trail as a route 50 inches or 

less in width and a route over 50 inches wide can be 

managed as a trail or a road. For the FEIS, motorized 

trails in South Dakota have been re-evaluated as less 

than 65 inch widths, while Wyoming trails remain 50 

inches wide or less due to State law.

191/2.

1076 5-70 Motorized Access - Utility Terrain Vehicles. 5-70 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should not 

separate ATV access from UTV access to allow 

friends and family to recreate together.

The DEIS was written following national direction to 

implement the Travel Management Rule. The Travel 

Management Rule defines a trail as a route 50 inches or 

less in width and a route over 50 inches wide can be 

managed as a trail or a road. UTVs are wider than 

ATVs thus limiting their ability to access some of the 

less than 50-inch trails. UTVs and ATVs may ride 

253/3.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

226

together on roads or trails open to all vehicles. For the 

FEIS, motorized trails in South Dakota have been reevaluated as less than 65 inch widths, while Wyoming 

trails remain 50 inches wide or less due to State law.

1077 5-71 Motorized Access - Rock Crawlers and Hill 

Climbing. 5-71 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should allow rock crawlers and hill 

climbing in areas where the erosion and visual 

impacts will be minimal.

Some rock crawling areas have been provided for by 

varying degrees in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS 

and FEIS. Effects to the natural resources for this 

activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

105/11.

1078 5-72 Motorized Access - Rock Crawlers and Hill 

Climbing. 5-72 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should clarify the restrictions on rock 

crawlers including allowed distances off trail and 

allowed hours of operation.

There are no specific restrictions on rock crawling areas 

within any of the alternatives of the DEIS and FEIS, 

with the exception of restriction to designated routes. 

No specific distance from established routes has been 

considered in the alternatives. There is no limitation on 

hours of operation under any of the alternatives.

105/2.

1079 5-73 Motorized Access - Rock Crawlers and Hill 

Climbing. 5-73 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should increase the number of trails 

available to rock crawlers to be more equitable 

with non-motorized users.

Some rock crawling areas have been provided for by 

varying degrees in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS 

and FEIS. Effects to the natural resources for this 

activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

453/3.

1080 5-74 Motorized Access - Rock Crawlers and Hill 

Climbing. 5-74 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should issue special rock crawling permits 

that would provide limited access and sufficient 

resource protection.

At the discretion of the ranger districts, recreation 

special use permits can be evaluated separately for 

special motorized events.

520/5.

1081 5-75 Motorized Access - Rock Crawlers and Hill 

Climbing. 5-75 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should eliminate the rock crawling area 

near Botany Canyon to protect this important 

botanical area.

Rock crawling opportunities identified in the Botany 

Canyon were eliminated under Alternative D of the 

DEIS and FEIS. Effects to the natural resources for 

this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

529/8.

1082 5-76 Motorized Access - Rock Crawlers and Hill 

Climbing. 5-76 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should allow rock crawling trails in the 

Edgemont area of the Southern Hills.

Rock crawler trails in the Edgemont area were not 

considered initially because of resource concerns. 

Additional routes were reviewed and considered, and 

those chosen will be documented in the Record of 

Decision. 

467/1. 470/1. 489/1. 490/1.

1083 5-77 Motorized Access - Rock Crawlers and Hill 

Climbing. 5-77 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should allow access to the rock crawling 

area near Spearfish Peak.

The rock crawling area around Spearfish Peak was 

included in Alternative C of the DEIS and FEIS. 

Effects to the natural resources for this activity are 

disclosed in Chapter 3.

460/36.

1084 5-78 Motorized Access - Cross-Country/Off-Road Three areas have been proposed as Beginner Practice 142/10. 447/8.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

227

Travel. 5-78 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should set aside some open areas for crosscountry travel to be consistent with the 

subcommittee's recommendation.

Areas totaling 10 acres. This proposal is consistent with 

the Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board travel 

management-related recommendations of June 2006.

1085 5-78 Motorized Access - Cross-Country/Off-Road 

Travel. 5-78 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should set aside some open areas for crosscountry travel because it is allowing cross-country 

game retrieval.

Motorized cross-country travel over large areas was 

included in an alternative considered but eliminated 

from detailed study. Chapter 2 discusses the reasons the 

alternative was dismissed, pages 33-35 (DEIS). 

Alternative C of the DEIS and FEIS provides some 

small areas for cross-country motorized travel. Effects 

of this activity on natural resource are disclosed in 

Chapter 3. 

215/8. 216/10. 303/12. 449/11. 

460/12. 494/12. 497/18. 

500/14. 502/15. 502/17. 

503/17. 510/15. 609/20. 

1086 5-78 Motorized Access - Cross-Country/Off-Road 

Travel. 5-78 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should set aside some open areas for crosscountry travel because it is safer and does less 

damage to the forest.

Cross-country travel does not provide for safety to the 

environment. Many areas of the forest have sensitive 

resources that are damaged by continuous travel over 

the land. Open cross-country travel results in 

development of unwanted trails as users continuously 

use the same places over and over again. Motorized 

cross-country travel over large areas was included in an 

alternative considered but eliminated from detailed 

study. Chapter 2 discusses the reasons the alternative 

was dismissed, pages 33-35 (DEIS). 

531/16.

1087 5-78 Motorized Access - Cross-Country/Off-Road 

Travel. 5-78 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should set aside some open areas for crosscountry travel to allow firewood collection.

Firewood gathering is by permit only. Firewood permits 

will address the ability to travel off-road in designated 

areas for the purpose of collecting firewood.

432/8. 

1088 5-78 Motorized Access - Cross-Country/Off-Road 

Travel. 5-78 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should set aside some open areas for crosscountry travel to facilitate safe motorized 

recreation for small children and families.

Alternative C of the DEIS and FEIS provides three 

small areas for families to utilize in teaching young riders 

about motor vehicle safety. These areas provide limited 

space for cross-country motorized travel. Motorized 

cross-country travel over large areas was included in an 

alternative considered but eliminated from detailed 

study. Chapter 2 discusses the reasons the alternative 

was dismissed, pages 33-35 (DEIS). Effects of these 

areas on natural resources are disclosed in Chapter 3. 

021/1. 382/14. 483/15. 500/14.

1089 5-79 Motorized Access - Cross-Country/Off-Road 

Travel. 5-79 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should designate some areas as being open to 

cross-country travel to reduce the environmental 

impact by containing the activity.

Motorized cross-country travel over large areas was 

included in an alternative considered but eliminated 

from detailed study. Chapter 2 discusses the reasons the 

alternative was dismissed, pages 33-35 (DEIS). 

Alternative C of the DEIS and FEIS provides some 

105/15.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

228

small areas for cross-country motorized travel. Effects 

of this activity on natural resources are disclosed in 

Chapter 3. 

1090 5-80 Motorized Access - Cross-Country/Off-Road 

Travel. 5-80 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should provide more cross-country travel because 

three small areas are not enough.

Page 34 of the DEIS and FEIS provides explanation for 

the elimination of the cross-country recreational travel.

477/2. 614/2.

1091 5-81 Motorized Access - Cross-Country/Off-Road 

Travel. 5-81 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should not limit cross-country travel because 

most travel occurs on roads and trails that are 

shared with other users.

Page 34 of the DEIS and FEIS provides explanation for 

the elimination of the cross-country recreational travel.

321/3.

1092 5-82 Motorized Access - Cross-Country/Off-Road 

Travel. 5-82 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should allow motorcycle cross-country travel 

because it has little impact and to be consistent 

with the Prairie Creek Project ROD.

The DEIS and FEIS explain that this alternative was 

considered, and why it was dismissed from detailed 

consideration. See Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered 

But Eliminated from Detailed Study. The concern is 

that existing resource damage from such use is 

undesirable, and increased damage could reasonably be 

expected from increasing use levels.

536/10. 536/13.

1093 5-83 Motorized Access - Cross-Country/Off-Road 

Travel. 5-83 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should allow cross-country travel on game trails 

and traditionally used trails except for fourwheeled vehicles.

Page 34 of the DEIS and FEIS provides explanation for 

the elimination of the cross-country recreational travel. 

Game and livestock trails are not always located in 

environmentally sustainable areas. These types of trails 

follow creeks and riparian areas that are not suitable for 

motorized use. Where game and livestock trails follow 

roads open to motorized use, the trails would be 

incorporated as part of the road.

359/2.

1094 5-84 Motorized Access - Cross-Country/Off-Road 

Travel. 5-84 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should acknowledge that cross-country travel 

reduces forest damage because it reduces 

concentrated use.

Page 34 of the DEIS and FEIS provides explanation for 

the elimination of the cross-country recreational travel. 

Motorized opportunities vary by alternative in the DEIS 

and FEIS. Chapter 3 discloses the effects increased 

OHV use on the Forest could do to natural resources 

without regulations.

217/17. 

1095 5-85 Motorized Access - Cross-Country/Off-Road 

Travel. 5-85 Public Concern: The Forest Service 

should not allow cross-country travel.

As shown in related public concern statements, many 

comments were received calling either for allowing or 

prohibiting motorized cross-country travel. This topic 

was of much interest to many who commented. The 

Forest Service considered allowing unlimited crosscountry motorized use on large areas across the Forest, 

but dismissed this concept from detailed consideration 

226/13. 254/3. 302/14. 369/4. 

369/5. 494/16. 505/13. 506/13.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

229

for several reasons, as described in the FEIS, Chapter 2, 

Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Detailed 

Study (DEIS, pg. 34). In brief, the agency noted that 

such use has begun to have undesirable effects, and is 

concerned that allowing such use in the future could 

lead to further adverse effects on natural and cultural 

resources. The agency did provide for limited crosscountry motorized use in Alternatives B and C. 

1096 5-86 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval. 5-86 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should allow dispersed camping and big 

game retrieval because these activities do not pose 

a threat to the forest

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

designated cross-country motorized opportunities. 

Alternatives B and C of the DEIS and FEIS provide 

limited cross-country motorized travel for dispersed 

camping and game retrieval. The natural resource effects 

analysis for these alternatives are in Chapter 3. 

093/4. 190/2.

1097 5-86 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval. 5-86 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should allow dispersed camping and big 

game retrieval to preserve the camping 

experience, allow for stealth in hunting, and 

provide access for older hunters

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized opportunities for game retrieval and 

dispersed camping. Alternatives B and C of the DEIS 

and FEIS provide limited cross-country motorized 

travel for dispersed camping and game retrieval to 

varying degrees. Alternative C delineates areas within 

which motorized game retrieval would be allowed for 

elk and deer and allows motorized cross-country 

dispersed camping within 300 feet of certain designated 

roads. The natural resource effects analysis for these 

alternatives are in Chapter 3. Firewood gathering is by 

permit only. Firewood permits will address the ability to 

travel off-road in designated areas for the purpose of 

collecting firewood.

123/7. 145/1. 461/23.

1098 5-87 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval. 5-87 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should place reasonable limitations on 

game retrieval and dispersed camping.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized opportunities for game retrieval and 

dispersed camping. Alternatives D and E do not provide 

motorized access for dispersed camping. Alternatives B 

and C provide varying degrees of motorized game 

retrieval. The natural resource effects analysis for these 

alternatives are in Chapter 3. 

458/14. 471/5. 474/10.

1099 5-88 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval. 5-88 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should allow game retrieval without 

restriction and dispersed camping up to 200 yards 

from a designated route.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized opportunities for game retrieval and 

dispersed camping. Alternative C delineates areas within 

which motorized game retrieval would be allowed for 

elk and deer. The DEIS and FEIS provides the 

477/3. 614/3.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

230

restrictions on cross-country travel for game retrieval in 

Chapter 2. The natural resource effects analysis for the 

alternatives are in Chapter 3. The 300 foot for dispersed 

camping was chosen to be consistent with Region 2 

guidance and other national forest's designations for 

motorized dispersed camping. 

1100 5-89 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval. 5-89 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should allow dispersed camping one car 

length from a designated route and game retrieval 

up to 150 feet from a designated route.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized opportunities for game retrieval and 

dispersed camping. Descriptions of the alternatives can 

be found in Chapter 2. The natural resource effects 

analysis for these alternatives are in Chapter 3. 

156/5. 341/6. 342/6. 343/5. 

344/7.

1101 5-90 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval. 5-90 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should allow travel up to 300 feet off of a 

designated route to allow game retrieval, wood 

cutting, and dispersed camping.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized opportunities for game retrieval and 

dispersed camping. Alternative C provides the most 

motorized access for game retrieval and dispersed 

camping. The DEIS and FEIS provides the restrictions 

on cross-country travel for game retrieval and dispersed 

camping in Chapter 2. The natural resource effects 

analysis for the alternatives are in Chapter 3. Firewood 

gathering is by permit only. Firewood permits will 

address the ability to travel off-road in designated areas 

for the purpose of collecting firewood.

126/97. 319/78. 414/42. 

462/59.

1102 5-91 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval. 5-91 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should not allow off-road travel for either 

game retrieval or dispersed camping to reduce 

resource damage and facilitate enforcement.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

designated cross-country motorized opportunities. 

Alternatives D and E of the DEIS and FEIS provide no 

cross-country motorized travel. The natural resource 

effects analysis for this alternative are in Chapter 3. 

473/17.

1103 5-92 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval. 5-92 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should not allow dispersed camping or 

game retrieval in Hanna Creek, Spearfish Creek 

West, and Little Spearfish Creek to protect 

wetlands and comply with EO 11990

Alternatives D and E of the DEIS and FEIS provide no 

cross-country recreational motorized travel. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative are in 

Chapter 3. Alternatives B and C provide restrictions by 

executive order for the areas lying within Spearfish 

Canyon and follows Forest Plan guideline for 

discouraging dispersed recreation within 100 feet of 

lakes and streams. Areas outside of Spearfish Canyon 

allow dispersed camping and motorized game retrieval 

as described in Alternatives B and C of the DEIS and 

FEIS.

464/26.

1104 5-92 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval. 5-92 Public Concern: The Forest 

Alternatives D and E of the DEIS and FEIS provide no 

cross-country recreational motorized travel. The natural 

464/27.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

231

Service should not allow dispersed camping or 

game retrieval in Hanna Creek, Spearfish Creek 

West, and Little Spearfish Creek to protect the 

riparian systems and comply with Forest Plan 

Standard 1301.

resource effects analysis for this alternative are in 

Chapter 3. Alternatives B and C provide restrictions by 

executive order for the areas lying within Spearfish 

Canyon and follows Forest Plan guideline for 

discouraging dispersed recreation within 100 feet of 

lakes and streams. Areas outside of Spearfish Canyon 

allow dispersed camping and motorized game retrieval 

as described in Alternatives B and C of the DEIS and 

FEIS.

1105 5-92 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval. 5-92 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should not allow dispersed camping or 

game retrieval in Hanna Creek, Spearfish Creek 

West, and Little Spearfish Creek to protect the 

riparian areas and stream reaches and comply with 

Executive Special Order 23.

Alternatives D and E of the DEIS and FEIS provide no 

cross-country recreational motorized travel. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative are in 

Chapter 3. Alternatives B and C provide restrictions by 

executive order for the areas lying within Spearfish 

Canyon and follows Forest Plan guideline for 

discouraging dispersed recreation within 100 feet of 

lakes and streams. Areas outside of Spearfish Canyon 

allow dispersed camping and motorized game retrieval 

as described in Alternatives B and C of the DEIS and 

FEIS.

464/20.

1106 5-92 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval. 5-92 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should not allow dispersed camping or 

game retrieval in Hanna Creek, Spearfish Creek 

West, and Little Spearfish Creek to protect 

wetlands and comply with Forest Plan Standard 

1302.

Alternatives D and E of the DEIS and FEIS provide no 

cross-country recreational motorized travel. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative are in 

Chapter 3. Alternatives B and C provide restrictions by 

executive order for the areas lying within Spearfish 

Canyon and follows Forest Plan guideline for 

discouraging dispersed recreation within 100 feet of 

lakes and streams. Areas outside of Spearfish Canyon 

allow dispersed camping and motorized game retrieval 

as described in Alternatives B and C of the DEIS and 

FEIS.

464/28. 

1107 5-92 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval. 5-92 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should not allow dispersed camping or 

game retrieval in Hanna Creek, Spearfish Creek 

West, and Little Spearfish Creek to protect water 

quality and reduce sediment and comply with 

Guidelines 9107 and 91087.

Alternatives D and E of the DEIS and FEIS provide no 

cross-country recreational motorized travel. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative are in 

Chapter 3. Alternatives B and C provide restrictions by 

executive order for the areas lying within Spearfish 

Canyon and follows Forest Plan guideline for 

discouraging dispersed recreation within 100 feet of 

lakes and streams. Areas outside of Spearfish Canyon 

allow dispersed camping and motorized game retrieval 

464/29. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

232

as described in Alternatives B and C of the DEIS and 

FEIS.

1108 5-92 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval. 5-92 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should not allow dispersed camping or 

game retrieval in Hanna Creek, Spearfish Creek

West, and Little Spearfish Creek to continue to 

meet Objectives 219 and 238d.

Alternatives D and E of the DEIS and FEIS provide no 

cross-country recreational motorized travel. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative are in 

Chapter 3. Alternatives B and C provide restrictions by 

executive order for the areas lying within Spearfish 

Canyon and follows Forest Plan guideline for 

discouraging dispersed recreation within 100 feet of 

lakes and streams. Areas outside of Spearfish Canyon 

allow dispersed camping and motorized game retrieval 

as described in Alternatives B and C of the DEIS and 

FEIS.

464/32.

1109 5-92 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval. 5-92 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should not allow dispersed camping or 

game retrieval in Hanna Creek, Spearfish Creek 

West, and Little Spearfish Creek to reduce 

impacts caused by unmanaged road and trail use.

Alternatives D and E of the DEIS and FEIS provide no 

cross-country recreational motorized travel. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative are in 

Chapter 3. Alternatives B and C provide restrictions by 

executive order for the areas lying within Spearfish 

Canyon and follows Forest Plan guideline for 

discouraging dispersed recreation within 100 feet of 

lakes and streams. Areas outside of Spearfish Canyon 

allow dispersed camping and motorized game retrieval 

as described in Alternatives B and C of the DEIS and 

FEIS.

464/6. 464/12.

1110 5-92 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval. 5-92 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should not allow dispersed camping or 

game retrieval in Hanna Creek, Spearfish Creek 

West, and Little Spearfish Creek to reduce the 

tracks on the ground.

Alternatives D and E of the DEIS and FEIS provide no 

cross-country recreational motorized travel. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative are in 

Chapter 3. Alternatives B and C provide restrictions by 

executive order for the areas lying within Spearfish 

Canyon and follows Forest Plan guideline for 

discouraging dispersed recreation within 100 feet of 

lakes and streams. Areas outside of Spearfish Canyon 

allow dispersed camping and motorized game retrieval 

as described in Alternatives B and C of the DEIS and 

FEIS.

464/16.

1111 5-92 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval. 5-92 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should not allow dispersed camping or 

game retrieval in Hanna Creek, Spearfish Creek 

West, and Little Spearfish Creek to avoid wetland 

Alternatives D and E of the DEIS and FEIS provide no 

cross-country recreational motorized travel. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative are in 

Chapter 3. Alternatives B and C provide restrictions by 

executive order for the areas lying within Spearfish 

464/14.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

233

and riparian area crossings. Canyon and follows Forest Plan guideline for 

discouraging dispersed recreation within 100 feet of 

lakes and streams. Areas outside of Spearfish Canyon 

allow dispersed camping and motorized game retrieval 

as described in Alternatives B and C of the DEIS and 

FEIS.

1112 5-92 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval. 5-92 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should not allow dispersed camping or 

game retrieval in Hanna Creek, Spearfish Creek 

West, and Little Spearfish Creek to comply with 

the guideline discouraging dispersed recreation 

within 100 feet of lakes and streams.

Alternatives D and E of the DEIS and FEIS provide no 

cross-country recreational motorized travel. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative are in 

Chapter 3. Alternatives B and C provide restrictions by 

executive order for the areas lying within Spearfish 

Canyon and follows Forest Plan guideline for 

discouraging dispersed recreation within 100 feet of 

lakes and streams. Areas outside of Spearfish Canyon 

allow dispersed camping and motorized game retrieval 

as described in Alternatives B and C of the DEIS and 

FEIS.

464/19. 464/23.

1113 5-92 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval. 5-92 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should not allow dispersed camping or 

game retrieval in Hanna Creek, Spearfish Creek 

West, and Little Spearfish Creek to maintain 

compliance with EO 12962 regarding recreational 

fisheries.

Alternatives D and E of the DEIS and FEIS provide no 

cross-country recreational motorized travel. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative are in 

Chapter 3. Alternatives B and C provide restrictions by 

executive order for the areas lying within Spearfish 

Canyon and follows Forest Plan guideline for 

discouraging dispersed recreation within 100 feet of 

lakes and streams. Areas outside of Spearfish Canyon 

allow dispersed camping and motorized game retrieval 

as described in Alternatives B and C of the DEIS and 

FEIS.

464/31.

1114 5-92 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval. 5-92 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should not allow dispersed camping or 

game retrieval in Hanna Creek, Spearfish Creek 

West, and Little Spearfish Creek to comply with 

the purposes and guidelines of the Forest Service, 

Lawrence County, the cities of Lead and

Deadwood, the state of South Dakota, and the 

Spearfish Canyon Owners Association.

Alternatives D and E of the DEIS and FEIS provide no 

cross-country recreational motorized travel. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative are in 

Chapter 3. Alternatives B and C provide restrictions by 

executive order for the areas lying within Spearfish 

Canyon and follows Forest Plan guideline for 

discouraging dispersed recreation within 100 feet of 

lakes and streams. Areas outside of Spearfish Canyon 

allow dispersed camping and motorized game retrieval 

as described in Alternatives B and C of the DEIS and 

FEIS.

464/5.

1115 5-93 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game The Black Hills National Forest Travel Management 578/49. 588/10. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

234

Retrieval. 5-93 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should explain why the areas where 

dispersed camping and game retrieval are allowed 

are the same.

DEIS and FEIS incorporated current management for 

restrictions on dispersed camping and off-road game 

retrieval. These restrictions were maintained throughout 

the alternatives of the DEIS and FEIS. Some of the 

restrictions are based on an executive order such as 

Spearfish Canyon or Forest Plan standards, such as 

Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway. Dispersed camping and 

motorized game retrieval areas will overlap as described 

in the alternatives that these activities are associated with 

routes open to motorized use.

1116 5-94 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Hunting and Game Retrieval. 5-94 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should allow 

hunting access on National Forest System lands 

to support the local economy.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed 

effects in Chapter 3. The greatest motorized trail, road, 

and cross-country motorized use for game retrieval and 

dispersed camping opportunities are in Alternatives A, B 

and C.

211/1.

1117 5-94 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Hunting and Game Retrieval. 5-94 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should allow 

hunting access on National Forest System lands 

rather than on private property.

All alternatives allow hunting on National Forest System 

Lands. Hunting access is discussed in the wildlife 

section of the DEIS (pages 191-192, 228-229) pertaining 

to Executive order 13443. These options, effects, and 

related comments will be considered in the final 

decision.

097/3. 333/1.

1118 5-95 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Hunting and Game Retrieval. 5-95 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

support cross-country travel and game retrieval to 

keep hunters coming to the Black Hills.

Hunting access is discussed in the wildlife section of the 

DEIS (pages 191-192, 228-229) pertaining to Executive 

order 13443. These options, effects, and related 

comments will be considered in the final decision.

247/24.

1119 5-96 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Hunting and Game Retrieval. 5-96 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

provide adequate hunter access to ensure proper 

elk population management.

Hunting access is discussed in the wildlife section of the 

DEIS (pages 191-192, 228-229) pertaining to Executive 

order 13443. These options, effects, and related 

comments will be considered in the final decision.

126/215. 126/216.

1120 5-97 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Hunting and Game Retrieval. 5-97 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should allow 

off-road elk and deer

retrieval within one-half mile of a route starting at 

noon.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized opportunities for game retrieval and 

disclosed effects in Chapter 3. Alternatives A and C as 

described in Chapter 2 delineate areas within which 

motorized game retrieval would be allowed, and provide 

the restrictions on cross-country travel for game 

retrieval. 

236/3.

1121 5-97 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game The alternatives in the Draft and Final EIS provide a 051/1. 545/10. 592/2.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

235

Retrieval - Hunting and Game Retrieval. 5-97 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should allow 

off-road elk and deer retrieval because large elk 

and deer are often too large to drag.

range of options for game retrieval. The effects of these 

options on various resources are discussed in Chapter 3 

of the EIS. The effects and public comments will be 

considered in the final decision.

1122 5-97 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Hunting and Game Retrieval. 5-97 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should allow 

off-road elk and deer retrieval because in many

cases non-motorized retrieval would result in 

meat spoilage. 

The alternatives in the Draft and Final EIS provide a 

range of options for game retrieval. The effects of these 

options on various resources are discussed in Chapter 3 

of the EIS. The effects and public comments will be 

considered in the final decision.

087/1.

1123 5-97 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Hunting and Game Retrieval. 5-97 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should allow 

off-road elk and deer retrieval to reduce the 

incentive to hunt from the road.

The alternatives in the Draft and Final EIS provide a 

range of options for game retrieval. The effects of these 

options on various resources are discussed in Chapter 3 

of the EIS. The effects and public comments will be

considered in the final decision.

234/2. 418/2.

1124 5-97 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Hunting and Game Retrieval. 5-97 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should allow 

off-road elk and deer retrieval to provide access 

for older hunters.

The alternatives in the Draft and Final EIS provide a 

range of options for game retrieval. The effects of these 

options on various resources are discussed in Chapter 3 

of the EIS. The effects and public comments will be 

considered in the final decision.

094/3. 420/3.

1125 5-97 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Hunting and Game Retrieval. 5-97 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should allow 

off-road elk and deer retrieval to provide access 

for disabled hunters.

The alternatives in the Draft and Final EIS provide a 

range of options for game retrieval. The effects of these 

options on various resources are discussed in Chapter 3 

of the EIS. The effects and public comments will be 

considered in the final decision.

240/2. 420/3. 432/7.

1126 5-97 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Hunting and Game Retrieval. 5-97 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should allow 

off-road elk and deer retrieval because off-road 

retrieval causes very little damage.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized opportunities for game retrieval and 

disclosed effects in Chapter 3. Alternatives A, B, and C 

provide varying degrees of motorized game retrieval. 

Alternatives A and C delineates areas within which 

motorized game retrieval would be allowed. The DEIS 

and FEIS provides the restrictions on cross-country 

travel for game retrieval in Chapter 2. 

124/2. 399/6. 418/5. 

1127 5-97 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Hunting and Game Retrieval. 5-97 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should allow 

off-road elk and deer retrieval to avoid the 

challenges of enforcing restrictions.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized opportunities for game retrieval and 

disclosed effects in Chapter 3. Alternatives A and C 

delineates areas within which motorized cross-country 

motorized game retrieval would be allowed. The DEIS 

and FEIS provides the restrictions on cross-country 

travel for game retrieval in Chapter 2. The publication 

142/4.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

236

of a Motor Vehicle Use Map under the action 

alternatives would be the primary tool used to determine 

compliance and enforcement with motorized travel 

designations on the ground. 

1128 5-97 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Hunting and Game Retrieval. 5-97 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should allow 

off-road elk and deer retrieval because otherwise 

hunters will leave game behind.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized opportunities for game retrieval and 

disclosed effects in Chapter 3. Alternatives A and C 

delineates areas within which motorized game retrieval 

would be allowed. The DEIS and FEIS provides the 

restrictions on cross-country travel for game retrieval in 

Chapter 2. 

234/2. 279/3. 418/1. 418/5.

1129 5-97 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Hunting and Game Retrieval. 5-97 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should allow 

off-road elk and deer retrieval in Fall River 

County.

In Fall River County, only Alternative A of the DEIS 

and FEIS provides an area for motorized game retrieval 

on the Black Hills National Forest. Alternative B 

provides game retrieval within 300 feet of designated 

motorized routes while all other alternatives provide no 

motorized game retrieval within Fall River County. 

191/1.

1130 5-98 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Hunting and Game Retrieval. 5-98 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

increase game retrieval opportunities by allowing 

unrestricted game retrieval or by limiting it to 

within one mile of the road. 

The alternatives in the Draft and Final EIS provide a 

range of options for game retrieval. The effects of these 

options on various resources are discussed in Chapter 3 

of the EIS. The effects and public comments will be 

considered in the final decision.

230/15. 233/3. 260/15. 325/2. 

418/3. 461/22. 475/3. 475/4.

1131 5-99 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Hunting and Game Retrieval. 5-99 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that illegal pursuit of game in a 

motor vehicle is not common or accepted in 

Wyoming.

The recreation analysis of the DEIS and FEIS did not 

intend to state that illegal pursuit of game by motorized 

means is common or accepted. The analysis merely 

identifies, whether legal or illegal, how motorized users, 

particularly cross-country travel, can impact the hunting 

experience of others. 

346/19.

1132 5-100 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Hunting and Game Retrieval. 5-100 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should allow 

hunters to purchase an off-road elk retrieval 

permit to ensure that downed elk are promptly 

retrieved.

A permit system for game retrieval is an administrative 

process that could be considered if game retrieval is 

allowed in the final decision. 

204/1. 

1133 5-101 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Hunting and Game Retrieval. 5-101 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should not 

limit game retrieval to 300 feet off trail because 

longer distances are often required to retrieve 

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized opportunities for game retrieval and 

disclosed effects in Chapter 3. Alternatives A, B, and C 

provide varying degrees of motorized game retrieval. 

Alternatives A and C delineates areas within which 

261/17. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

237

game. motorized game retrieval would be allowed. The DEIS 

and FEIS provides the restrictions on cross-country 

travel for game retrieval in Chapter 2. 

1134 5-102 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Hunting and Game Retrieval. 5-102 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should revisit 

the assertions regarding elk management needs to 

correct inaccuracies and avoid unnecessary road 

closures.

The DEIS displayed the effects of the routes and use of 

the routes on elk and their habitat. The different 

alternatives offer different amounts of roads and trails 

that could disturb elk. I could not find where the DEIS 

mentioned the need to increase elk security and enhance 

elk populations.

126/206. 126/207.

1135 5-103 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game

Retrieval - Hunting and Game Retrieval. 5-103 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that hunters complain there are too 

many roads and too many ATVs rather than there 

is too little access.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized opportunities for game retrieval and 

disclosed effects in Chapter 3. Some alternatives provide 

motorized game retrieval, while others do not provide 

any. 

326/16.

1136 5-104 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Hunting and Game Retrieval. 5-104 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that concerns about attaining 

desired harvest rates are related to road closures 

rather than game retrieval restrictions.

The FEIS sections on elk and deer were edited to read 

that game retrieval and/or road densities may affect 

harvest rates and patterns. 

346/17. 

1137 5-105 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Hunting and Game Retrieval. 5-105 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

acknowledge that most hunters access the BHNF 

in motor vehicles.

Page 3 and 50 of the DEIS acknowledges that all 

visitors to the Black Hills National Forest utilize some 

form of motorized vehicle to access the woods, 

including hunters. The effects analysis for game 

retrieval in the recreation section was an analysis on 

motorized game retrieval. How many licensed hunters 

actually utilize a form of motorized vehicle to retrieve 

their down animal is uncertain due to lack of 

information. It is known that many hunters of the Black 

Hills have ATVs in their camps and utilize them to 

access the woods from their camps. It is likely, 

therefore, to assume that they are using these vehicles to 

retrieve their down game. Reducing the area for 

motorized game retrieval under Alternatives B and C or 

eliminating motorized game retrieval under Alternatives 

D and E will impact those hunters that utilize motorized 

vehicles to retrieve down game. The FEIS will correct 

the statement to clarify this information. 

346/15.

1138 5-106 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game The analysis of the DEIS in the recreation section , page 326/15. 346/21.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

238

Retrieval - Hunting and Game Retrieval. 5-106 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

correct in the DEIS the license sales and 

harvesting statistics provided for elk and deer.

48, does lead the reader to believe that the entire hunt 

areas for either State only incorporates National Forest 

lands and that the harvested animals are only occurring 

on National Forest lands. However, there are private 

and other public lands within these hunt areas. The 

FEIS will be corrected to clarify this information.

1139 5-107 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Hunting and Game Retrieval. 5-107 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should limit 

big game retrieval to the hunting season and for 

elk.

The DEIS and FEIS provides the restrictions on crosscountry travel for game retrieval in Chapter 2. 

Alternative B proposes cross-country motorized use for 

retrieving elk only. Effects of this alternative on natural 

resources are disclosed in Chapter 3. 

134/8. 372/4. 493/3.

1140 5-107 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Hunting and Game Retrieval. 5-107 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should limit 

big game retrieval to mid-day hours.

Chapter 2 of the FEIS describes the alternatives in 

detail. Game retrieval conditions for Alternatives B and 

C are described on page 23 of the DEIS. Both 

alternatives would require hunting licenses and downed 

animal to retrieve game. Alternative B would allow 

game retrieval for elk only (page 25 DEIS). None of the 

alternatives restricted game retrieval to a certain time of 

day. These conditions and options will be considered in 

the final decision.

183/3.

1141 5-107 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Hunting and Game Retrieval. 5-107 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should limit 

big game retrieval to those with a valid license and 

an actual downed animal.

Chapter 2 of the FEIS describes the alternatives in 

detail. Game retrieval conditions for Alternatives B and 

C are described on page 23 of the DEIS. Both 

alternatives would require hunting licenses and downed 

animal to retrieve game. Alternative B would allow 

game retrieval for elk only (page 25 DEIS). None of the 

alternatives restricted game retrieval to a certain time of 

day. These conditions and options will be considered in 

the final decision.

182/4. 315/3. 491/4. 

1142 5-107 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Hunting and Game Retrieval. 5-107 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should limit 

big game retrieval to elk but not deer.

Chapter 2 of the FEIS describes the alternatives in 

detail. Game retrieval conditions for Alternatives B and 

C are described on page 23 of the DEIS. Both 

alternatives would require hunting licenses and downed 

animal to retrieve game. Alternative B would allow 

game retrieval for elk only (page 25 DEIS). None of the 

alternatives restricted game retrieval to a certain time of 

day. These conditions and options will be considered in 

the final decision.

280/15.

1143 5-108 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Hunting and Game Retrieval. 5-108 

The alternatives provide a range of options for game 

retrieval. None of the alternatives limit game retrieval to 

548/10.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

239

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

consider restrictions on the time of day or 

number of trips for game retrieval rather than the 

distance from the

road.

a certain time of day. Alternatives B and C would both 

allow multiple trips to the downed animal, but only the 

hunter retrieving the animal could drive a motorized 

vehicle (DEIS page 23). These conditions and options 

will be considered in the final decision.

1144 5-109 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Hunting and Game Retrieval. The 

Forest Service should prohibit off-roading except 

for limited elk retrieval because it would be easy 

to enforce and monitor.

The alternatives in the Draft and Final EIS provide a 

range of options for game retrieval. The effects of these 

options on various resources are discussed in Chapter 3 

of the EIS. The effects and related comments will be 

considered in the final decision.

593/19. 606/19.

1145 5-109 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Hunting and Game Retrieval. The 

Forest Service should prohibit off-roading except 

for limited elk retrieval to improve the hunting 

experience.

The alternatives in the Draft and Final EIS provide a 

range of options for game retrieval. The effects of these 

options on various resources are discussed in Chapter 3 

of the EIS. The effects and related comments will be 

considered in the final decision.

465/6. 479/13.

1146 5-109 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Hunting and Game Retrieval. The 

Forest Service should prohibit off-roading except 

for limited elk retrieval because the other plans 

are unenforceable.

The alternatives in the Draft and Final EIS provide a 

range of options for game retrieval. The effects of these 

options on various resources are discussed in Chapter 3 

of the EIS. The effects and related comments will be 

considered in the final decision.

465/6.

1147 5-109 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Hunting and Game Retrieval. The 

Forest Service should prohibit off-roading except 

for limited elk retrieval in non-sensitive areas.

The alternatives in the Draft and Final EIS provide a 

range of options for game retrieval. The effects of these 

options on various resources are discussed in Chapter 3 

of the EIS. The effects and related comments will be 

considered in the final decision.

362/2.

1148 5-110 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Hunting and Game Retrieval. 5-110 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should not 

require guns to be cased when retrieving game 

because most hunters don't have cases.

Thanks for the comments. The appropriateness of 

requiring a gun to be cased when retrieving downed 

game will be considered in the final decision.

418/4.

1149 5-111 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Hunting and Game Retrieval. 5-111 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

prohibit elk retrieval in sensitive areas, recent 

burn areas, Wilderness, and wildlife and botanical

preserves.

Management Areas that do not allow off-road 

motorized travel and currently closed areas are not 

included in game retrieval areas in all alternatives. 

465/7.

1150 5-112 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Hunting and Game Retrieval. 5-112 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

prohibit motorized off-road

Alternatives D and E do not allow cross-country 

motorized travel to retrieve downed game. The 

alternatives, associated effects, and related comments 

will be considered in the final decision. 

091/5.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

240

retrieval of big game because packing game out is 

traditional and off-road violations are too 

common.

1151 5-112 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Hunting and Game Retrieval. 5-112 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

prohibit motorized off-road retrieval of big game 

to protect resources and reduce new user-created 

roads.

Alternatives D and E do not allow cross-country 

motorized travel to retrieve downed game. The 

alternatives, associated effects, and related comments 

will be considered in the final decision. 

121/2. 346/16.

1152 5-112 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Hunting and Game Retrieval. 5-112 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

prohibit motorized off-road retrieval of big game 

to avoid confusing regulations.

Alternatives D and E do not allow cross-country 

motorized travel to retrieve downed game. The 

alternatives, associated effects, and related comments 

will be considered in the final decision. 

274/2. 346/18.

1153 5-113 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Hunting and Game Retrieval. 5-113 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should not

allow motorized game retrieval in walk-in areas.

Alternatives D and E do not allow cross-country 

motorized travel to retrieve downed game. The 

alternatives, associated effects, and related comments 

will be considered in the final decision. 

465/22. 

1154 5-114 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Hunting and Game Retrieval. 5-114 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should select 

Alternative B because it restricts off-road retrieval 

of big game.

The alternatives in the Draft and Final EIS provide a 

range of options for game retrieval. The effects of these 

options on various resources are discussed in Chapter 3 

of the EIS. The effects and public comments will be 

considered in the final decision.

244/3.

1155 5-115 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Dispersed Camping. 5-115 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should allow 

dispersed camping because some dispersed 

campers are loud and would disturb campers in 

campgrounds.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a variety of recreation 

activities throughout the alternatives and disclosed the 

effects in Chapter 3, pages 46-66.

456/70.

1156 5-115 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Dispersed Camping. 5-115 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should allow 

dispersed camping because it is a peaceful, 

inexpensive, traditional recreation.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives provide opportunities 

for dispersed camping to varying degrees in Alternatives 

A, B, and C. Effects of these alternatives on natural 

resources are disclosed in Chapter 3. 

081/2. 124/3. 126/98. 126/273. 

212/4. 375/3. 375/4. 504/17. 

588/2. 

1157 5-116 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Dispersed Camping. 5-116 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should increase the 

distance from the road where dispersed camping 

is allowed to reduce dust, noise, and visibility 

impacts and increase safety for children.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives provide opportunities 

for dispersed camping to varying degrees in Alternatives 

A, B, and C. Effects of these alternatives on natural 

resources are disclosed in Chapter 3. 

233/4. 588/8.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

241

1158 5-117 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Dispersed Camping. 5-117 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should allow 

dispersed camping up to 100 feet off the road 

with restrictions for no camping 100 feet from a 

stream.

The DEIS and FEIS provide opportunities for 

dispersed camping to varying degrees in Alternatives A, 

B, and C. Effects of these alternatives on natural 

resources are disclosed in Chapter 3. Forest Plan 

guideline discourages dispersed recreation within 100 

feet of streams and lakes. This guideline is incorporated 

into all the alternatives.

244/4. 274/1. 362/3. 465/4. 

1159 5-117 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Dispersed Camping. 5-117 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should allow 

dispersed camping up to 100 feet off the road 

with restrictions to avoid streams, sensitive 

habitats, and the Mickelson trail.

The DEIS and FEIS provide opportunities for 

dispersed camping and motorized game retrieval to 

varying degrees in Alternatives A, B, and C. Effects of 

these alternatives on natural resources are disclosed in 

Chapter 3. Forest Plan Guideline 5301 discourages 

dispersed recreation within 100 feet of streams and 

lakes. This guideline is incorporated into all the 

alternatives.

346/20.

1160 5-118 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Dispersed Camping. 5-118 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should make sure 

that dispersed camping is not allowed within 100 

feet of riparian areas to be consistent with Forest 

Plan standards.

The DEIS and FEIS provide opportunities for 

dispersed camping to varying degrees in Alternatives A, 

B, and C. Effects of these alternatives on natural 

resources are disclosed in Chapter 3. Forest Plan 

guideline discourages dispersed recreation within 100 

feet of streams and lakes. This guideline is incorporated 

into all the alternatives.

319/77. 414/41. 456/90. 

462/58.

1161 5-119 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Dispersed Camping. 5-119 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should allow 

dispersed camping up to 300 feet off the road to 

reduce dust impacts and increase safety for 

children.

The DEIS and FEIS provided dispersed camping 

opportunities up to 300 feet from designated motorized 

routes in Alternative C. Resource analysis for this 

alternative is disclosed in Chapter 3.

142/3.

1162 5-119 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Dispersed Camping. 5-119 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should allow 

dispersed camping up to 300 feet off the road to 

preserve the feel of camping.

The DEIS and FEIS provided dispersed camping 

opportunities up to 300 feet from designated motorized 

routes in Alternative C. Resource analysis for this 

alternative is disclosed in Chapter 3.

182/2. 445/3.

1163 5-119 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Dispersed Camping. 5-119 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should allow 

dispersed camping up to 300 feet off the road 

because it protects the environment while 

providing a high quality camping experience.

The DEIS and FEIS provided dispersed camping 

opportunities up to 300 feet from designated motorized 

routes in Alternative C. Resource analysis for this 

alternative is disclosed in Chapter 3.

183/2.

1164 5-120 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game The final travel management rule at 36 CFR 212.512(b) 372/5. 456/26. 456/27. 465/5.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

242

Retrieval - Dispersed Camping. 5-120 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should only allow 

motorized access to dispersed camping sites up to 

one car length from the road to comply with the 

Forest Service Manual.

allows the responsible official to permit limited use of 

motor vehicles "within a specified distance" of certain 

designated routes for dispersed camping or game 

retrieval. The rule does not stipulate any given distance. 

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered 

opportunities for dispersed camping and disclosed 

effects in Chapter 3. Alternative A has no limitations on 

dispersed camping, while Alternatives B and C provide 

specific distances of 100 feet and 300 feet, respectively, 

from designated routes unless prohibited by executive 

orders or Forest Plan direction. Chapter 2 defines the 

boundaries for dispersed camping including protection 

to natural resources and water. Alternatives D and E 

eliminate all dispersed camping on the Forest. 

1165 5-121 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Dispersed Camping. 5-121 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should increase the 

number of dispersed camping sites because there 

are not enough to meet current needs.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the 

Forest into compliance with the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule and designate motorized routes; 

designation of dispersed campsites and sanitation at 

those dispersed campsites is not the focus of this 

project. 

126/173. 501/15.

1166 5-122 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Dispersed Camping. 5-122 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should consider 

opening spur roads for dispersed camping.

Under Alternative B and C of the DEIS and FEIS many 

spur routes were left open to motorized use for 

dispersed camping opportunities. Resource analysis is 

disclosed in Chapter 3.

588/9.

1167 5-123 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Dispersed Camping. 5-123 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should develop 

dispersed camping sites where livestock, OHV 

use, and slash piles are restricted.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the 

Forest into compliance with the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule and designate motorized routes; 

designation of dispersed campsites is not the focus of 

this project. 

588/11.

1168 5-124 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Dispersed Camping. 5-124 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should only allow 

dispersed camping if campers can be notified in 

case of fire.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the 

Forest into compliance with the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule and designate motorized routes; 

designation of dispersed campsites is not the focus of 

this project. Motorized access for dispersed camping is 

considered along routes open to motorized use thereby 

making it easier to notify people in case of emergency. 

432/10. 

1169 5-125 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Dispersed Camping. 5-125 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should mitigate for 

the closure of dispersed campsites on a one-toThe purpose and need for this project is to bring the 

Forest into compliance with the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule and designate motorized routes; 

designation of dispersed campsites is not the focus of 

126/99.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

243

one basis to avoid a significant cumulative effect. this project. 

1170 5-126 Dispersed Camping, Hunting, and Big Game 

Retrieval - Dispersed Camping. 5-126 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should acknowledge 

that the density of the forest contributes to 

increased fire risk and difficulty in enforcing 

dispersed camping restrictions.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the 

Forest into compliance with the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule and designate motorized routes; 

designation of dispersed campsites is not the focus of 

this project. 

474/20.

1171 5-127 Mitigation. 5-127 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should create a Motorized Access and 

Recreation Mitigation Bank to offset the loss of 

motorized access.

The purpose and need for this project is to designate a 

motorized travel system, as directed by the Final Travel 

Management Rule. In doing so the Forest Service has 

identified several broad issues describing concerns with 

this proposal. These issues are shown in the FEIS in 

Chapter 1. Issue 2 shows the conflict with recreation 

opportunity, including motorized use. The alternatives 

address this issue by providing for various levels of 

motorized recreation use. The FEIS notes that such 

opportunity is also available on other lands in the area. 

The effects of each of the alternatives on recreation 

opportunities are shown in the FEIS in Chapter 3. 

126/139. 126/272.

1172 5-127 Mitigation. 5-127 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should create a Motorized Access and 

Recreation Mitigation Bank that addresses all past 

and reasonably foreseeable closures.

The alternatives provide for various levels of motorized 

recreation use within the broader set of values and uses 

of National Forest System lands administered by the 

Black Hills National Forest. The effects of the 

alternatives are shown in Chapter 3; the Recreation 

section describes the cumulative effects on motorized 

use. The approach recommended in this comment, to 

establish a recreation mitigation bank, might be 

appropriate if there were a national policy mandating no 

net loss of motorized recreation opportunities, such as 

the national policy on no net loss of wetlands. 

However, we are not aware of any such policy regarding 

motorized recreation. 

126/46.

1173 5-128 Mitigation. 5-128 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should replace OHV-gas-tax-funded 

motorized routes that have been closed because 

non-motorized recreation should not benefit 

from the OHV gas tax.

None of the motorized routes on the Black Hills 

National Forest used OHV gas tax funding for 

construction. 

126/231.

1174 5-129 Other Motorized Considerations. 5-129 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should close roads 

and trails to mountain bikes and horses if those 

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the 

Forest into compliance with the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule and designate motorized routes; 

119/5. 286/3. 420/7.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

244

roads are also closed to motorized recreation 

because these forms of access result in similar 

types of trail disturbance.

closing of non-motorized routes is not the focus of this 

project. 

1175 5-130 Other Motorized Considerations. 5-130 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should designate 

some areas where motorized users can climb hills 

or play in the mud to eliminate conflicts and 

resource damage in other areas of the Forest.

None of the alternatives in the DEIS or FEIS provide 

opportunities for hill climbing and mud-bogging. These 

motorized activities have created significant resource 

damage to sensitive resources in the past and have not 

been considered with any alternative.

593/18. 606/18.

1176 5-131 Other Motorized Considerations. 5-131 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should consider rock 

quarries as potential trail locations.

Some rock crawling areas have been provided for by 

varying degrees in Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS 

and FEIS. Alternative C also provides three training 

areas for beginning motorized users. Effects to the 

natural resources for this activity are disclosed in 

Chapter 3.

380/11. 388/11. 514/15. 

533/11. 559/2.

1177 5-132 Other Motorized Considerations. 5-132 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should support laws 

holding owners or renters of OHVs liable for 

destruction caused by riders to provide a 

deterrent to illegal behavior.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the 

Forest into compliance with the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule and designate motorized routes. All 

action alternatives would result in the publication of a 

Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) depicting those 

routes and areas that would be open to motorized travel. 

For more information on the MVUM see the DEIS and 

FEIS. The suggestion regarding assignment of liability 

for damages is outside the purview of the Forest 

Service, and more appropriately addressed to the State 

legislature or Congress. 

423/2.

1178 5-133 Other Motorized Considerations. 5-133 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should consider 

strict policies regarding locations of ATV rentals 

and off-road access to the National Forest 

because not all surrounding communities 

welcome the noise, pollution, and damage caused 

by ATVs.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provides the least 

amount of motorized access to the Forest. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative is in Chapter 

3. The purpose and need for this project is to bring the 

Forest into compliance with the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule and designate motorized routes; 

designation of "commercial" ATV rental locations is not 

the focus of this project. 

090/3.

1179 5-134 Other Motorized Considerations. 5-134 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should deny access 

to private landowners of adjacent property that 

don‟t allow the public motorized access to their 

property to be fair.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the 

Forest into compliance with the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule and designate motorized routes. 

Access on private roads is beyond the scope of this 

project and beyond the jurisdiction of the Forest 

Service, unless a Forest Service easement exists for the 

road. The Forest Service cannot impose public access 

126/219. 126/267.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

245

across private land where the owner is unwilling to allow 

it. The decision will focus on areas with public access 

routes. 

1180 5-135 Other Motorized Considerations. 5-135 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should acknowledge 

the efforts to develop a ride center near Rapid 

City because it would have a significant positive 

economic effect on the area.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the 

Forest into compliance with the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule and designate motorized routes. 

431/2.

1181 5-136 Senior Citizen and Disabled Citizen Access. 5-

136 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

provide sufficient access for senior citizens.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed 

effects in Chapter 3. The greatest motorized 

opportunities and access are in Alternatives B and C. 

Senior citizens have the same rights of access as the 

general public.

164/1. 196/2. 212/2. 448/2. 

565/11.

1182 5-137 Senior Citizen and Disabled Citizen Access. 5-

137 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

provide exceptions for senior citizens to allow 

them sufficient access.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed 

effects in Chapter 3. The greatest motorized 

opportunities and access are in Alternatives B and C. 

Persons with disabilities will have the same access rights 

as the general public.

196/2. 477/7. 565/11.

1183 5-138 Senior Citizen and Disabled Citizen Access. 5-

138 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

consider in the planning process the growing 

popularity of motorized recreation, the needs of 

an aging population, and the increasing availability 

of recreation time.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed 

effects in Chapter 3. The greatest motorized 

opportunities and access are in Alternatives B and C. 

Senior citizens and persons with disabilities will have the 

same access rights as the general public.

126/55.

1184 5-139 Senior Citizen and Disabled Citizen Access. 5-

139 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

allow senior citizens to purchase permits allowing 

them to access roads otherwise closed to 

motorized travel because many senior citizens 

cannot access those areas by foot.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed 

effects in Chapter 3. The greatest motorized 

opportunities and access are in Alternatives B and C. 

Senior citizens and persons with disabilities will have the 

same access rights as the general public.

196/2. 

1185 5-140 Senior Citizen and Disabled Citizen Access. 5-

140 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

provide the greatest amount of motorized access 

possible to facilitate access for senior citizens.

Alternative C of the DEIS and FEIS provides the 

highest amount of motorized access on the Forest. 

Resource analysis for this alternative is disclosed in 

Chapter 3.

164/1. 575/11. 

1186 5-141 Senior Citizen and Disabled Citizen Access. 5-

141 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

provide motorized access for disabled citizens 

because motorized access is the only way for 

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed 

effects in Chapter 3. The greatest motorized 

opportunities and access are in Alternatives B and C. 

154/2. 240/1. 421/12. 477/7. 

575/11. 614/7.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

246

them to access the National Forest. Persons with disabilities will have the same access rights 

as the general public.

1187 5-142 Senior Citizen and Disabled Citizen Access. 5-

142 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

provide motorized access to historic and cultural 

sites to ensure that disabled visitors have access.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed 

effects in Chapter 3. The greatest motorized 

opportunities and access are in Alternatives B and C. 

Persons with disabilities will have the same access rights 

as the general public.

241/6. 247/15.

1188 5-142 Senior Citizen and Disabled Citizen Access. 5-

142 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

provide motorized access to historic and cultural 

sites to ensure that disabled visitors have access 

and to comply with MUSYA.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed 

effects in Chapter 3. The greatest motorized 

opportunities and access are in Alternatives B and C. 

Persons with disabilities will have the same access rights 

as the general public.

241/6. 247/15.

1189 5-143 Senior Citizen and Disabled Citizen Access. 5-

143 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

analyze all routes for the access they provide 

handicapped, elderly, and physically impaired 

visitors.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed 

effects in Chapter 3. The greatest motorized 

opportunities and access are in Alternatives B and C. 

Senior citizens and persons with disabilities will have the 

same access rights as the general public.

126/236.

1190 5-144 Senior Citizen and Disabled Citizen Access. 5-

144 Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

adequately consider the needs of the handicapped, 

elderly, and physically impaired to comply with 

Public Law 105-359.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed 

effects in Chapter 3. The greatest motorized 

opportunities and access are in Alternatives B and C. 

Senior citizens and persons with disabilities will have the 

same access rights as the general public.

126/232. 126/233. 336/2.

1191 5-145 Access for Children. 5-145 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should discourage the participation 

of small children in motorized travel.

The Forest Service provides opportunities for multiple 

uses of the National Forest lands for users of all ages. 

On designated trails on the Black Hills National Forest, 

it is legal for children without driver's licenses to drive 

motorized vehicles. Our hope is that young drivers 

would choose situations suitable to their abilities under 

the supervision of licensed drivers, but that choice is 

reserved to the users and not to the Forest Service. 

414/50. 456/29. 462/67.

1192 5-146 Access for Children. 5-146 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should designate some old mines 

or quarries as areas where children can ride ATVs 

to provide a safe area for children to ride where 

adults can easily supervise.

Alternative C of the DEIS and FEIS provides three 

training areas for beginners of motorized vehicles. 

Effects to the natural resources for this activity are 

disclosed in Chapter 3.

178/4. 414/50. 

1193 5-147 Non-Motorized Access. 5-147 Public Concern: Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provides the least 431/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

247

The Forest Service should increase nonmotorized areas because non-motorized uses are 

less destructive and conflict with motorized uses.

amount of motorized access to the Forest. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative are in 

Chapter 3. 

1194 5-147 Non-Motorized Access. 5-147 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should increase nonmotorized areas to protect habitats and species 

and reduce the spread of non-native plants.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provides the least 

amount of motorized access to the Forest. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative are in 

Chapter 3. 

083/2.

1195 5-147 Non-Motorized Access. 5-147 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should increase nonmotorized areas to preserve some areas for 

wildlife and people.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provides the least 

amount of motorized access to the Forest. The natural 

resource effects analysis for this alternative are in 

Chapter 3. 

518/5. 540/1.

1196 5-148 Non-Motorized Access. 5-148 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should include bird watching, 

wildlife watching, nature study, and photography 

in the discussion of recreation.

These activities are normally associated with hiking 

opportunities. Hiking was considered as a recreation 

opportunities on the Black Hills National Forest under 

the recreation analysis. The inclusion of bird watching, 

wildlife watching, nature study and photography would 

not change any of the analysis of non-motorized 

activities since they were considered to be associated 

with hiking. 

578/5.

1197 5-149 Non-Motorized Access. 5-149 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should maintain a significant 

amount of non-motorized area and should 

disclose the user survey information because nonmotorized uses are predominant.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provides the 

greatest amount of non-motorized opportunities to the 

Forest. The natural resource effects analysis for this 

alternative are in Chapter 3. Since this document was 

produced to identify motorized opportunities for the 

Forest (purpose and need, pages 7-8), data from the 

National Visitor Use Monitoring Survey was used to 

identify information about known Forest visitors who 

prefer motorized recreation opportunities. Nonmotorized uses such as backpacking, walking, and biking 

are also utilizing some form of motorized vehicle to 

access the Forest for their non-motorized recreation 

activities. Disclosure of the full National Visitor Use 

Monitoring report does not affect the recreation analysis 

nor change the alternatives presented in the DEIS since 

Alternative D was designed to provide the maximum 

opportunities for non-motorized uses.

586/2.

1198 5-150 Non-Motorized Access. 5-150 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should increase the percentage 

of primitive and semi-primitive non-motorized 

areas to provide a broader spectrum of 

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS was designed to 

reduce the impacts of motorized recreation on existing 

primitive and semi-primitive non-motorized settings on 

the Black Hills National Forest within the Forest 

293/2. 345/2. 456/4. 456/5. 

590/2.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

248

recreational opportunities. Service's jurisdiction. Reanalyzing the acreages available 

for these settings is beyond the scope of this project and 

does not address the purpose and need, pages 7-8. 

Adjusting ROS allocations across the Forest is outside 

the scope of this project, but could be considered in a 

Forest Plan revision. 

1199 5-151 Non-Motorized Access. 5-151 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should prohibit motorized 

access in ROS primitive, semi-primitive, or 

roaded natural non-motorized areas because it is 

inconsistent with the Forest Plan and privileges a 

minority of users.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS was designed to 

reduce the impacts of motorized recreation on existing 

primitive, semi-primitive and roaded natural nonmotorized settings on the Black Hills National Forest 

within the Forest Service's jurisdiction. All action 

alternatives would reduce the area open to cross-country 

motorized use across the Forest. Resource analysis is 

disclosed in Chapter 3.

473/15. 578/9. 

1200 5-151 Non-Motorized Access. 5-151 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should prohibit motorized 

access in ROS primitive, semi-primitive, or 

roaded natural non-motorized areas to comply 

with the Forest Service Manual.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS was designed to 

reduce the impacts of motorized recreation on existing 

primitive, semi-primitive and roaded natural nonmotorized settings on the Black Hills National Forest 

within the Forest Service's jurisdiction. All action 

alternatives would reduce the area open to cross-country 

motorized use across the Forest. Resource analysis is 

disclosed in Chapter 3.

578/26. 579/1.

1201 5-151 Non-Motorized Access. 5-151 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should prohibit motorized 

access in ROS primitive, semi-primitive, or 

roaded natural non-motorized areas to protect the 

back country.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS was designed to 

reduce the impacts of motorized recreation on existing 

primitive, semi-primitive and roaded natural nonmotorized settings on the Black Hills National Forest 

within the Forest Service's jurisdiction. All action 

alternatives would reduce the area open to cross-country 

motorized use across the Forest. Resource analysis is 

disclosed in Chapter 3.

578/26.

1202 5-152 Non-Motorized Access. 5-152 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should prohibit motorized 

access in ROS classes semi-primitive, nonmotorized, and roaded natural non-motorized 

because there are few non-motorized areas in the 

BHNF.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS was designed to 

reduce the impacts of motorized recreation on existing 

primitive, semi-primitive and roaded natural nonmotorized settings on the Black Hills National Forest 

within the Forest Service's jurisdiction. All action 

alternatives would reduce the area open to cross-country 

motorized use across the Forest. Resource analysis is 

disclosed in Chapter 3. 

456/19. 458/26.

1203 5-153 Non-Motorized Access. 5-153 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should restrict the number of 

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS was designed to 

reduce the impacts of motorized recreation on existing 

458/7.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

249

roads allowed in ROS classes primitive and semiprimitive non-motorized because non-motorized 

use is equally important as motorized use and to 

comply with MUSYA.

primitive and semi-primitive non-motorized settings on 

the Black Hills National Forest within the Forest 

Service's jurisdiction. The effects of this and other 

alternatives on natural resources and opportunities for 

other forms of recreation are disclosed in Chapter 3. 

1204 5-154 Non-Motorized Access. 5-154 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should preserve quiet 

recreation opportunities.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS was designed to 

reduce the amount of motorized use on the Forest, thus 

creating a peaceful environment. Resource analysis is 

disclosed in Chapter 3.

123/1. 246/1. 255/2. 256/1. 

410/1.

1205 5-155 Non-Motorized Access. 5-155 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should provide non-motorized 

access to the forest from Rapid City to provide 

access for children and reduce damage to the 

environment.

Development of non-motorized access opportunities to 

the Forest from any community within the Black Hills 

National Forest is outside the jurisdiction of the Forest 

Service and outside the scope of this project. 

Opportunities for connecting communities are limited 

due to private property, paved highways, and other 

jurisdictions.

265/2. 402/1. 431/3.

1206 5-156 Non-Motorized Access. 5-156 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should seriously consider the 

walk-in areas proposed by the Norbeck Society to 

accommodate non-motorized recreationists.

Walk-in only areas were included in an alternative 

considered but eliminated from detailed study. Chapter 

2 discusses the reasons the alternative was dismissed, 

pages 33-35 (DEIS). 

456/13. 456/141. 458/20.

1207 5-157 Mechanized Recreation. 5-157 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should restrict mechanized 

recreation to designated trails to ensure the safety 

of all users.

This comment is referring to restricting non-motorized 

mechanized recreation to designated trails. The purpose 

and need for this project is to bring the Forest into 

compliance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule and 

designate motorized routes. While consideration was 

given to existing non-motorized activities in the 

development of the DEIS alternatives, restricting nonmotorized recreation activities is not the focus of this 

project. 

456/144. 473/6. 

1208 5-158 Mechanized Recreation. 5-158 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should acknowledge that the 

BHNF may be designated a “ride center” by the 

International Mountain Bike Association because 

such designation would increase tourism and 

available grant funding.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the 

Forest into compliance with the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule and designate motorized routes. 

265/1. 608/1.

1209 5-159 Relationship of Non-Motorized Recreation to 

Motorized Recreation. 5-159 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should provide access to all 

users of the forest because the Forest belongs to 

all citizens of the United States.

Thank you for your comment. 286/7. 563/2. 565/10.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

250

1210 5-160 Relationship of Non-Motorized Recreation to 

Motorized Recreation. 5-160 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should clearly disclose current 

and proposed non-motorized and motorized 

recreation opportunities to ensure decisions are 

based on sufficient information.

The DEIS and FEIS considered the effects on a variety 

of recreation activities throughout the alternatives in 

Chapter 3 (DEIS pages 46-66). Measurement Indicators 

developed to address the effects on non-motorized 

recreation opportunity are disclosed in the DEIS and 

FEIS in Chapter 2, comparison of indicator measures 

for the alternatives. The comment expresses concern 

with a perceived imbalance of recreational opportunities 

in both the existing and proposed conditions, and 

suggests several new indicators be used to address the 

concern. Issue 2 describes potential conflicts of the 

proposal with other forms of recreation opportunities. 

We believe that several of the suggested indicators 

would be difficult to quantify, and we do not believe the 

suggested indicators would provide any new information

relevant to the decision to be made. 

126/129.

1211 5-161 Relationship of Non-Motorized Recreation to 

Motorized Recreation. 5-161 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should consider the impact on 

non-motorized users of allowing the motorized 

community wide access to the forest because 

doing so discourages non-motorized users from 

visiting.

The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of recreation 

opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. 

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provides the least 

amount of motorized access to the Forest. The natural 

resource effects analysis of the alternatives are in 

Chapter 3. 

456/16.

1212 5-162 Relationship of Non-Motorized Recreation to 

Motorized Recreation. 5-162 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should consider nonmotorized use during the planning for motorized 

use to treat traditional recreation equally.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS provides the 

greatest amount of non-motorized opportunities to the 

Forest. The effects on natural resources and recreation 

opportunities for this alternative are presented in 

Chapter 3. Since this document was produced to 

identify motorized opportunities for the Forest (purpose 

and need, pages 7-8), data from the National Visitor Use 

Monitoring Survey was used to identify information 

about known Forest visitors who prefer motorized 

recreation opportunities. Non-motorized uses such as 

backpacking, walking, and biking generally also utilize 

some form of motorized vehicle to access the Forest for 

their non-motorized recreation activities. Disclosure of 

the full National Visitor Use Monitoring report does not 

affect the recreation analysis nor change the alternatives 

presented in the DEIS since Alternative D was designed 

to address concerns for opportunities for non456/3. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

251

motorized uses.

1213 5-162 Relationship of Non-Motorized Recreation to 

Motorized Recreation. 5-162 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should consider nonmotorized use during the planning for motorized 

use to ensure proper management of high-end 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum classes.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS was designed to 

reduce the impacts of motorized recreation on existing 

primitive, semi-primitive and roaded natural nonmotorized settings on the Black Hills National Forest 

within the Forest Service's jurisdiction. The effects of 

the alternatives on natural resources and recreation 

opportunity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

293/8. 578/23. 

1214 5-162 Relationship of Non-Motorized Recreation to 

Motorized Recreation. 5-162 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should consider nonmotorized use during the planning for motorized 

use to properly consider Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum planning.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS was designed to 

reduce the impacts of motorized recreation on existing 

primitive, semi-primitive and roaded natural nonmotorized settings on the Black Hills National Forest 

within the Forest Service's jurisdiction. The effects of 

the alternatives on natural resources and recreation 

opportunity are disclosed in Chapter 3. Comprehensive

planning for all recreation needs, and allocations of land 

using the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum tool, are 

appropriate for forest planning efforts, and could be 

undertaken in a forest plan revision. 

456/2. 

1215 5-162 Relationship of Non-Motorized Recreation to 

Motorized Recreation. 5-162 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should consider nonmotorized use during the planning for motorized 

use to comply with the Travel Management Rule.

Alternatives in the DEIS and FEIS do comply with the 

Travel Management Rule and provide for a variety of 

motorized and non-motorized recreational 

opportunities. The natural resource effects analysis of 

the alternatives are in Chapter 3.

473/13.

1216 5-163 Relationship of Non-Motorized Recreation to 

Motorized Recreation. 5-163 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should explain why nonmotorized recreation is being given priority even 

though the greater public need is for motorized 

recreation opportunities.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed 

effects in Chapter 3. The greatest motorized 

opportunities and access are in Alternatives A, B, and C.

126/170. 

1217 5-164 Relationship of Non-Motorized Recreation to 

Motorized Recreation. 5-164 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should disclose that trails 

closed to motorized use become de facto open to 

non-motorized use to ensure an accurate 

statement of available recreational resources.

Roads or trails that are closed to motorized use may 

become available for non-motorized activities. They are 

not inventoried as non-motorized trails or designated or 

managed for non-motorized recreation opportunities, 

but the public is generally not discouraged from using 

them for these types of activities. Closures, in effect, 

may in many cases provide additional non-motorized 

recreational opportunities.

126/47. 126/114. 

1218 5-165 Relationship of Non-Motorized Recreation to 

Motorized Recreation. 5-165 Public Concern: 

None of the motorized routes on the Black Hills 

National Forest used OHV gas tax funding for 

126/49. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

252

The Forest Service should not convert motorized 

trails to non-motorized trails if those trails were 

constructed with OHV gas tax funds.

construction. The decision on this proposal will not 

formally designate any non-motorized trails as it does 

not meet the purpose and need for this project, pages 7-

8

1219 5-166 Relationship of Non-Motorized Recreation to 

Motorized Recreation. 5-166 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should evaluate motorized 

trails for potential decommissioning and 

repurposing as non-motorized trails.

The DEIS and FEIS does not formally identify any 

particular route or trail that will be decommissioned 

from motorized activities due to the Forest Service 

administrative access needs. Some routes may be 

decommissioned as identified in further environmental 

documents for other resource projects. The DEIS and 

FEIS does not formally designate any non-motorized 

trails as it does not meet the purpose and need for this 

project, pages 7-8.

456/137.

1220 5-167 Relationship of Non-Motorized Recreation to 

Motorized Recreation. 5-167 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should not convert any nonmotorized trails to motorized trails because 

motorized trails are environmentally destructive, 

stress wildlife, and cause noise pollution.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

recreation opportunities. Alternative D of the DEIS and 

FEIS provides the least amount of motorized access to 

the Forest. The natural resource effects analysis of the 

alternatives are in Chapter 3. Designated non-motorized 

trails that overlap with maintenance level 1 or 2 roads 

that are utilized by the Forest for administrative 

purposes have been considered under Alternatives B 

and C for motorized opportunities. Current condition of 

the Forest, Alternatives A and E, also identifies shared 

interests between non-motorized and motorized users 

when the designated non-motorized trail is a road open 

to public travel.

062/2. 208/1. 

1221 5-167 Relationship of Non-Motorized Recreation to 

Motorized Recreation. 5-167 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should not convert any nonmotorized trails to motorized trails because ATVs 

cause significant damage to trails, most ATV 

riders are not good stewards of the resource, and 

dual-use would reduce safety.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

recreation opportunities. Alternative D of the DEIS and 

FEIS provides the least amount of motorized access to 

the Forest. The natural resource effects analysis of the 

alternatives are in Chapter 3. Designated non-motorized 

trails that overlap with maintenance level 1 or 2 roads 

that are utilized by the Forest for administrative 

purposes have been considered under Alternatives B 

and C for motorized opportunities. Current condition of 

the Forest, Alternatives A and E also identifies shared 

interests between non-motorized and motorized users 

when the designated non-motorized trail is a road open 

to public travel.

173/1. 479/11. 

1222 5-167 Relationship of Non-Motorized Recreation to The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 073/1. 177/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

253

Motorized Recreation. 5-167 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should not convert any nonmotorized trails to motorized trails because ATVs 

produce greenhouse gases and are noisy.

recreation opportunities. Alternative D of the DEIS and 

FEIS provides the least amount of motorized access to 

the Forest. The natural resource effects analysis of the 

alternatives are in Chapter 3. 

1223 5-167 Relationship of Non-Motorized Recreation to 

Motorized Recreation. 5-167 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should not convert any nonmotorized trails to motorized trails to reduce user 

conflicts.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

recreation opportunities. Alternative D of the DEIS and 

FEIS provides the least amount of motorized access to 

the Forest. The natural resource effects analysis of the 

alternatives are in Chapter 3. Designated non-motorized 

trails that overlap with maintenance level 1 or 2 roads 

that are utilized by the Forest for administrative 

purposes have been considered under Alternatives B 

and C for motorized opportunities. Current condition of 

the Forest, Alternatives A and E, also identifies shared 

interests between non-motorized and motorized users 

when the designated non-motorized trail is a road open 

to public travel.

070/1. 079/1. 088/1. 132/1. 

143/1. 148/1. 168/1. 153/1. 

209/2. 357/13. 

1224 5-167 Relationship of Non-Motorized Recreation to 

Motorized Recreation. 5-167 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should not convert any nonmotorized trails to motorized trails to provide 

quiet recreation.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

recreation opportunities. Alternative D of the DEIS and 

FEIS provides the least amount of motorized access to 

the Forest. The natural resource effects analysis of the 

alternatives are in Chapter 3. Designated non-motorized 

trails that overlap with maintenance level 1 or 2 roads 

that are utilized by the Forest for administrative 

purposes have been considered under Alternatives B 

and C for motorized opportunities. Current condition of 

the Forest, Alternatives A and E, also identifies shared 

interests between non-motorized and motorized users 

when the designated non-motorized trail is a road open 

to public travel.

074/15. 092/1. 121/1. 209/1. 

288/1. 

1225 5-167 Relationship of Non-Motorized Recreation to 

Motorized Recreation. 5-167 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should not convert any nonmotorized trails to motorized trails because dualuse would compromise safety.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

recreation opportunities. Alternative D of the DEIS and 

FEIS provides the least amount of motorized access to 

the Forest. The natural resource effects analysis of the 

alternatives are in Chapter 3. Designated non-motorized 

trails that overlap with maintenance level 1 or 2 roads 

that are utilized by the Forest for administrative 

purposes have been considered under Alternatives B 

and C for motorized opportunities. Current condition of 

the Forest, Alternatives A and E also identifies shared 

109/1. 206/1. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

254

interests between non-motorized and motorized users 

when the designated non-motorized trail is a road open 

to public travel.

1226 5-167 Relationship of Non-Motorized Recreation to 

Motorized Recreation. 5-167 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should not convert any nonmotorized trails to motorized trails because the 

damage caused by motorized recreation is difficult 

to undo.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

recreation opportunities. Alternative D of the DEIS and 

FEIS provides the least amount of motorized access to 

the Forest. The natural resource effects analysis of the 

alternatives are in Chapter 3. Designated non-motorized 

trails that overlap with maintenance level 1 or 2 roads 

that are utilized by the Forest for administrative 

purposes have been considered under Alternatives B 

and C for motorized opportunities. Current condition of 

the Forest, Alternatives A and E also identifies shared 

interests between non-motorized and motorized users 

when the designated non-motorized trail is a road open 

to public travel.

068/1. 

1227 5-167 Relationship of Non-Motorized Recreation to 

Motorized Recreation. 5-167 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should not convert any nonmotorized trails to motorized trails because 

motorized travel will exacerbate erosion and 

noxious weed and insect infestation problems.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

recreation opportunities. Alternative D of the DEIS and 

FEIS provides the least amount of motorized access to 

the Forest. The natural resource effects analysis of the 

alternatives are in Chapter 3. Designated non-motorized 

trails that overlap with maintenance level 1 or 2 roads 

that are utilized by the Forest for administrative 

purposes have been considered under Alternatives B 

and C for motorized opportunities. Current condition of 

the Forest, Alternatives A and E also identifies shared 

interests between non-motorized and motorized users 

when the designated non-motorized trail is a road open 

to public travel.

153/2. 

1228 5-167 Relationship of Non-Motorized Recreation to 

Motorized Recreation. 5-167 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should not convert any nonmotorized trails to motorized trails to avoid a 

reduction in tourism and related spending.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

recreation opportunities. Alternative D of the DEIS and 

FEIS provides the least amount of motorized access to 

the Forest. The natural resource effects analysis of the 

alternatives are in Chapter 3. Designated non-motorized

trails that overlap with maintenance level 1 or 2 roads 

that are utilized by the Forest for administrative 

purposes have been considered under Alternatives B 

and C for motorized opportunities. Current condition of 

the Forest, Alternatives A and E also identifies shared 

interests between non-motorized and motorized users 

205/1. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

255

when the designated non-motorized trail is a road open 

to public travel.

1229 5-168 Relationship of Non-Motorized Recreation to 

Motorized Recreation. 5-168 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should either convert some 

non-motorized trails to motorized use or 

construct more motorized trails to ensure equality 

in the allocation of trails.

Motorized opportunities have been provided for in all 

alternatives of the DEIS and FEIS to varying degrees. 

Effects to the natural resources for this activity are 

disclosed in Chapter 3.

126/50.

1230 5-169 Relationship of Non-Motorized Recreation to 

Motorized Recreation. 5-169 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should disclose how many 

motorized trails are located within one-quarter 

mile of a hiking trail and how many hiking trails 

are being converted to motorized trails.

Measurement Indicators developed to address the 

alternatives effects on non-motorized recreation 

opportunity are disclosed in the DEIS and FEIS in 

Chapter 2, comparison of indicator measures for the 

alternatives. A measurement indicator for nonmotorized recreation is miles of NFS routes with 1/2 

mile of a non-motorized trail. Alternative D of the 

DEIS and FEIS provides the least amount of motorized 

access to the Forest. The natural resource effects 

analysis of the alternatives are in Chapter 3. No miles of 

trails designated for the sole purpose of non-motorized 

activities have been converted to motorized 

opportunities.

319/106. 414/77. 462/94.

1231 5-170 Relationship of Non-Motorized Recreation to 

Motorized Recreation. 5-170 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should ensure adequate 

distance between motorized and non-motorized 

trails to avoid user conflicts.

The alternatives considered a range of recreation 

opportunities, in which the mileage of motorized routes 

near non-motorized routes varied. To estimate the 

alternatives effects on non-motorized recreation the EIS 

used an indicator of motorized trails 0.5 mile from nonmotorized trails, and assumed that sound from 

motorized vehicles (96 decibels) would attenuate 

significantly over that distance. In all alternatives, there 

are still a number of motorized routes within 0.5 mile of 

a non-motorized trail. Alternative D provides less 

motorized routes under Forest Service jurisdiction (209 

miles) within 0.5 miles of non-motorized trails, while 

Alternative C (387 miles) provides the greatest. The 

analysis assumes that motorized users will generally 

comply with the MVUM. Enforcement actions will be 

taken as needed. The effects of the alternatives on 

relative quiet experienced by non-motorized trail users 

are disclosed in the FEIS, Chapter 3, Engineering and 

Transportation section, in the discussion on sound 

064/1. 080/1. 083/1. 479/8.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

256

levels. The extent of the noise impacts to a nonmotorized recreationist depends on personal 

interpretation. In addition, approximately 10% of 

designated non-motorized trails on the Forest lie on 

Forest Service roads open to motorized vehicles. It 

should also be noted that of the 323 miles of designated 

non-motorized trails, 140 miles (43%) lie within a Forest 

Plan designated non-motorized area, leaving the 

remaining miles subject to motorized impacts. Of the 

33 designated non-motorized areas on the Forest, 11 

have designated non-motorized trails within their 

boundaries.

1232 5-170 Relationship of Non-Motorized Recreation to 

Motorized Recreation. 5-170 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should ensure adequate 

distance between motorized and non-motorized 

trails to allow for both types of uses.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

recreation opportunities. Alternative D of the DEIS and 

FEIS provides the least amount of motorized access to 

the Forest. The natural resource effects analysis of the 

alternatives are in Chapter 3. 

107/1.

1233 5-170 Relationship of Non-Motorized Recreation to 

Motorized Recreation. 5-170 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should ensure adequate 

distance between motorized and non-motorized 

trails to reduce law enforcement issues.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

recreation opportunities. Alternative D of the DEIS and 

FEIS provides the least amount of motorized access to 

the Forest. The natural resource effects analysis of the 

alternatives are in Chapter 3. 

319/107. 414/78. 462/95.

1234 5-170 Relationship of Non-Motorized Recreation to 

Motorized Recreation. 5-170 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should ensure adequate 

distance between motorized and non-motorized 

trails to ensure the safety of non-motorized users.

The alternatives considered a range of recreation 

opportunities, in which the mileage of motorized routes 

near non-motorized routes varied. To estimate the 

alternatives effects on non-motorized recreation the EIS 

used an indicator of motorized trails 0.5 mile from nonmotorized trails, and assumed that sound from 

motorized vehicles (96 decibels) would attenuate 

significantly over that distance. In all alternatives, there 

are still a number of motorized routes within 0.5 mile of 

a non-motorized trail. Alternative D provides less 

motorized routes under Forest Service jurisdiction (209 

miles) within 0.5 miles of non-motorized trails, while 

Alternative C (387 miles) provides the greatest. The 

analysis assumes that motorized users will generally 

comply with the MVUM. Enforcement actions will be 

taken as needed. The effects of the alternatives on 

relative quiet experienced by non-motorized trail users 

are disclosed in the FEIS, Chapter 3, Engineering and 

608/2.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

257

Transportation section, in the discussion on sound 

levels. The extent of the noise impacts to a nonmotorized recreationist depends on personal 

interpretation. In addition, approximately 10% of 

designated non-motorized trails on the Forest lie on 

Forest Service roads open to motorized vehicles. It 

should also be noted that of the 323 miles of designated 

non-motorized trails, 140 miles (43%) lie within a Forest 

Plan designated non-motorized area, leaving the 

remaining miles subject to motorized impacts. Of the 

33 designated non-motorized areas on the Forest, 11 

have designated non-motorized trails within their 

boundaries. The MVUM will display roads, trails and 

areas designated for motorized use. The Forest Service 

believes at this point that motorized vehicle users will 

generally comply with requirements. Enforcement 

actions will be taken as needed. 

1235 5-171 Relationship of Non-Motorized Recreation to 

Motorized Recreation. 5-171 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should separate motorized 

recreation from non-motorized recreation.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

recreation opportunities. Alternative D of the DEIS and 

FEIS provides the least amount of motorized access to 

the Forest. The natural resource effects analysis of the 

alternatives are in Chapter 3. 

252/2.

1236 5-172 Relationship of Non-Motorized Recreation to 

Motorized Recreation. 5-172 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should support separate trail 

systems for motorized and non-motorized uses 

because the needs of these groups are different 

and conflict.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

recreation opportunities. Alternative D of the DEIS and 

FEIS provides the least amount of motorized access to 

the Forest. The natural resource effects analysis of the 

alternatives are in Chapter 3. 

428/1. 433/1.

1237 5-173 Relationship of Non-Motorized Recreation to 

Motorized Recreation. 5-173 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should separate motorized and 

non-motorized trailheads.

New trailheads were identified in the DEIS and FEIS

for motorized access to the proposed new designated 

system. Existing trailheads for non-motorized trails may 

be used by motorized users if they can legally ride out of 

the trailhead on the designated motorized system. 

247/26. 326/12. 401/3. 465/21. 

1238 5-174 Relationship of Non-Motorized Recreation to 

Motorized Recreation. 5-174 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should not segregate 

motorized and non-motorized uses to comply 

with the Civil Rights act.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road and trail opportunities and disclosed 

effects in Chapter 3. Non-motorized trails may not be 

environmentally appropriate for motorized use due to 

design or location. Where non-motorized trails overlap 

with motorized roads proposals for shared interests 

between user groups was incorporated into the 

126/6.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

258

alternatives.

1239 5-175 Relationship of Non-Motorized Recreation to 

Motorized Recreation. 5-175 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should prohibit motorized and 

equestrian use of mountain bike trails because the 

trails are costly to construct and are significantly 

damaged by these uses.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

recreation opportunities. Alternative D of the DEIS and 

FEIS provides the least amount of motorized access to 

the Forest. The natural resource effects analysis of the 

alternatives are in Chapter 3. The purpose and need for 

this project is to bring the Forest into compliance with 

the 2005 Travel Management Rule and designate 

motorized routes; designation of equestrian trails is not 

the focus of this project. 

265/4. 431/6.

1240 5-176 Relationship of Non-Motorized Recreation to 

Motorized Recreation. 5-176 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should provide a plan for 

controlling damage from horses because horses 

cause more damage than ATVs or dirt bikes.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the 

Forest into compliance with the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule. Controlling or identifying damage 

caused by horses is not the focus of this project. 

005/4. 419/8.

1241 5-177 Relationship of Non-Motorized Recreation to 

Motorized Recreation. 5-177 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should acknowledge that 

motorized users frequently trespass on nonmotorized trails because they cause damage and 

leave trash behind.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the 

Forest into compliance with the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule and designate motorized routes. All 

action alternatives would result in the publication of a 

Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) depicting those 

routes and areas that would be open to motorized travel. 

The MVUM would be the primary authority for user 

compliance and would be the basis for enforcing 

motorized travel designations on the ground. We believe 

that publication and use of the MVUM would reduce 

trespass issues. For more information on the MVUM 

see the DEIS and FEIS. 

424/1. 

1242 5-178 Developed Recreation - Camp Grounds. 5-178 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

designate some campgrounds as “non-OHV” to 

provide non-motorized recreationists with a quiet 

camping experience.

OHVs are a recognized motorized user group of the 

National Forest. The purpose and need for this project 

is to bring the Forest into compliance with the 2005 

Travel Management Rule and designate motorized 

routes; designation of motorized user groups in 

campgrounds is not the focus of this project. Mixed use 

designations made in varying degrees throughout the 

alternatives may affect OHV use within campgrounds. 

Effects of motorized access to natural resources and 

recreation opportunities from the alternatives are 

disclosed in Chapter 3.

413/5. 456/75.

1243 5-179 Developed Recreation - Camp Grounds. 5-179 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should place 

OHVs are a recognized motorized user group of the 

National Forest. The purpose and need for this project 

588/5.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

259

limits on driving OHVs around or near developed 

campsites to reduce noise impacts.

is to bring the Forest into compliance with the 2005 

Travel Management Rule and designate motorized 

routes; designation of motorized user groups in or near 

developed campsites is not the focus of this project. 

Mixed use designations made in varying degrees 

throughout the alternatives may affect OHV use within 

and around developed campsites. Effects of motorized 

access to natural resources and recreation opportunities 

from the alternatives are disclosed in Chapter 3.

1244 5-180 Developed Recreation - Camp Grounds. 5-180 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

provide campgrounds with OHV access to attract 

tourists.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized opportunities and disclosed effects in 

Chapter 3. The greatest motorized opportunities are in 

Alternatives A, B and C.

507/13.

1245 5-181 Developed Recreation - Camp Grounds. 5-181 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

consider the proximity to roads when selecting 

sites for campgrounds to allow for quiet camping.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the 

Forest into compliance with the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule and designate motorized routes; 

designation of motorized user groups in campgrounds is 

not the focus of this project. Mixed use designations 

made in varying degrees throughout the alternatives may 

affect OHV use within campgrounds. Effects of 

motorized access to natural resources and recreation 

opportunities from the alternatives are disclosed in 

Chapter 3.

588/3. 588/4.

1246 5-181 Developed Recreation - Camp Grounds. 5-181 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

consider the proximity to roads when selecting 

sites for campgrounds to provide convenient 

access to backcountry trails.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

recreation opportunities, including backcountry access 

to designated trails. Alternative D of the DEIS and 

FEIS provides the least amount of motorized access to 

the Forest. The natural resource effects analysis of the 

alternatives is in Chapter 3. 

588/7.

1247 5-182 Developed Recreation - Camp Grounds. 5-182 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

maintain motorized access to local campgrounds 

and communities and should extend seasonal 

access to campgrounds to support the local 

economies.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

recreation opportunities, including access to developed 

Forest Service campgrounds and access to communities 

and private campgrounds within the jurisdiction of the 

Forest Service. The natural resource effects analysis of 

the alternatives is in Chapter 3. 

030/10.

1248 5-183 Other Access Considerations. 5-183 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should coordinate 

with South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks to 

allow access to Spearfish and Spearfish Peak.

The Forest Service coordinated throughout the 

development of this project with State and local officials 

to provide the best information for motorized access to 

the Black Hills.

472/18.

1249 5-184 User Conflicts. 5-184 Public Concern: The The comment cites two executive orders having to do 126/257.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

260

Forest Service should develop a definition of 

“reasonable or significant” when evaluating user 

conflicts.

with motorized use. EO11644 directs Federal agencies 

to protect resources, promote safety of all users of 

Federal lands, and "to minimize conflicts among the 

various uses of those lands." EO 11989 amends EO 

11644, and directs agencies to close areas or trails to 

vehicles causing damage until corrective measures are 

taken. The comment alleges Federal agencies should 

focus on minimizing conflicts between uses, rather than 

users. The preamble to the Travel Management Rule 

cites these two Orders as a basis for promulgating the 

Rule, and points out that both natural resources and 

visitor experiences are affected by motorized vehicle use 

(70 FR 68265). The Purpose and Need for the current 

proposal includes needs to reduce adverse impacts of 

motorized use to natural resources, and to develop a 

transportation system to provide a range of quality 

experiences for a wide variety of Forest users. Striving 

to proactively reduce conflicts between a various Forest 

users is one way to accomplish this objective. We 

believe the commenter's request to define significant 

user conflict is overly narrow in scope and unwarranted.

1250 5-185 User Conflicts. 5-185 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should avoid overstating the 

incidence of user conflict because documented 

user conflicts occur at statistically insignificant 

rates.

Recreationists may perceive conflicts in different ways, 

and conflicts may be reported or go unreported. The 

Revised Forest Plan provides guidance on recreation 

management, stating that the Forest will provide a full 

range of recreational opportunities, and that trails 

typically will be managed to minimize user conflicts 

(Goal 4, Discussion section). While the focus of this 

effort is to designate routes and areas for motorized use, 

the FEIS recognizes there may be effects to other 

recreational uses. The alternatives address this issue in 

different ways (Chapter 2), and the effects of motorized 

use on other uses are disclosed in Chapter 3, Recreation 

section.

126/261. 

1251 5-185 User Conflicts. 5-185 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should avoid overstating the 

incidence of user conflict because often users 

meet no other people on trails.

While it's true that portions of the Black Hills National 

Forest receive very little use, there are other portions 

that have high use and much existing or potential 

conflict between users. 

483/22.

1252 5-186 User Conflicts. 5-186 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should address the issue of nonRecreationists may perceive conflicts in different ways, and conflicts may be reported or go unreported. The 

126/245.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

261

motorized groups actively seeking to reduce 

motorized recreation because this is the most 

significant aspect of user conflicts.

Revised Forest Plan provides guidance on recreation 

management, stating that the Forest will provide a full 

range of recreational opportunities, and that trails 

typically will be managed to minimize user conflicts 

(Goal 4, Discussion section). While the focus of this 

effort is to designate routes and areas for motorized use, 

the FEIS recognizes there may be effects to other 

recreational uses. The alternatives address this issue in 

different ways (Chapter 2), and the effects of motorized 

use on other uses are disclosed in Chapter 3, Recreation 

section.

1253 5-187 User Conflicts. 5-187 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should reconsider the assumptions 

regarding user conflicts because conflicts occur 

infrequently and can be resolved by restricting 

hikers to non-motorized areas.

Conflict between individuals is often based on personal 

preferences, attitudes, and social values. The Black Hills 

National Forest manages for multiple uses for 

motorized and non-motorized activities. The DEIS and 

FEIS alternatives provide opportunities for both types 

of recreation throughout the Forest to reduce conflicts 

between user groups. Routes may or may not be 

designated for motorized use for a number of reasons 

including potential conflicts with natural resource values 

or other recreational uses. Resource effects are 

disclosed in Chapter 3. 

126/87.

1254 5-188 User Conflicts. 5-188 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should ensure that the definition of 

user conflict is consistent with the Executive 

Orders because they should not be equated with 

resource issues.

The Black Hills National Forest manages for multiple 

uses for motorized and non-motorized activities. The 

Purpose and Need for the current proposal includes 

needs to reduce adverse impacts of motorized use to 

natural resources, and to develop a transportation 

system to provide a range of quality experiences for a 

wide variety of Forest users. Striving to proactively 

reduce conflicts between various Forest users is one way 

to accomplish this objective. The DEIS and FEIS 

alternatives provide opportunities for both types of 

recreation throughout the Forest to reduce impacts 

between user groups. Effects to resources and 

recreation opportunities are disclosed in Chapter 3.

461/30.

1255 5-189 User Conflicts. 5-189 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should consider the expected 

increase in motorized travel when evaluating 

conflicts with private land management and other 

Forest users.

The DEIS and FEIS disclosed the increase in sales of 

OHVs nationwide and the estimated number of 

motorized visitors to the Forest, pages 50-51. Chapter 3 

discloses the effects increased OHV use on the Forest 

could do to natural resources without regulations. 

471/8.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

262

1256 5-190 User Conflicts. 5-190 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should consider designating

alternating time periods for motorized or nonmotorized access to reduce user conflicts.

The commenter suggests that an alternative be 

considered in which motorized and non-motorized 

users could take turns using areas by weeks or by year. 

They suggest that the schedule of use could be 

communicated to the public in various ways such as 

public media. They believe that this scheme would 

eliminate "any reasonable concern about conflict of 

users." The Forest Service considered and dismissed 

this alternative for several reasons. First, the Travel 

Management Rule requires that the Forest produce a 

Motor Vehicle Use Map which designates areas and/or 

routes for specific uses. We believe it would be 

impractical to designate and allow for this wide a range 

of uses over most of the transportation system, and 

would not meet the purposes of the Rule. Second, trails 

designated to support motorized use may require design, 

construction and maintenance which could be more 

costly than that required for non-motorized uses. To 

spread this over a larger system would, we believe, work 

against the aims of the Travel Management Rule, and 

this current effort, to design and operate an efficient 

transportation system. Third, motorized use can leave 

lingering effects to trail surfaces which may not be 

desirable for non-motorized users. For these reasons, 

the Forest Service has dismissed this alternative from 

detailed consideration. 

126/254.

1257 5-191 User Education. 5-191 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should improve user education 

before limiting use.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the 

Forest into compliance with the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule. The Forest Service is not mandated 

to provide education. Brochures and information will 

be provided to share information with users. A 

comprehensive public education and awareness program 

will be developed and made available through a multimedia approach. 

126/246. 405/1.

1258 5-191 User Education. 5-191 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should improve user education 

because most problems can be resolved with 

improved education.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the 

Forest into compliance with the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule. The Forest Service is not mandated 

to provide education. Brochures and information will 

be provided to share information with users. A 

comprehensive public education and awareness program 

126/246. 370/2. 359/5. 370/2.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

263

will be developed and made available through a multimedia approach. 

1259 5-191 User Education. 5-191 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should improve user education to 

promote use of quieter motorized vehicles.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the 

Forest into compliance with the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule. The Forest Service is not mandated 

to provide education. Brochures and information will 

be provided to share information with users. A 

comprehensive public education and awareness program 

will be developed and made available through a multimedia approach. 

126/263.

1260 5-191 User Education. 5-191 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should improve user education 

because user education is a more cost-effective 

way of addressing management issues.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the 

Forest into compliance with the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule. The Forest Service is not mandated 

to provide education. Brochures and information will 

be provided to share information with users. A 

comprehensive public education and awareness program 

will be developed and made available through a multimedia approach. 

359/5.

1261 5-192 User Education. 5-192 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should provide user education on 

preventing the spread of noxious weeds.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the 

Forest into compliance with the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule. The Forest Service is not mandated 

to provide education. Brochures and information will 

be provided to share information with users. A 

comprehensive public education and awareness program 

will be developed and made available through a multimedia approach. 

319/86. 414/57. 456/124. 

462/74.

1262 5-192 User Education. 5-192 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should provide user education on 

the rules and restrictions on National Forest 

System roads.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the 

Forest into compliance with the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule. The Forest Service is not mandated 

to provide education. Brochures and information will 

be provided to share information with users. A 

comprehensive public education and awareness program 

will be developed and made available through a multimedia approach. 

126/248. 319/38. 414/26. 

462/27.

1263 5-192 User Education. 5-192 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should provide user education on 

the risk of starting wildfires from exhaust sparks.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the 

Forest into compliance with the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule. The Forest Service is not mandated 

to provide education. Brochures and information will 

be provided to share information with users. A 

comprehensive public education and awareness program 

456/76.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

264

will be developed and made available through a multimedia approach. 

1264 5-193 User Education. 5-193 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should provide more education for 

OHV users about habitats in the Black Hills.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the 

Forest into compliance with the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule. The Forest Service is not mandated 

to provide education. Brochures and information will 

be provided to share information with users. A 

comprehensive public education and awareness program 

will be developed and made available through a multimedia approach. 

474/11.

1265 5-194 User Education. 5-194 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should focus on user education 

and enforcement rather than restricting access. 

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the 

Forest into compliance with the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule. The Forest Service is not mandated 

to provide education. Brochures and information will 

be provided to share information with users. A 

comprehensive public education and awareness program 

will be developed and made available through a multimedia approach. 

314/1.

1266 5-195 Impact Analysis. 5-195 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include analysis of the noise 

impacts at developed campsites and picnic areas.

Land management agencies, including the Forest 

Service, and some states across the country have started 

establishing legal limits for sound emissions from OHVs 

including motorcycles. It has been proposed that this 

decision will establish a 96 DB(A) sound emission limit 

for OHVs on Black Hill National Forest roads and 

trails. The 96 DB(A) noise level was selected because it 

is the maximum level currently mandated by at least five 

states and is regarded as an adequate limit by the EPA 

and motorcycle manufacturers (American Motorcyclist 

Association 2005). 

578/4. 588/6.

1267 5-196 Impact Analysis. 5-196 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that timber 

harvest causes greater impacts than motorized 

recreation and should not use impacts from OHV 

use as a reason to close roads.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the 

Forest into compliance with the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule. The project does not include an 

analysis from timber harvesting. 

314/6. 522/1.

1268 5-197 Impact Analysis. 5-197 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should consider impacts from 

timber management as part of the baseline when 

evaluating recreation impacts as long as timber 

management is a high priority on the BHNF.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the 

Forest into compliance with the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule. The project does not include an 

analysis from timber harvesting. 

357/10.

1269 5-198 Impact Analysis. 5-198 Public Concern: The Routes evaluated in this DEIS and FEIS and approved 373/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

265

Forest Service should complete an environmental 

assessment for every trail used for OHV travel 

because the impacts from a vehicle trail are longterm.

through the Record of Decision for motorized use will 

not be re-evaluated in future environmental documents 

unless new construction activities require additional 

analysis. New routes that may be added in the future 

would be evaluated in additional environmental analysis 

documents.

1270 5-199 Impact Analysis. 5-199 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should analyze the cumulative 

impacts of motorized road closures to comply 

with CEQ guidelines and NEPA.

Cumulative impacts from road closures has been 

analyzed in Chapter 3 of the DEIS and FEIS for natural 

resources.

126/19.

1271 5-200 Impact Analysis. 5-200 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should analyze the cumulative 

effects and environmental justice issues related to 

the lack of motorized trails.

Cumulative impacts and environmental justice issues 

related to lack of motorized trails has been analyzed in 

Chapter 3 of the DEIS and FEIS for natural resources.

126/274.

1272 5-201 Impact Analysis. 5-201 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should analyze the effects of 

opening non-motorized trails to motorized users.

The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

recreation opportunities. Alternative D of the DEIS and 

FEIS provides the least amount of motorized access to 

the Forest. The natural resource effects analysis of the 

alternatives are in Chapter 3. Designated non-motorized 

trails that overlap with maintenance level 1 or 2 roads 

that are utilized by the Forest for administrative 

purposes have been considered under Alternatives B 

and C for motorized opportunities. Current condition of 

the Forest, Alternatives A and E also identifies shared 

interests between non-motorized and motorized users 

when the designated non-motorized trail is a road open 

to public travel.

074/3.

1273 5-202 Impact Analysis. 5-202 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should complete a recreation 

opportunity spectrum inventory and scenery 

management system planning before completing 

the FEIS and ROD.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and Scenery Integrity 

Objectives have been completed for the Black Hills 

National Forest Management Plan and was used in the 

development of the DEIS and FEIS for the Travel 

Management Plan for the Forest.

578/24. 578/25.

1274 5-203 Impact Analysis. 5-203 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should review recreation

opportunity spectrum planning to ensure that 

areas meet the criteria and to comply with 

regulations governing Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum and Scenery Management System 

Planning.

The comment cites and incorporates by reference 

numerous appeals of past decisions, and related 

documents. The commenter challenges the adequacy of 

the ROS and Scenery Management System (SMS) 

analyses, and alleges the current effort is referencing 

outdated information. The 1999 decision on appeals of 

the Revised Forest Plan addressed similar challenges and 

upheld that decision. The current effort would be 

578/19. 578/20. 578/21. 

578/22.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

266

consistent with ROS direction in the Forest Plan, as 

noted. Re-evaluation of the Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum is a Forest Plan level decision and beyond the 

scope of this project. Re-evaluation of the Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum is a Forest Plan level decision 

and beyond the scope of this project.

1275 5-204 Impact Analysis. 5-204 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should analyze the significant 

issues affecting motorized recreationists to ensure 

that NEPA process is issues-driven.

The DEIS and FEIS identified the significant issues 

affecting the motorized opportunities for the Black Hills 

National Forest and analyzed them in Chapter 3 for 

natural resource areas. 

126/13.

1276 5-205 Impact Analysis. 5-205 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should provide quantitative 

evidence of the adverse impacts from motorized 

use to allow for the development of evaluation or 

suitability criteria when assessing the alternatives' 

effectiveness at meeting the purpose and need.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the 

Forest into compliance with the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule. The 2005 Travel Management Rules, 

Subpart B, requires designation of roads, trails, and areas 

for motor vehicle use. The current condition of the 

Forest, Alternative A, is not in compliance with the 

2005 Travel Management Rule as it allows unrestricted 

cross-country motorized travel. As a result of the 

unrestricted cross-country travel, natural resources are 

being damaged or destroyed. Cultural sites, botanical 

habitat, and important wildlife habitat are being 

impacted by unrestricted motorized travel. By 

designating a motorized system, these resources would 

be improved. Please see the analysis for these sections in 

the DEIS or FEIS, pages 264, 231, and 143, 

respectively. 

201/2. 419/4.

1277 5-206 Impact Analysis. 5-206 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should use the level of natural 

impacts as a baseline when evaluating impacts 

from OHVs because OHV impacts are small by 

comparison.

Alternative A was utilized as a baseline for the DEIS 

and FEIS. Alternative A represents the existing 

condition of the Forest, including the current motorized 

opportunities.

126/28.

1278 5-207 Impact Analysis. 5-207 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should disclose the impacts caused 

by companies that cater to OHV users.

The DEIS and FEIS discloses information from all 

motorized users of the Forest, whether they bring their 

own OHVs to the Forest or rent from personal 

business. Effects to the natural resources are disclosed 

in Chapter 3. Analysis and disclosure of impacts caused 

by manufacturers of OHV's is beyond the scope of this 

EIS. 

422/3.

1279 5-208 Impact Analysis. 5-208 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should use current data regarding 

Alternative A was utilized as a baseline for the DEIS 

and FEIS. Alternative A represents the existing 

126/74.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

267

motorized trails to ensure the plan meets the need 

of the public.

condition of the Forest, including the current motorized 

opportunities.

1280 5-209 Impact Analysis. 5-209 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should expand the scope of the 

analysis to include the creation of new routes to 

allow for development of a reasonable alternative 

and mitigation for the loss of motorized access.

The DEIS and FEIS included under Alternatives B and 

C motorized opportunities that would require new 

construction. Some proposed routes are connectors for 

a looping opportunity while others may be to bring an 

existing route into compliance with environmental 

standards. New motorized routes may be added in the 

future but would be evaluated in future, additional 

environmental analysis documents.

126/45.

1281 5-210 Impact Analysis. 5-210 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should substantiate the claim that 

increasing fuel prices will not likely reduce 

motorized recreation because it seems 

counterintuitive. 

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the 

Forest into compliance with the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule and designate motorized routes. 

Rising fuel prices is beyond the scope of this project.

414/51. 456/30. 462/68.

1282 5-211 Impact Analysis. 5-211 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should analyze the cumulative 

impacts from closing motorized trails because this 

is a significant impact.

Cumulative impacts from closing motorized trails has 

been analyzed in Chapter 3 of the DEIS and FEIS for 

natural resources.

126/3.

1283 5-211 Impact Analysis. 5-211 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should analyze the cumulative 

impacts from closing motorized trails because 

ignoring the trend of closing areas will result in de 

facto Wilderness Areas.

Cumulative impacts from closing motorized trails has 

been analyzed in Chapter 3 of the DEIS and FEIS for 

natural resources.

126/112.

1284 5-212 Impact Analysis. 5-212 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should evaluate the cumulative 

impacts of concentrating motorized uses.

Cumulative impacts has been analyzed in Chapter 3 of 

the DEIS and FEIS for natural resources.

126/250.

1285 5-213 Impact Analysis. 5-213 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should improve cumulative impact 

analysis of routes used for administrative 

purposes because roads used for timber harvest 

have similar impacts to roads used for recreation.

A partial listing of actions related to administrative uses 

is cited in Appendix E: Cumulative Effects of the DEIS. 

Administrative actions are actively managed to protect 

resources and are limited in scope and duration. 

Education and enforcement are important tools for 

increasing public awareness of travel management 

regulations and encourages voluntary compliance. 

357/8. 357/9.

1286 6-1 Costs of Implementation (Chapter 6: SocioEconomic Concerns). 6-1 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should acknowledge that the plan 

will require the reallocation of significant 

resources outside of and in addition to the fee 

income expenditures.

Costs and revenues for the road system, and those 

anticipated for the entire motorized travel system, are 

discussed in the FEIS in the Engineering and 

Transportation section of Chapter 3. In this section the 

FEIS acknowledges that full implementation of 

Alternatives B, C and D would be costly and that 

456/18. 458/25.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

268

additional resources would be needed. This and other 

relevant information will be considered in the decision. 

1287 6-2 Costs of Implementation. 6-2 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should conduct a financial 

impact study to analyze impacts on local 

businesses.

The social and economic analysis that appeared in the 

DEIS has been strengthened. Economic effects of the 

alternatives are disclosed in the Socio-Economic section 

in the FEIS, Chapter 3. An economic impact analysis 

was completed to support that discussion, and is located 

in the project record. That analysis considered the 

number of jobs and amount of labor income 

contributed by motorized and non-motorized use visits 

(i.e., users of the trail systems) within the seven-county 

Black Hills region. It focused on jobs and income in 

aggregate for the region, and not on individual firms or 

numbers of firms. It is estimated that 82 jobs are 

contributed annually as a result of current non-local 

motorized and non-motorized recreational visits to the 

Forest; this estimate is assumed to characterize job 

contributions under the No Action Alternative. When 

estimating economic impacts (e.g., jobs and labor 

income), only non-local visitors bring „new „money into 

the local communities and therefore have a direct 

economic impact. Visitors who reside in the local area 

tend to substitute other local recreational activities or 

change the time and place for continuing the same 

activity rather than traveling long distances and 

incurring additional costs to do the same activity. 

Current jobs contributions, as well as corresponding 

income (approximately $2 million) are an important 

annual contribution to relevant sectors of the local 

economy, however, these jobs are a small percentage of 

the total labor force as well as the labor force associated 

with sectors most affected (i.e., retail trade, 

accommodations and food services, and entertainment) 

for the seven county area (less than 1% and 

approximately 0.5% respectively). Based on the inability 

to project changes in motorized and non-motorized 

visits under the action Alternatives (A through E), as 

well as the relatively small impacts noted above, changes 

in jobs and income resulting from Alternatives A 

through E are expected to be too small to accurately 

294/11. 295/11. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

269

project or detect. The direction of any net changes in 

jobs and income contributed by recreation under 

Alternatives A through E is therefore difficult to 

predict.

1288 6-3 Costs of Implementation. 6-3 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should analyze the economic 

impacts on both motorized and non-motorized 

recreation.

It is difficult to quantitatively estimate changes in visitor 

use and types of visitor activities under the alternatives. 

To support the FEIS the economic and social 

consequences have been evaluated in a "Supplementary 

Specialist Report - Social and Economic Effects" for the 

Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan. 

Conclusions indicate that potential reductions in 

motorized use visits under some alternatives may be 

offset, in part, by (1) some portion of displaced 

motorized users seeking substitute sites within the area, 

and (2) increases in visitors associated with nonmotorized activities as conditions contributing to the 

quality of their experience improves. The direction of 

any net changes in total visits is therefore difficult to 

predict.

578/37.

1289 6-4 Costs of Implementation. 6-4 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should consider the financial 

implications of the travel management system to 

comply with the intent of Congress.

The Travel Analysis Report from September 2007 

supports this larger analysis. Current information on 

costs of implementing the alternatives was added to the 

FEIS, in Chapter 3, Engineering and Transportation 

section. This discussion considers annual and deferred 

maintenance costs. It also includes a discussion of 

traditional funding sources, and concludes that annual 

road maintenance resources are about 50% of what is 

needed, and the Federal portion of that funding is 

trending downward. Deferred maintenance on roads, 

however, is funded by a different appropriation than is

recreational trail work, which is funded by recreation 

appropriations. The Forest Service proposes to 

implement the Recreation Enhancement Act to 

supplement funding under the recreational trails 

program, and would seek other revenue sources 

including grants. In addition, the Forest would pursue 

offers of volunteer support through a trail ranger 

program, and seek out cooperative partnerships with 

other agencies and local governments. In short, the 

Forest Service has estimated the costs of implementing 

456/134. 456/135. 456/138.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

270

the alternatives and understands the limits to available 

funding, and the decision on this project will consider 

this information. Implementation of any decision on 

this project would require the Forest to seek funding 

and assistance from a variety of sources. 

1290 6-5 Costs of Implementation. 6-5 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should analyze the 

implementation cost of each alternative to comply 

with NEPA.

Information on costs of the alternatives was added to 

the FEIS, in Chapter 3, Engineering and Transportation 

section. This includes information on current annual 

and deferred maintenance costs, and estimated annual 

and deferred maintenance costs under each of the 

alternatives. This information is aggregated to estimate

the annual total motorized OHV system costs for the 

first ten years of the program. Based on this data, 

Alternative C would be the most costly to implement, 

followed closely by Alternative B. Alternative D would 

be quite a bit less costly than either of these, followed by 

Alternatives A and E. The Socio-Economic section was 

rewritten and contains new information in the FEIS. 

An economic impact analysis was completed showing 

the number of jobs and amount of labor income 

contributed by motorized and non-motorized use visits 

(i.e., users of the trail systems) within the seven-county 

Black Hills region. In addition, indicators such as miles 

of motorized routes within 300 ft of non-NFS lands, 

and number of trailheads within 3 miles of a potential 

gateway community were evaluated to compare 

potential for noise, dust, and trespass, and other effects. 

Since quantitative estimates of changes in use between 

the alternatives were not available, only general 

qualitative comparisons of alternatives were made. 

319/52. 456/57. 458/52. 

462/41. 491/2.

1291 6-6 Costs of Implementation. 6-6 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should analyze the 

socioeconomic effects of each of the alternatives 

because there are meaningful differences between 

them.

The respondent correctly notes that there are likely to 

be meaningful differences between the nature and 

amount of use offered by the alternatives but is 

incorrect in noting that travel management plans place 

"unnecessary" restrictions on use - plans are intended to 

reduce impacts to the multiple uses, including 

recreation, associated with un-managed aspects of 

recreation. Given the inability to quantitatively estimate 

changes in visitor use and types of visitor activities 

under the alternatives, the economic and social 

461/10. 548/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

271

consequences have been evaluated in the 

"Supplementary Specialist Report - Social and 

Economic Effects" for the Black Hills National Forest 

Travel Management Plan - conclusions indicate that 

potential reductions in motorized use visits under some alternatives may be offset, in part, by (1) some portion 

of displaced motorized users seeking substitute sites 

within the area, and (2) increases in visitors associated 

with non-motorized activities as conditions contributing 

to the quality of their experience improves. The 

direction of any net changes in total visits (and 

corresponding job impacts) is therefore difficult to 

predict. The report also acknowledges that jobs may be 

impacted, but due to the small relative contribution of 

motorized and non-motorized activity on the BHNF to 

local jobs (82 jobs contributed or 0.5% of jobs in 

relevant economic sectors), changes in jobs and income 

resulting from Alternatives A through E are expected to 

be too small to accurately project or detect. See 

response to comment public concern 6.2 and 6.5 for a 

brief summary of those results.

12926-7 Costs of Implementation. 6-7 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should include an analysis of 

the lost opportunity costs because the alternatives 

interfere with market forces.

Based on analysis provided in the "Supplementary 

Specialist Report - Social and Economic Effects" for the 

Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan, 

changes in jobs and income resulting from Alternatives 

A through E are expected to be too small to accurately 

project or detect. As a consequence, the alternatives are 

not projected to interfere with market forces, including 

measurable impacts to jobs and income associated the 

economic sectors most affected by motorized vehicle 

use on the BHNF (e.g., retail trade, accommodations 

and food services, and entertainment). These 

conclusions suggest that the alternatives will not have a 

measurable impact on business opportunities. It is 

recognized that the relative opportunities for motorized 

use and non-motorized activities may be relatively lower 

and higher, respectively, under Alternative D, however, 

net changes in jobs and income contributed by 

recreation under Alternatives A through E are difficult 

to predict. See response to comments 6.2 and 6.5.

456/80. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

272

1293 6-8 Costs of Implementation. 6-8 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should account for and 

disclose all revenues and costs associated with 

management of the system.

We agree that costs and revenues should be accounted 

for. Costs and revenues for the road system, and those 

anticipated for the entire motorized travel system, are 

discussed in the FEIS in the Engineering and 

Transportation section of Chapter 3. In this section the 

FEIS acknowledges that full implementation of 

Alternatives B, C and D would be costly and that 

additional resources would be needed. This and other 

relevant information will be considered in the decision. 

319/54. 456/60. 458/55. 

462/43.

1294 6-9 Costs of Implementation. 6-9 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should analyze the economic 

effects of the trail system because there could be 

both national and local effects.

The Forest Service recognizes the need to consider 

economic impacts. See response to Public Concern 6.2.

247/18.

1295 6-10 Costs of Implementation. 6-10 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should include a cost-benefit 

analysis of the impacts on fire management, fuel 

wood harvest, and timber management from 

motorized road and trail closures including 

cumulative impacts.

Proposed travel management actions would not affect 

fire suppression and timber management activities. The 

Forest Service would retain administrative access 

authority to carry out official business including these 

actions as well as contract and permit administration 

and addressing other emergencies. This was explained 

in the DEIS in Chapter 2, in the section Features Shared 

by All Alternatives, and is retained in the FEIS. The 

Forest intends to continue to allow firewood gathering, 

in designated areas. This program would continue 

independent of any alternative that is selected, and 

recognizes a recommendation by the National Forest 

Advisory Board's Travel Management Subcommittee. 

This recommendation is described in the DEIS in 

Chapter 1, Proposed Action, under NFAB 

Recommendations, and is retained in the FEIS. Since 

the decision on this proposal would have no effect on 

any of these programs the effects are not evaluated. 

126/264.

1296 6-11 Costs of Implementation. 6-11 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should analyze the effects of a

motorized system near private land.

Impacts on surface water quality have been addressed in 

the Hydrology Section of the EIS. See response to 

public concerns 6-6 and 6-12 for concerns about 

property values. 

456/66.

1297 6-12 Costs of Implementation. 6-12 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should analyze the potential 

effect on the value of adjacent properties as a 

result of the proposed action.

The Forest Service acknowledges concerns about 

property values, the use of hedonic valuation methods 

for extracting the marginal effect of physical attributes 

on property values, and the existence of bequest and 

other types of values, however, pre-existing hedonic 

456/67. 456/68. 578/39. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

273

studies are not available for the site, population, and 

effects-specific conditions associated with this plan. 

Time and resources are not available to conduct such an 

analysis, nor is it possible to quantify the potential 

differences in relevant physical attributes across the alternatives. As noted in the DEIS, additional indicators 

have been adopted (miles of motorized routes within 

300 ft of non-NFS lands) to provide an index to help 

characterize the types of physical impacts that affect 

neighboring landowners, include potential for noise, 

dust, and trespass. For a qualitative discussion about 

differences in scenic values, see the Scenery section in 

the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. These 

indicators are considered in combination with indicators 

representing other ecological, social, and economic 

effects when evaluating the relative tradeoffs associated 

with the alternatives. See response to public concern 6-

5.

12986-13 Costs of Implementation. 6-13 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should select Alternative C to 

support the local economy.

The Forest Service recognizes the concerns about the 

impact of travel management and motorized vehicle 

access on livelihoods, and has assessed the impact of 

motorized and non-motorized recreational activity 

(visits) on local jobs and labor income as described in 

the "Supplementary Specialist Report - Social and 

Economic Effects" for the Black Hills National Forest 

Travel Management Plan. It was estimated that non-

local recreational visits focusing on motorized use 

contribute 30 jobs annually to the local seven-county 

Black Hills area; these jobs are recognized as an 

important annual contribution to relevant sectors of the 

local economy, however, these jobs are a small 

percentage of the total labor force. Changes in jobs and 

income resulting from Alternatives A through E are 

therefore expected to be too small to accurately project 

or detect. For a summary of those results, see response 

to public concern 6.2.

248/1.

12996-14 Costs of Implementation. 6-14 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should select Alternative D 

because the Fore Service cannot afford to 

maintain a larger system.

Costs of implementation are discussed in the FEIS in 

Chapter 3, Engineering and Transportation section. 

Implementation capability will be one of many factors 

considered in the decision. 

091/3.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

274

1300 6-15 Costs of Changing the Current Condition. Costs 

of Changing the Current Condition 6-15 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should analyze the 

economic effects of restricting access because the 

current system provides significant economic 

benefits.

The Forest Service recognizes the economic impact of 

hunting and fishing at the state and national levels, as 

well as the importance of access for recreational 

opportunities, and has assessed the impact of motorized, 

non-motorized, and other recreational activity (visits), 

including hunting and fishing, on local jobs and labor 

income as described in the "Supplementary Specialist 

Report - Social and Economic Effects" for the Black 

Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan. That 

analysis focused on the magnitude and impact of 

motorized and non-motorized recreation specifically 

affiliated with the Black Hills NF, thereby identifying 

the impacts relevant to the travel management decisions 

being considered and the area most likely to be affected, 

as opposed to the State of South Dakota. It is 

recognized that fishing is a popular activity, accounting 

for 20% of primary activity visits but is less likely to be 

impacted by travel management decisions. Hunting is 

estimated to account for 8% of primary activity visits, 

contributing 14 full or part-time jobs each year to the 

local area, a relatively small component of total 

employment (18,040 jobs) engaged in the economic 

sectors most affected by recreation in the seven-county 

area. Similar observations are made for motorized and 

non-motorized recreation in general; for a summary of 

the results related to recreation and tourism in general, 

see response to public concerns 6-2 and 6-13. 

Consideration for hunting needs is acknowledged in the 

alternatives through various allowances for crosscountry travel for the purposes of game retrieval.

162/2. 346/23.

1301 6-15 Costs of Changing the Current Condition. Costs 

of Changing the Current Condition 6-15 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should analyze the 

economic effects of restricting access because 

limiting motorized access will have detrimental 

effects on tourism.

The Forest Service recognizes the economic impact of 

hunting and fishing at the state and national levels, as 

well as the importance of access for recreational 

opportunities, and has assessed the impact of motorized, 

non-motorized, and other recreational activity (visits), 

including hunting and fishing, on local jobs and labor 

income as described in the "Supplementary Specialist 

Report - Social and Economic Effects" for the Black 

Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan. That 

analysis focused on the magnitude and impact of 

012/3. 416/12. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

275

motorized and non-motorized recreation specifically 

affiliated with the Black Hills NF, thereby identifying 

the impacts relevant to the travel management decisions 

being considered and the area most likely to be affected, 

as opposed to the State of South Dakota. It is 

recognized that fishing is a popular activity, accounting 

for 20% of primary activity visits but is less likely to be 

impacted by travel management decisions. Hunting is 

estimated to account for 8% of primary activity visits, 

contributing 14 full or part-time jobs each year to the 

local area, a relatively small component of total 

employment (18,040 jobs) engaged in the economic 

sectors most affected by recreation in the seven-county 

area. Similar observations are made for motorized and 

non-motorized recreation in general; for a summary of 

the results related to recreation and tourism in general, 

see response to public concerns 6-2 and 6-13. 

Consideration for hunting needs is acknowledged in the 

alternatives through various allowances for crosscountry travel for the purposes of game retrieval.

1302 6-15 Costs of Changing the Current Condition. Costs 

of Changing the Current Condition 6-15 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should analyze the 

economic effects of restricting access because it 

would negatively affect local economies.

As noted in "Supplementary Specialist Report - Social 

and Economic Effects" for the Black Hills National 

Forest Travel Management Plan, there are similar 

numbers of motorized and non-motorized trail users 

based on recreational visitor survey results for the Black 

Hills NF (see response to Public Concern 6-27). 

Participation rates also indicate that it is incorrect to 

state that a very limited number of recreationists benefit 

from non-motorized trails; the number of motorized 

and non-motorized visitors are comparable. This report 

also compares spending by visitors associated with a 

variety of different recreational activities (e.g., ranges 

from $22 per visit for hiking, $36 per visit for OHV use, 

to $48 for hunting for non-local day visitors). However, 

spending does not represent the net benefits from these 

activities, nor is the Forest able to predict changes in 

visits by activity type (motorized or non-motorized) in 

order to complete a benefit cost analysis. The agency is 

not aware of evidence indicating that average consumer 

surplus (e.g., net benefits), per visit, is higher for OHV 

045/3. 054/3. 510/16.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

276

users compared to non-motorized users of trails. The 

increased number of route miles required to satisfy the 

needs of motorized users, as suggested by the 

commenter, would imply higher costs for motorized 

users.

1303 6-15 Costs of Changing the Current Condition. Costs 

of Changing the Current Condition 6-15 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should analyze the 

economic effects of restricting access because it 

would negatively affect local businesses.

The analysis of job and labor income impacts is based 

on visitor expenditure profiles that include 

consideration of spending on the various businesses 

reported by recreationists on the Black Hills NF as well 

as National Forests nation-wide - this includes reported 

spending on recreation, entertainment, and sporting 

goods which also includes equipment rental, implying 

that the impact of revenue associated with ATV rentals 

is being considered in the analysis. 

162/2.

1304 6-15 Costs of Changing the Current Condition. Costs 

of Changing the Current Condition 6-15 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should analyze the 

economic effects of restricting access because it 

would negatively affect the economy of Sturgis.

The purpose and need for this project is to bring the 

Forest into compliance with the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule and designate motorized routes. A 

variety of alternatives were analyzed in the DEIS for this 

purpose. None of the alternatives identifies "closing 

92.5% of the National Forest" as the comment suggests. 

The alternatives do bring the Black Hills National Forest 

into compliance with the Travel Management Rule. The 

Forest is not able to project changes in recreational 

visits as a result of implementation of the various 

alternatives, and as a consequence, is not able to 

estimate the net benefits of gains and losses in 

recreational opportunities among the various 

recreational opportunities (motorized and nonmotorized). As indicated in the recreation analysis, some 

motorized recreationists may seek other riding locations 

that do not restrict them to designated routes. A 

"Supplementary Specialist Report - Social and 

Economic Effects" for the Black Hills National Forest 

Travel Management Plan was written to capture some of 

these economic impacts to communities. That report is 

incorporated by reference in the FEIS and is located in 

the project file. The DEIS and FEIS alternatives 

considered a range of motorized road, trail, and 

trailhead opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 

3. The greatest motorized opportunities and access 

045/3. 054/3.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

277

within the Black Hills National Forest are in 

Alternatives A, B, and C, which all propose motorized 

routes in the vicinity of Sturgis. Development of 

motorized access opportunities to the Forest from any 

community located outside the Black Hills National 

Forest boundary is outside the jurisdiction of the Forest 

Service and outside the scope of this project.

1305 6-16 Costs of Changing the Current Condition. 6-16 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

consider the socio-economic issues associated 

with using wildlife corridors to restrict motorized 

access.

The Forest Service recognizes the value of wilderness 

and wildlife, however, monetized valuation and 

corresponding consideration of these values in 

economic effects analysis is not possible. Instead, 

consideration of these values is acknowledged through 

analysis summarized within the Wildlife sections of the 

Draft EIS. Socio-economic effects are disclosed in the 

DEIS (pages 89-99) and are retained in the FEIS. The 

FS did not use wildlife corridors as a means to restrict 

motorized access and to establish de facto wilderness 

areas. The needs of wildlife related to breeding, feeding, 

sheltering and dispersal may have been a consideration 

in the proposed status of motorized routes identified 

across the range of alternatives. 

126/107.

1306 6-17 Costs of Changing the Current Condition. 6-17 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

include a socio-economic analysis for each 

proposed motorized route closure.

The Forest Service is not responsible for conducting a 

socio-economic analysis for each route, nor is it possible 

to complete such an analysis given the difficulties with 

projecting changes in conditions and recreational visits 

at that level of detail. It is difficult even to predict and 

quantify changes in recreational visits and corresponding 

impacts at the National Forest level. For these reasons 

we believe the analysis is more appropriately conducted 

on the effects of each alternative as a whole. 

126/33.

1307 6-18 Costs of Changing the Current Condition. 6-18 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should use 

accurate data when analyzing economic impacts 

of closing motorized routes.

Economic impacts associated each alternative are 

expected to vary, however this level of variation is 

estimated to be too small to accurately project or detect 

(see response to Public concern 6-2). The regional 

model for this analysis uses the 2007 IMPLAN data for 

the seven-county Black Hills area. The data are 

compliant with the Data Quality Act (Section 515 of 

Public Law 106-554). IMPLAN multipliers are derived 

from a specific set of cross-sectional data regarding 

employment, output, and expenditures from a single 

126/118.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

278

point in time (i.e., year). National Visitor Use 

Monitoring (NVUM) data used to estimate job and 

income contributions associated with Black Hills 

recreational visits are also compliant with the Data 

Quality Act.

1308 6-19 Costs of Changing the Current Condition. 6-19 

Public Concern: The Forest Service should 

evaluate the economic impact, including the 

cumulative impact, of reducing available 

motorized recreation

opportunities because the impacts to motorized 

recreationists are significant.

The Forest does not predict that a complete loss of 

recreational opportunities will occur, as demonstrated by 

the designated route system indicators in Chapter 2 of 

the Draft EIS. The value of routes and access on the 

Black Hills NF is indeed a function, in part, of the 

availability of substitute sites, and this is recognized 

qualitatively in the recreation section of the Draft EIS 

where it states that new motor vehicle restrictions on 

other lands (e.g., Thunder Basin, Buffalo Gap) may 

displace visitors and further concentrate use in 

permitted areas, thereby creating potential for increased 

resource impacts and management concerns. However, 

information noted in the "Supplementary Specialist 

Report - Social and Economic Effects" for the Black 

Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan indicates 

that significant numbers of recreational participants on 

National Forests as well as ORV users in Wyoming 

reported that they would seek out other locations in the 

event of closures or restrictions, suggesting that those 

users are aware of the availability of substitute sites that 

they find acceptable, thereby offsetting some potential 

cumulative effects. The Forest is not able to project 

changes in recreational visits as a result of 

implementation of the various alternatives, and as a 

consequence, is not able to estimate the net benefits of 

gains and losses in recreational opportunities among the 

various recreational opportunities (motorized and nonmotorized). Describing the potential effects of changing 

fuel prices is correspondingly not possible beyond 

noting that changes are expected to have a broad effect 

on recreational visits to all areas, as well as have an 

effect on rates of participation among activities 

involving different fuel requirements. See also response 

to Public Concern 6-2.

126/117. 502/18. 513/12.

1309 6-20 Economic Effects of Recreation. 6-20 Public Spending by recreational visitors to the Black Hills NF 084/2. 126/168. 463/1. 494/13. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

279

Concern: The Forest Service should consider the 

economic impact of ATV riding.

is acknowledged in the economic impact analysis and 

the resulting estimates of jobs and labor income 

contributed by motorized and non-motorized activities. 

See response to Public concern 6-15.

497/19. 512/14. 611/13.

1310 6-21 Economic Effects of Recreation. 6-21 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should acknowledge 

the significant contribution motorized recreation 

makes to the local economy.

The Forest Service recognizes the importance of 

motorized vehicle recreation and events in the Black 

Hills area and has analyzed and presented the 

contribution of those activities on the employment and 

labor income within the seven-county Black Hills area . 

For a summary of the analysis results and justification of 

conclusions regarding economic impacts associated with 

the plan alternatives, see response to public concern 6-2, 

6-13, and 6-15. The report by the Arizona State Parks is 

acknowledged; the analysis completed for the Black 

Hills applies a well documented modeling system, 

modeling inputs are compliance with the Data Quality 

Act (see response to public concern 6-18), and is similar 

to the methods adopted by the Wyoming Department 

of State Parks and Cultural Resources in their economic 

assessment of off-road vehicle use (2006).

477/5. 614/5.

1311 6-22 Economic Effects of Recreation. 6-22 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should include a 

cost-benefit analysis of motorized versus nonmotorized trail use to ensure that sufficient trails 

are allocated for motorized use.

As noted in "Supplementary Specialist Report - Social 

and Economic Effects" for the Black Hills National 

Forest Travel Management Plan, there are similar 

numbers of motorized and non-motorized trail users 

based on recreational visitor survey results for the Black 

Hills NF (see response to Public Concern 6-27). 

Participation rates also indicate that it is incorrect to 

state that a very limited number of recreationists benefit 

from non-motorized trails; the number of motorized 

and non-motorized visitors are comparable. This report 

also compares spending by visitors associated with a 

variety of different recreational activities (e.g., ranges 

from $22 per visit for hiking, $36 per visit for OHV use, 

to $48 for hunting for non-local day visitors). However, 

spending does not represent the net benefits from these 

activities, nor is the Forest able to predict changes in 

visits by activity type (motorized or non-motorized) in 

order to complete a benefit cost analysis. The agency is 

not aware of evidence indicating that average consumer 

surplus (e.g., net benefits), per visit, is higher for OHV 

126/166. 126/167.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

280

users compared to non-motorized users of trails. The 

increased number of route miles required to satisfy the 

needs of motorized users, as suggested by the 

commenter, would imply higher costs for motorized 

users.

1312 6-23 Economic Effects of Recreation. 6-23 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should acknowledge 

that Roadless Areas provide significant economic 

benefits as a result of the non-motorized 

recreation opportunities they provide.

The economic impact analysis completed for the Black 

Hills NF Travel Management Plan incorporates average 

visitor spending per day, by activity type, by type of visit 

(local versus non-local) based on National Visitor Use 

Monitoring (NVUM) data. Average visitor spending for 

a non-local day visit ranges from $22 to $68, depending 

on the type of activity.

456/20.

1313 6-24 Economic Effects of Recreation. 6-24 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should include 

analysis of the tourism impacts from not 

providing adequate non-motorized recreation.

JT & EF: The importance of the tourism industry is 

demonstrated in the "Supplementary Specialist Report -

Social and Economic Effects" for the Black Hills 

National Forest Travel Management Plan where it is 

noted that 7.4% of jobs in the local 7-county Black Hills 

area are associated with industries closely affiliated with 

travel and tourism. Lawrence and Custer counties are 

also shown to rank in the top 3% and 6% of all counties 

in the country in relation to travel and tourism 

employment. The supplementary report indicates that 

the Black Hills NF may see increases in visitors 

associated with non-motorized activities if they perceive 

that conditions contributing to the quality of their 

experience improve. The supplementary report notes 

that the direction of any net changes in total visits is 

difficult to predict. 

578/37. 586/3.

1314 6-25 Economic Effects of Recreation. 6-25 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should include a 

social and economic analysis for all levels of 

forest planning and management to be consistent 

with Federal Law and the intent of Congress.

An assessment of economic and social effects has been 

completed, including an impact analysis of jobs and 

income and is documented in "Supplementary Specialist 

Report - Social and Economic Effects" for the Black 

Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan. MUSYA 

and NFMA do not require that National Forests be 

'driving forces' in sustaining state and local 

communities.

126/150. 126/151. 126/152.

1315 6-26 Economic Effects of Recreation. 6-26 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should evaluate the 

economic impact of road and trail proliferation 

on tourism because scenic quality is a large part of 

The importance of the tourism industry is demonstrated 

in the "Supplementary Specialist Report - Social and 

Economic Effects" for the Black Hills National Forest 

Travel Management Plan where it is noted that 7.4% of 

254/6.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

281

the appeal of the Black Hills. jobs in the local 7-county Black Hills area are associated 

with industries closely affiliated with travel and tourism. 

Lawrence and Custer counties are also shown to rank in 

the top 3% and 6% of all counties in the country in 

relation to travel and tourism employment.

13166-27 Economic Effects of Recreation. 6-27 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should include a 

thorough analysis of the economic issues 

including cumulative impacts because recent 

studies show that economic impacts of motorized 

recreation are routinely underestimated.

An assessment of economic and social effects has been 

completed, including an impact analysis of jobs and 

income and is documented in "Supplementary Specialist 

Report - Social and Economic Effects" for the Black 

Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan. MUSYA 

and NFMA do not require that National Forests be 

'driving forces' in sustaining state and local 

communities. See response to Public Concerns 6-2 and 

6-5 for additional details. See response to Public 

Concern 6-19 regarding cumulative impacts. The Forest 

Service disagrees that there are necessarily more 

motorized recreationists on the Black Hills NF. The 

Supplementary Specialist report notes that 3% of 

visitors listed OHV use as the primary purpose of their 

visit with 10% of visitors indicating that they 

participated in OHV use. In contrast, 12% of visitors 

listed hiking as the primary purpose of their visit with 

30% participating in hiking. Overall, 17.8% of visitors 

listed motorized activities as their primary purpose 

(includes driving for pleasure) compared to 17.4% 

listing non-motorized activities as their primary purpose. 

Economic impact analysis is based in part on 

expenditure profiles reported by BHNF visitors and the 

extent to which spending was made on gasoline, oil, and 

equipment rentals is reflected in impact results. 

Economic impacts (jobs and income) are based on 

spending by non-local visitors, and it cannot be assumed 

that non-local visitor decisions to purchase OHVs or 

make other large OHV capital investments are based 

solely or substantially on BHNF visits. It would also be 

difficult to determine that a substantial portion of OHV 

purchases by non-locals occur within the 7-county area. 

Because OHV equipment is likely to be manufactured 

or produced outside of the seven county Black Hills 

area, only the fraction of an OHV purchase attributable 

126/165.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

282

to the retail margin would contribute to local jobs and 

income. For these reasons, it is not reasonable to 

include OHV purchases in estimates of economic 

impacts. Mitigations and design criteria are included in 

the DEIS, Chapter 3 and Appendix B.

1317 6-28 Economic Value of Preservation. 6-28 Public 

Concern: The Forest Service should acknowledge 

that preserving wildlands has a positive impact on 

economic growth.

Designation of wilderness is not within the scope of this 

action. The extent to which wilderness-like 

characteristics related to recreational experience or 

opportunity spectrum (ROS) and scenic values are 

discussed in the recreation and scenery sections in the 

Draft EIS. The intent of the Travel Management 

Planning Rule and subsequent Travel Management plans 

is in part to mitigate the adverse impacts of unmanaged 

motorized use, including damages (and costs) to water 

resources and transportation. The relative effects of the 

active management alternatives on related resources and 

program costs are discussed in the physical (water) and 

roads/transportation sections within the Draft EIS.

456/69.

1318 6-29 Environmental Justice. 6-29 Public Concern: The 

Forest Service should include reservation 

communities in the environmental justice analysis 

because actions on the BHNF affect Tribes.

The “Supplementary Specialist Report – Social and 

Economic Effects” for the Black Hills National Forest 

Travel Management Plan recognizes that there are 

people outside the seven-county area that are interested 

in management of the Black Hills NF, especially Tribes 

who have historically used the area. The Forest has 

completed formal government-to-government 

consultation for this project with 16 Tribes located in 

five states that have expressed traditional cultural, 

spiritual, and geographic ties to the Black Hills.

583/1.

1319 6-30 Social Issues. 6-30 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should analyze the social impacts to be 

consistent with the Social Impact Analysis and 

Environmental Justice regulations.

The Black Hills NF travel management plan applies to 

forest land in South Dakota and Wyoming and does not 

affect lands in Montana. Social effects are considered in 

the Supplementary Specialist Report - Social and 

Economic Effects" for the Black Hills National Forest 

Travel Management Plan by considering the preference 

for and potential impacts to people or groups who share 

one or more sets of values, attitudes, and beliefs. This 

analysis identified nine interest categories to capture 

those values, etc. Alternatives were ranked, 

qualitatively, with respect to each interest category to 

demonstrate potential for social effects. The results are 

126/157.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

283

presented in the report noted above. Environmental 

Justice is assessed in the report noted above; based on a 

review of poverty and minority population data, by 

county, it was determined that the study area does 

contain minority or low income populations that 

coincide with CEQ criteria for Environmental Justice 

(EO 12898) with the exception of slightly higher 

percentages of poverty in Fall River and Lawrence 

counties. In addition, there is no evidence to suggest 

that the proposed action will have a disproportionate 

adverse effect on low-income or minority populations.

13206-31 Social Issues. 6-31 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should evaluate the conditions that 

contribute to learned helplessness in their analysis 

of social impacts.

The Supplementary Specialist Report - Social and 

Economic Effects" for the Black Hills National Forest 

Travel Management Plan presents and summarized the 

results of social effects analysis, including consideration 

of demographics associated with the seven-county study 

area, the corresponding values and interest categories 

associated with motorized versus non-motorized users, 

environmental justice (see response to Public Concern 6-30), and civil rights (see response to Public Concern 6

-

xxx). The commenter alleges that motorized 

recreationists are affected by learned helplessness and 

requests an evaluation of conditions contributing to this 

state. This analysis is beyond the scope of this project. 

126/159.

13216-32 Social Issues. 6-32 Public Concern: The Forest 

Service should reassess the use of “high social, 

cultural or economic value” when establishing 

desired species levels.

The Forest Service recognizes the variety of values held 

for forest resources and has considered the impacts of 

meeting the purpose and need of travel management 

plan decisions on the various resources as described in 

the Draft EIS. The potential effects of the alternatives 

are measured using a variety of qualitative and 

quantitative indicators. The final decision is based on 

the tradeoffs among the alternatives in meeting the goals 

listed under the 'purpose and need' as well as 

consideration of the impacts associated with significant 

issues identified through the public involvement 

process. Impacts associated with significant issues are 

evaluated using the indicators listed in Chapter one of 

the Draft EIS. The measures of 'value' regarding 

resource impacts and not measured monetarily; the 

indicators for these values are instead presented in the 

126/149.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

284

summary of comparisons within Chapter 2 of the DEIS. 

1322 6-33 Gateway Communities. 6-33 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should provide a definition of 

gateway community.

As referred to in the Travel Management Rule (page 

68280), „„Gateway communities‟‟ is a broad term 

encompassing county and local governments in the 

vicinity of a National Forest. A GIS layer for USA cities 

was utilized to identify gateway communities. These 

cities provide some service; gas, motels, food, etc, to any 

visitor of the National Forest. If a community was not 

identified on the GIS layer, it was not considered as a 

gateway community in the DEIS or FEIS. 

585/2.

1323 6-34 Gateway Communities. 6-34 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should support the assertion 

that being a gateway community is an economic 

benefit because the gain to one user group is a 

loss to another.

Black Hills NF recreational visitor numbers and 

participation rates, according to type of trip and type of 

activity, including motorized, non-motorized, and other 

activities, are documented in "Supplementary Specialist 

Report - Social and Economic Effects" for the Black 

Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan. 

Included in the non-motorized and "other" activity 

categories are hiking, cross-country skiing, viewing 

wildlife, and primitive camping, as well as other nonmotorized activities. While the current number of 

visitors, by activity, can be described, the Forest is 

unable to project changes in visits, in total or by activity 

type, under the action Alternatives (A through E). It is 

noted that there may be some decrease in motorized 

visits to the Black Hills as a consequence of constraints 

on travel under active management alternatives that 

affect local employment in some sectors, and these 

affects may be somewhat more pronounced under 

Alternatives D and E. However, potential job losses 

may be offset, in part, by (1) some portion of displaced 

motorized users seeking substitute sites within the area, 

and (2) increases in visitors associated with nonmotorized activities as conditions contributing to the 

quality of their experience improves. The direction of 

any net changes in jobs and income contributed by 

recreation under Alternatives A through E is therefore 

difficult to predict.

535/9. 585/3. 609/21.

1324 6-35 Gateway Communities. 6-35 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should support Gateway 

Communities to provide access to communities 

No community was eliminated from the proposed trail 

system as the comment suggests. However, many 

communities lie on the outside of the National Forest 

233/5. 460/13.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

285

and recreationalists. boundary or are surrounded by private property and are 

outside the jurisdiction of the Forest Service to propose 

any trail system to connect to the National Forest. 

Community leaders were invited to participate in the 

development of these proposed alternatives to assist 

with connectivity of the trail system. For communities 

wishing more access from their towns to the proposed 

trail system on National Forest properties, it is their 

responsibility to identify those routes within their city 

limits. NH (Hill also provided a response but 

suggested that Jeanette can probably add something 

more specific): The DEIS and FEIS alternatives 

considered a range of motorized road, trail, and 

trailhead opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 

3. The greatest motorized opportunities and access 

within the Black Hills National Forest are in 

Alternatives A, B, and C. The number of trailheads 

located within 3 miles of a gateway community was used 

as a measurement indicator to compare alternatives. 

Measurement indicators are disclosed in the DEIS and 

FEIS in Chapter 2, comparison of indicator measures 

for the alternatives. Development of motorized access 

opportunities to the Forest from any community located 

outside the Black Hills National Forest boundary is 

outside the jurisdiction of the Forest Service and outside 

the scope of this project. The purpose and need for this 

project is to bring the Forest into compliance with the 

2005 Travel Management Rule and designate motorized 

routes administered by the Black Hills National Forest. 

1325 6-36 Gateway Communities. 6-36 Public Concern: 

The Forest Service should ensure that local 

communities are connected to the trail system to 

provide recreation opportunities for residents and 

services for recreationalists and to support local 

economies.

No community was eliminated from the proposed trail 

system as the comment suggests. However, many 

communities lie on the outside of the National Forest 

boundary or are surrounded by private property and are 

outside the jurisdiction of the Forest Service to propose 

any trail system to connect to the National Forest. 

Community leaders were invited to participate in the 

development of these proposed alternatives to assist 

with connectivity of the trail system. For communities 

wishing more access from their towns to the proposed 

trail system on National Forest properties, it is their 

142/6. 215/9. 216/11. 217/18. 

221/19. 222/16. 224/13. 

225/13. 229/14. 230/16. 

247/19. 378/15. 460/13. 

495/14. 501/16. 511/15. 535/9. 

609/21. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

286

responsibility to identify those routes within their city 

limits. 

1326 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I live in Woodland Hills Black Hawk SD, end of 

Peaceful Pines Rd. about 2 miles west of 

proposed trailhead) and the Forest Service road 

runs right behind the house. I‟m in favor of 

proposal “B” but wondering how you will stop 

unauthorized vehicles i.e., 4 wheelers and 

motorcycles from turning south/south east after 

leaving the trailhead onto the dead end trail/road 

that heads toward Rolling Hills? This road is 

proposed to be and is currently open for licensed 

only vehicles.

Forest Service Law Enforcement personnel play a 

critical role in ensuring compliance with laws and 

regulations, protecting public safety, and protecting 

National Forest Resources.

001/1

1327 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The area surrounding the trailhead [2 miles east of 

the end of Peaceful Pine Rd. near Woodland 

Hills, Black Hawk, SD] is designated as a wildlife 

wintering area and is currently closed from 15 

Dec - 15 May. Do you plan on changing that? I 

hope not, we the residents of Woodland Hills and 

quite a few others enjoy hiking this area in the 

off-season without all the noise/dust of ATVers.

FSR 126 would remain closed seasonally in Alternatives 

C and E, and would be closed yearlong in Alternative D.

001/2

1328 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I live near Spearfish, SD and ride my mountain 

bike and cross country ski in and around the Big 

Hill area. My favorite ride is on Tinton Trail; a 

beautiful nationally famous single-track gem, the 

likes of which are found only rarely across the 

USA, let alone the Black Hills. The trail has been 

the host to numerous foreign and national riders. 

Last summer I saw another mountain biker on the 

trail nearly every single day I rode. I ride close to 

100 days in the summer months. My best guess is 

the trail, given non-wintery or rainy weather, sees 

20-30 riders per day. Its maturity and lay-out is 

why Tinton Trail was featured three, if not four, 

times in national mountain biking magazines last 

year. Bike magazines labeled it the best mountain 

bike trail in the entire Midwest. Bike Magazine is 

the number one mountain biking magazine 

published. Spearfish has two bicycle retailers. 

Rapid City has four. Call any one of those shops 

The Tinton trail is a non-system that is authorized by a 

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS 

deals with motorized travel only and therefore the 

request for preserving this trail as part of the non-

motorized system is beyond the scope of this project.

003/1
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

287

to see if I‟m telling you fibs. Preserving this trail 

will require protection from dangerous logging 

practices and making it a non-motorized trail. 

Preserving the trail will help preserve the biking 

businesses that have sprung up in Spearfish. 

There aren‟t any shops in Sturgis, Deadwood, 

Custer, Keystone or Hill City to my knowledge. 

Tinton Trail is why we have two bike shops in 

Spearfish.

1329 Route 

Specific 

Comment

At this time, it sounds like Tinton Trail will be 

logged. I understand your duty to the forest and 

its health and I am also a proponent of forest and 

nature‟s health. In fact, I ride a mountain bike or 

run the trails for the sense of closeness with 

nature. I‟m writing today not to decry foresting 

but to ask you to consider carefully logging‟s 

impact on the forest experience around Spearfish 

and specifically Tinton Trail. I understand that 

Tinton Trail is neither a recognized nor marked 

trail. It has however seen more use than all of the 

trails south of Savoy combined. It is used because 

it is accessible to the Spearfish public and 

travelers staying in Spearfish. Whenever I ride 

Little Spearfish trails it‟s alone; I rarely see tracks 

or

evidence of use. Whereas, I see bird watchers, 

painters, runners, hikers, dog walkers and bikers 

on the Tinton Trail every time I use it. I love 

sharing that beautiful trail. I believe it is the star 

of trails in the Black Hills because of its 

accessibility, its grade and its winding track which 

is much more erosion resistant than similar trails 

in the Black Hills (specifically, the Centennial 

Trail). Please preserve this trail. It means a great 

deal to many here in town.

The Tinton trail is a non-system that is authorized by a 

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS 

deals with motorized travel only and therefore the 

request for preserving this trail as part of the nonmotorized system is beyond the scope of this project.

003/2

1330 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I understand you may not have the money to 

make it [Tinton Trail] a recognized trail. Perry 

Jewitt has been taking good care of your trail on 

Crow Peak. I know that between Perry‟s Ridge 

Riders Club and our Queen City Ramblers cycling 

The Tinton trail is a non-system that is authorized by a 

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS 

deals with motorized travel only and therefore the 

request for designating this trail as part of the nonmotorized system is beyond the scope of this project.

003/3
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

288

club we could take care of Tinton for you. I 

would even go so far as to say we could raise 

$10,000 in the next year, guaranteed, for this same 

purpose. Tinton is so well built it would take very 

little time and money to preserve. In the spring, 

clearing trees and the corridor is all that is needed. 

The trail must be preserved from trail damaging 

logging practices for starters and from motorized 

use in order

for it to remain inexpensive to maintain. I ask that 

you please consider protecting Tinton Trail from 

the logging which I have heard will soon begin 

and from future motorized use.

1331 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I understand you are proposing a fourwheeler/motorized use area to the west of Tinton 

Trail. If the motorized users stayed in their 

designated area that would be great. 

Unfortunately, some users see Tinton‟s winding 

single track and go exploring. In fact, three kids 

on motorcycles rode and destroyed parts of 

Tinton Trail last summer. It seems like cyclists are 

whining but those corners are very fragile and it 

has taken Tinton Trail about fifteen years to come

to full maturity. Please consider preserving Tinton 

Trail from motorized use.

The Tinton trail is a non-system that is authorized by a 

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS 

deals with motorized travel only and therefore the 

request for designating this trail as part of the nonmotorized system is beyond the scope of this project.

003/4

1332 Route 

Specific 

Comment

RE: Parcel number 07000-00302-250-20 T3, R2, 

Track A, HES 71, Lawrence County. The access 

trail (road) going from FS Road 206, Lawrence 

County, to access our property is the only access 

road we have to our property. That trail needs to 

be left as is and should not be gated. The Harvey 

family cemetery, which was established in the 

early 1900‟s, resides on this property and is still

maintained by the family. The cemetery is 

certified with South Dakota Historical Cemetery 

Society, and the property is listed on the National 

Register of Historic Places. We plead that the trail 

will continue to allow us access to the family 

cemetery and our property. 

Need to know more specifically which road accesses the 

Harvey Ranch. If it is a currently open system then is 

was analyzed in Alt B-E to remain open. If this is a 

non-system road then this road will need to be dealt 

with as an easement issue by the Northern Hills Ranger 

District to allow access to private property across NFS 

lands.

007/1

1333 Route My only suggestion is that somehow the Forest Thompson Canyon access. Although Forest Service 010/4
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

289

Specific 

Comment

Service gain public access to the lower end of the 

road into Thompson Canyon from the Beaver 

Creek road. The first one quarter mile or less of 

the Thompson Canyon road is owned by a family 

named Vore. The Vores are very stingy with 

access to the Thompson Canyon road. I truly 

think they could be traded out of an access that 

would benefit all of the users to the Limestone 

trail system.

road # 816 provides access into Thompson Canyon, it 

must cross other ownership, and therefore cannot be 

designated as a trail. The Forest Service does not have 

the authority to designate a trail that crosses or enters 

other private ownership. 

1334 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I spend three months every summer at Blue Wing 

Resort by Sheridan Lake. I have 2 ATVs which 

are licensed for public roads. Calumet Road is the 

main and only road leading in or out of there. 

There are no trails that go anywhere off of 

Calumet Road. I would like to see an east west 

trail somewhere off of Calumet Road that 

connected with a trail system somewhere. The 

way it is I (and others) have to drive several miles 

on public roads to get to other trails. Also it 

would be nice to have connecting trails that went 

between towns. For example a person could go 

on a 30 or 50 mile ride between two towns.

An east-west mixed use route off Calumet Road was 

analyzed in Alternative C. There are few opportunities 

for additional trails in this area due to private property. 

The area is also bounded by the Sheridan Lake 

Concentrated Public Use Area, Highway 16, and 

Highway 385. Alternative C addresses connecting 

communities to the extent possible, but opportunities 

are limited due to private property and other 

jurisdictions.

014/1

1335 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I am writing this in response to proposed TMP 

closure of forest road 150/1E in Rapid City, SD. 

I use this road to access Victoria Canyon, which is 

inaccessible on the North side due to private 

property. I truly enjoy my time spent here and the 

idea that I will no longer be able to access and 

therefore spend time in this area is of great 

concern to me. I pride myself on taking 

stewardship of our shared land and hope I will be 

able to continue to visit this area with my 

daughter and husband.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a user-

requested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

016/1

1336 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I am hoping you will consider this point of 

concern [when deciding whether to close FS Road 

150/1E]. Victoria Canyon has been used since the 

middle 1980‟s for roped rock climbing and 

bouldering.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

016/2
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

290

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a userrequested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

1337 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I am hoping you will consider this point of 

concern [when deciding whether to close FS Road 

150/1E]. Due to the location of Victoria Canyon, 

it will be land locked if 150/1E is closed. The 

access from the Dark Canyon side of Victoria 

Canyon is all private and 150/1E is the only other 

access by motorized travel. Due to the Victoria 

Lake Road Closure that was established in the 

past years, all other roads that could access 

Victoria Canyon are already closed.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a userrequested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

016/3

1338 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I am hoping you will consider this point of 

concern [when deciding whether to close FS Road 

150/1E]. All types of recreation that take place in 

Victoria Canyon (hiking, climbing, bouldering, 

kayaking) are low impact and non-motorized.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a userrequested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

016/4

1339 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I am hoping you will consider this point of 

concern [when deciding whether to close FS Road 

150/1E]. Victoria Canyon is one of the closest 

rock climbing areas to Rapid City. Falling Rock 

climbing area takes a lot of impact due to its close 

location to Rapid City. Keeping road 150/1E 

open will help disperse recreational impact on one 

area.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a userrequested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

016/5
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

291

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

1340 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I am writing this letter in overall support of the 

USFS Travel Management Plan (TMP) for the 

Black Hills National Forest. The one item I 

disagree with in the TMP proposal is that USDAFS Road 150/1E is slated to be closed. Road 

150/1E provides the only public access to 

Victoria Canyon (VC) a popular rock climbing 

and hiking area close to Rapid City. Victoria 

Canyon is approximately one mile south west of 

Rapid City. VC is home to a number of unique 

existing rock climbing routes on some of the 

steepest limestone in the Black Hills. As a 

concerned rock climber and resident of the Black 

Hills, I am voicing my support for USDA-FS 

Road 150/1E to be left open for vehicle access 

within the mandates of the normal seasonal 

closures currently in existence.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a userrequested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

018/1

1341 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The following reason is why I believe USDA-FS 

Road 150/1E needs to remain open to public 

access for automobiles and pickups: To my 

knowledge the Victoria Canyon area has been 

used since the early 1970‟s for both technical rock 

climbing and bouldering.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a userrequested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

018/2

1342 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The following reason is why I believe USDA-FS 

Road 150/1E needs to remain open to public 

access for automobiles and pickups: Victoria 

Canyon will be land locked if USDA-FS Road 

150/1E is closed. The other access is from the 

Dark Canyon Road one mile west of Rapid City 

and is land locked due to private property.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a userrequested route. However, based on comments 

018/3
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

292

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

1343 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The following reason is why I believe USDA-FS 

Road 150/1E needs to remain open to public 

access for automobiles and pickups: USDA-FS 

Road 150/1E is currently the only other access by 

motorized travel. A negative artifact of the 

existing Victoria Lake Road Closure is that all 

other roads that access Victoria Canyon are 

already closed due to that mandate.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a userrequested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

018/4

1344 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The following reason is why I believe USDA-FS 

Road 150/1E needs to remain open to public 

access for automobiles and pickups: If USDA-FS 

Road 150/1E is closed, a quick 1/4 mile hike will 

become an involved four mile hike. The proposed 

closure of USDA-FS Road 150/1E will create a 

convenience hardship for Rapid City‟s time 

impoverished rock climbers looking for a quick 

after work or an early morning outing close to 

home.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a userrequested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

018/5

1345 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The following reason is why I believe USDA-FS 

Road 150/1E needs to remain open to public 

access for automobiles and pickups: The 

recreation opportunities in Victoria Canyon 

include bouldering, rock climbing, geo-caching, 

hiking, kayaking and mountain biking which are 

low impact, non-motorized, non-consumptive 

activities.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a userrequested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

018/6

1346 Route Victoria Canyon provides the closest pristine rock FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 018/7
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

293

Specific 

Comment

climbing area to Rapid City. Nearby is the Falling 

Rock climbing area, which takes a lot of impact 

due to its close location to Rapid City. Keeping 

road 150/1E open will promote dispersed 

recreational opportunities for the Rapid City rock 

climbing community.

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a userrequested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

1347 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I use the road 150/1E with my car to access the 

rock climbing in Victoria Canyon. Without this 

road it is almost impossible to access this canyon. 

Private property blocks the Dark Canyon access 

and the walk would be too far if the 150/1E is 

closed. I drive a normal car and do not use this 

road for any other use than to hike and climb in 

the Victoria Canyon. I would recommend keeping 

this road open to licensed vehicles. 

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a userrequested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

019/1

1348 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I am opposed to the closure of Forest Service 

Road 150/1E near Rapid City, SD for the 

following reason: Forest Service 150/1E is the 

only remaining public access to Victoria Canyon. 

The access from the Dark Canyon side of 

Victoria Canyon is private with no public access.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a userrequested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

020/1

1349 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I am opposed to the closure of Forest Service 

Road 150/1E near Rapid City, SD for the 

following reason: Victoria Canyon has been used 

since the middle 1980‟s for roped rock climbing 

and bouldering. Victoria Canyon is an established 

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

020/2
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

294

climbing destination in the Black Hills and has a 

long history of use.

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a userrequested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

1350 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I am opposed to the closure of Forest Service 

Road 150/1E near Rapid City, SD for the 

following reason: Victoria Canyon has been used 

since the middle 1980‟s for roped rock climbing 

and bouldering. Victoria Canyon is an established 

climbing destination in the Black Hills and has a 

long history of use.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a userrequested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

020/3

1351 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I would like to comment on the Travel 

Management Plan Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (DEIS). More specifically, I would like 

to state my support for keeping open road 

150/1E. This road accesses Victoria Canyon 

which is a key rock climbing area. I live in 

Minnesota, but spend a lot of time in the Black 

Hills area. The Victoria Canyon climbing area is 

an important resource for the climbing 

community and its continued access is needed.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a userrequested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

022/1

1352 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I would like to comment on the Travel 

Management Plan Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (DEIS). More specifically, I would like 

to state my support for keeping open road 

150/1E. This road accesses Victoria Canyon 

which is a key rock climbing area. I live in 

Minnesota, but spend a lot of time in the Black 

Hills area. The Victoria Canyon climbing area is 

an important resource for the climbing 

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a userrequested route. However, based on comments 

024/2
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

295

community and its continued access is needed. received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

1353 Route 

Specific 

Comment

[From ATT 1] In my answers to your 

questionnaire I referred to a need for “Quiet 

Zones” where motorized travel should be 

restricted. Attached is a map of one such area 

which users of the Eagle Cliff Trails Area propose 

[ATT 2]. The area encompassed is bounded on 

the east by portions of the Hannah Road and 

Forest Road 209. On the west it is bounded by 

the upper portion of Little Spearfish Creek. On 

the north of it is all of Forest Road 733. Needless 

to say, perhaps, travel on the Hannah Road, F.R. 

209, F.R. 134, F.R. 733, the Hannah Road and 

U.S. Highway 85 would not be affected by this 

proposal. Forest Road 232 is already blocked 

south of this area, but travel should not be 

allowed on Forest Road 210 which is in bad shape 

and goes through a spring. It would be stipulated 

that motorized travel in this area is prohibited at 

all times unless required for maintenance or for 

logging. You will probably notice that a large 

portion of this area is the already designated Eagle 

Cliff Trails Area where there already is a travel 

restriction. Along Forest Road 209 there are four 

appropriately located Forest Service Gates which 

can be kept closed. It should also be pointed out 

that there is no conflict here with designated or 

heavily used snowmobile trails. Although there 

has been some encroachment and damage from 

ATVs in the area it has not been a heavy use area 

for such users. The area also includes some rare 

and endangered plants and is a substantial and 

important portion of the Spearfish Creek 

Watershed which has already been designated 

Special, Exceptional, Critical or Unique by the 

State of South Dakota.

FSR 210 Can't locate this road on NH maps. Not sure 

which one the respondent is referring to. Analyzing 

quiet zones is outside the scope of this document. The 

roads along FSR209 were analyzed in various capacities 

from road open to all to trail less then 50 inches. Since 

it is unclear which four gates the respondent refers to 

this reply cannot be more specific. Any decision about 

routes selected will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

024/3

1354 Route 

Specific 

[From ATT 3] RE: Proposed Quiet Zone 

Stipulations: 1. The Designated “Quiet Zone” 

Analyzing Quit Zones and snowmobile trails is outside 

the scope of this project. Speculation about where 

024/5
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

296

Comment would be as marked on the attached map [ATT 

4]. 2. Travel on Forest Road 134, U.S. 14A, U.S. 

85 and Hannah Road would remain open to 

automobile and truck traffic. 3. Active timber sale 

operations would be exempted. 4. Within the 

designated area from December 1 to May 1 no 

motorized vehicles may be used except for 

emergency or necessary maintenance activities. 5. 

From May 1 to December 1 motorized vehicles 

are allowed but must stay on designated roads. 

Justification: The serenity and beauty of this area, 

particularly in the winter, not only for residents of 

the area but for many winter users and visitors is 

substantially compromised by the noise, air 

pollution and visual ugliness resulting particularly 

from the presence of snowmobiles. In the 

summer there is a lesser but similar problem due 

to the presence of all terrain vehicles. In that it is 

known that heavy use of an area by snowmobiles 

and ATVs has the affect of driving out other 

users we think it is in the interest of multiple use 

to have some areas where users may enjoy the 

tranquility and beauty of an untrammeled 

landscape. Areas along Highway 85 and up 

Clayton Draw have a live stream which is a source 

for the Lead-Deadwood water supply. 

Snowmobiles now go through this water and 

could compromise this resource. Also the trail up 

Merow Springs entails crossing a live spring for 

vehicles, which is undesirable for both the spring 

and the vehicles. The area encompassed by this proposal compromises a large portion of one of 

the most valuable high quality watersheds in the 

Black Hills. Protecting this resource should be a 

top priority for the Forest Service. It also is an 

area that includes a growing number of elk. The 

proposed area encroaches upon no official or 

heavily used snowmobile trails, nor does it 

prevent four-wheel-drive or ATV use in the 

summer.

ATV's may go is beyond the scope of this document. 

Once a decision is made motorized vehicles will be 

expected to stay on the designated routes. FSR232.2 C 

that goes by Merow Spring was analyzed in Alt B and E 

as open to highway legal vehicles and in Alt C and D as 

road open to all. FSR 209.3D Clayton Draw was 

analyzed as a seasonal road open to all. Any decision 

about selected routes will be documented in the Record 

of Decision.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

297

1355 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I am writing in regards to the proposed closure of 

Forest Service Road 150/1E near Rapid City, SD. 

This is an easily accessible area for many of the 

[Black] Hill‟s rock climbers, the closer of this road 

would hamper some of the best people using the 

hills from their past time. Rock Climbers are on a 

whole about the best people to use a natural 

resource like the Victoria Canyon area. The roads 

are very rarely distressed. The beauty of using 

something so close to us like the [Black] Hills is 

worth so much to people. I am a logger in 

Spearfish and strongly believe that the [Black] 

Hills are very intelligently managed, unlike some 

parts of the Big Horns where I‟m originally from. 

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a userrequested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

031/1

1356 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I am writing this in support of keeping NFS road 

150/1E open for public access to Victoria 

Canyon. As a Black Hills resident and avid rock 

climber I feel the need to show my support of 

keeping 150/1E open.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a userrequested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

032/1

1357 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Reason for keeping 150/1E open: Victoria 

Canyon is about 1 mile SW of Rapid City. VC is 

home to 40+ world class limestone rock climbing 

routes and many high quality boulders for 

bouldering. VC is also a very popular hiking area 

for many Black Hills residents.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a userrequested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

032/2

1358 Route 

Specific 

Reason for keeping 150/1E open: VC [Victoria 

Canyon] will be land locked from public access if 

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

032/3
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

298

Comment 150/1E is closed. The only other access is private 

via Dark Canyon.

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a userrequested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

1359 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Reason for keeping 150/1E open: Road 150/1E 

allows access for people with children to the VC 

[Victoria Canyon]. I have a 2.5 yo [year old] 

daughter who has taken a liking to rock climbing. 

The area at the bottom of VC where the climbing 

originates is very child friendly. All other 

limestone climbing areas in the BH [Black Hills]

are on steep slopes that do allow for children to 

have a safe and enjoyable outdoor experience.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a userrequested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

032/4

1360 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Reason for keeping 150/1E open: Access to VC 

[Victoria Canyon] will help with dispersed 

recreation. Falling Rock gets a fair amount of 

travel due to the proximity to RC [Rapid City], 

keeping the VC access open will help minimize 

that impact.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a userrequested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

032/5

1361 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Road 150/1E has been equipped with rubber 

water bars. With those in place impact from 

motorized travel will be minimized.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

032/6
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

299

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a userrequested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

1362 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Reason for keeping 150/1E open: VC [Victoria 

Canyon] is used by many different user groups: 

Geo-caching, hiking, kayaking in wet seasons, 

mountain biking, climbing, bouldering etc.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a userrequested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

032/7

1363 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Keep 150/1E open to motorized travel. I am not 

in favor of the seasonal closure of 150. If it comes 

down to all or nothing leave the seasonal closure 

in effect, but if we can approach them on two 

different issues then please do that.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a userrequested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

032/8

1364 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I believe that a trailhead on Peaceful Pines Road 

would be a great idea, I live in Woodland Hills 

and I‟m sure 99% of the people that live here hate 

the idea, but then they hate everything imposed 

on their world. I feel it would be a great trailhead 

because at this point there is no regulation or 

control. Last year you had to close it off 

completely, I assume, due to people using it as a 

dumpsite. If it was a trailhead it would have trash 

collection, toilet facilities and a larger human 

A trailhead on Peaceful Pines Road is included in 

Alternative C, and will be considered in the Record of 

Decision.

033/3
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

300

presence. Another point is the New Freeway Exit 

in Black Hawk makes an easy access for people 

that live in the surrounding area.

1365 Route 

Specific 

Comment

If Piedmont is not a trailhead it should be, since it 

is already being used as one.

Piedmont was analyzed for a trailhead in Alternatives B, 

C and D. Any decision on trailheads will be documented 

in the Record of Decision.

033/4

1366 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The only issue I‟d like to address is the Pilot 

Knob Trail. It is a very challenging trail for an 

inexperienced rider and there are no warnings as 

to what is ahead or an alternate trail.

Trails are designed for various levels of abilities. Signing 

will be handled during the implementation phase of this 

project and is out of the scope of the DEIS. 

033/6

1367 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I have lived at 9904 S. High Meadows Dr. for 

25+ years. When I moved here the land next to 

me was owned by Homestake Mining Co. and has 

since been acquired by the Forest Service. I feel it 

is unfair to the members of this community that 

our road is now used by so many vehicles to gain 

access the forest. We have formed a road district 

and struggle to provide snow removal let alone 

the added maintenance needed to keep up with 

damage done by all the traffic of ATVs & other 

monster truck type vehicles which are designed to 

rip up the ground they travel on. As a trustee on 

our road district I ask that you find another 

trailhead for forest access away from our 

community. The Black Hills can and should be 

enjoyed by all, I believe if we work together we 

can achieve this.

None of the Alternatives considered include a trailhead 

at High Meadows.

034/1

1368 Route 

Specific 

Comment

We are writing in regard to the Forest Service 

developing trails for 4 wheel vehicles, motocross 

bikes and other UTVs. We recently sold our 

property south of Piedmont, SD to our son, 

Donald Walker, Jr. so we are very worried about 

the TOP 50 and their plans to access more of the 

Forest Service by opening a road through the field 

behind our son‟s place. We don‟t understand the 

reason to accommodate this as their interest is 

making money by inviting 4 wheelers from all 

over to come and destroy our Black Hills. From 

what we saw when we lived there, there was no 

respect for the environment or laws (no 

A route in this area on NFS lands was analyzed in 

Alternative C. No routes were considered on private 

property unless an easement was currently in place as 

this is out of the scope of the DEIS. Any decision to 

include this route will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

037/1
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

301

trespassing signs) by these owners or guests.

1369 Route 

Specific 

Comment

This is a bad Alternative [Alternative C]. This will 

create problems all along the Service Road [546.1] 

not just at the Top 50 location.

A route in this area on NFS lands was analyzed in 

Alternative C. Any decision to include this route will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

037/5

1370 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The USFS TMP has proposed that Forest Service 

Road 150/1E be closed. I believe and respectfully 

request that Forest Service Road 150/1E remain 

open because it is the only public access road to 

Victoria Canyon; Victoria Canyon will be 

landlocked if the road is closed, as all other access 

points are privately-owned or have already been 

closed.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a userrequested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

039/1

1371 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Victoria Canyon is a very valuable recreational 

area that accommodates many types of recreation 

including hiking, rock climbing, bouldering, and 

kayaking. These types of recreation are low 

impact and non-motorized; thus, they are 

activities worth not only permitting, but also 

supporting. Additionally, Victoria Canyon is one 

of the closest rock climbing areas outside of 

Rapid City; keeping Road 150/1E open will help 

disperse recreational impact from climbing areas 

like Falling Rock, which bears a lot of impact due 

to its close location to Rapid City.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a userrequested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

039/2

1372 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I received your letter referencing [the correction 

to] Alternative C, I want to go on record that I 

am opposed to this proposed trail as it would 

create another trailhead. As of now this section 

line is not open to the public, your proposal for 

this trail goes to a dead end. There are three land 

owners involved in this 1500 ft of section line and 

we all oppose this Alternative C because our land 

values would be affected and the ATV traffic 

would come from all the nearby communities, 

resulting in heavy traffic. I feel that the Piedmont 

Fire Trail is the ideal trailhead as there is no 

A route in this area on NFS lands was analyzed in 

Alternative C. No routes were considered on private 

property unless an easement was currently in place as 

this is out of the scope of the DEIS. Any decision to 

include this route will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

044/1
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

302

private land affected, and the trail is already there. 

I don‟t feel that private land owners should be 

[word illegible] affected by loss of land values 

with your plan.

1373 Route 

Specific 

Comment

If a road is built [as proposed in the revision to 

Alternative C] on the section line vehicles would 

be as close as 60 feet of my house, and you know 

the sound that dirt bikes make.

This route was analyzed in Alternative C. The issue of 

sound was analyzed common to all action Alternatives. 

A sound limit of 96 decibels is proposed for all OHV's 

including motorcycles. A forest order may be needed to 

implement this feature. The decision on this will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

044/2

1374 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The plan we would like to see implemented is 

plan „C‟. We live by Black Hawk, SD, at a 

development called High Meadows. We live about 

50 feet from the entrance to the forest. However, 

from December 15th to May 15th we cannot use 

the trail [#148] with our ATVs, to go 10 miles to 

the Nemo area. Instead, we have to load 

machines and travel 20 miles, going through 

Rapid City, to get to the Nemo area. This road 

access was closed because of one or two people in 

this area that did not like it open all year. No 

consideration was given to the majority of us who 

do want it open.

FSR 148 is closed seasonally in Alternatives B, C, and D. 

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in 

the Record of Decision.

048/2.

1375 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The trail that is closed is 148. It is a gravel road 

for god‟s sake! The comment we hear is that it is 

closed for the animals. Bull - I have those animals 

all over my property. We have been told by 

Ranger Bob Thompson that it would be 

reopened. We don‟t put much stock in what he 

says anymore.

FSR 148 is closed seasonally in Alternatives B, C, and D. 

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in 

the Record of Decision. 

048/3.

1376 Route 

Specific 

Comment

There is no reason for this road [#148] to be 

closed. At a minimum it should be opened to get 

to Nemo. Closing it has also made an impact on 

the business in Nemo. Please reopen it. Winter 

riding is even better than summer riding.

FSR 148 is closed seasonally in Alternatives B, C, and D. 

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in 

the Record of Decision.

048/4.

1377 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I will write my preference for Alternative D 

concerning the DEIS, but you have made the 

Alternatives so that we do not have a real choice! 

I am very saddened that in the plan proposals, in 

all “Alternatives”, the ATVs and ORVs are not 

In Alt B, C and E the existing motorized portion of the 

Centennial trail was analyzed as a motorized trail. In 

Alternative D it was removed from the motorized 

routes. Any decision on routes selected will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. 

053/1
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

303

prohibited from 12 miles of the Centennial Trail. 

This is a bad idea. The Centennial Trail is a hiking 

trail 110 miles long, and people will come from all 

over the USA in order to hike through the trail‟s 

full length, but not if they know that there are 

ATVs on 12 miles of it. I know this, because I 

have lots of hiker friends.

1378 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I am concerned about the proposed closure of 

road 150/1E outside of Rapid City, SD. Being a 

rock climber this road is extremely significant 

because it is the only legal access way into 

Victoria Canyon (by motor). Otherwise it‟s a long 

hike in. This place has quickly become my 

favorite crag to climb at in all of the Black Hills. 

Despite living in Minneapolis I make it out there 

as often as I can, as well as several of my friends. 

If this road were to be closed, we would all lose a 

beautiful recreational area. It would be 

advantageous to keep this road open for use 

because climbers, and hikers are very clean and 

also environmentally concerned. Not only would 

they/we pick up after ourselves, but there would 

possibly be organized clean-up events in the 

future to help keep the area pristine.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a user-

requested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

056/1

1379 Route 

Specific 

Comment

We have a cabin at Sand Creek and have fought 

the mining issues to keep our creek clean and 

safe. Now we have to turn to fighting a colossal 

issue against ATV travel on the Botanical Trail 

which the Forest Service spent a large sum of 

money on to make it more inviting and safe for all 

ages. Not only do we observe the destruction that 

the ATVs do to roadsides, meadows, trails etc. 

but a huge concern is, what they take into these 

areas with weeds, grasses etc. that can destroy the 

plant life that is rare and uncommon!

A range of Alternatives was considered for the botanical 

area around Sand Creek. Alternatives A, D, and E do 

not propose any public motorized use within the 

botanical area.

057/1

1380 Route 

Specific 

Comment

My family has been active in preserving the Sand 

Creek Area for one hundred years. We have been 

landowners in that area for eighty years, as well. 

We are all very concerned about consideration of 

the Dugout Gulch Botanical Trail for ATV use. 

A range of Alternatives was considered for the botanical 

area around Sand Creek. Alternatives A, D, and E do 

not propose any public motorized use within the 

botanical area.

063/1
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

304

This would be a very sad day. We urge you to 

remove this area from your consideration; 

protected wild areas such as this are irreplaceable.

1381 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Many hikers have enjoyed the quiet beauty of this 

trail [Dugout Gulch Botanical Trail]; the presence 

of motorized vehicles will not enhance this 

experience. We believe it will deter many of those 

for whom this is a special place from returning.

A range of Alternatives was considered for the botanical 

area around Sand Creek. Alternatives A, D, and E do 

not propose any public motorized use within the 

botanical area.

063/2

1382 Route 

Specific 

Comment

My concern is the increased ATV traffic on the 

county road to the proposed site [Dugout Gulch 

Botanical Trail]. This is such a busy road and is 

often a dangerous one for very young ATV 

drivers, and there are many very young ATV 

riders on this road. Please do not change the 

access policy of this beautiful area.

A range of Alternatives was considered for the botanical 

area around Sand Creek. Alternatives A, D, and E do 

not propose any public motorized use within the 

botanical area.

063/3

1383 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The only trail designation I see that doesn‟t make 

much sense is 353.1A south of Storm Hill which 

is designated “open to highway legal only”. 

Besides utility service vehicles this road will be 

used for gathering firewood and some of us use a 

tractor-trailer or old pickup that is not licensed. In 

my opinion this road should be designated "open 

to all vehicles."

FSR 353.1A is open to highway legal vehicles only in 

Alternative C. A highway legal vehicle is required in 

order to get to this route off the old Hill City-Keystone 

road.

065/2

1384 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I have not seen the current maps, but would 

discourage a trailhead off of Victoria Lake Road. 

It is a heavily used road for OHV, hunting, target 

shooters, etc., because of its close proximity to 

Rapid City. The Forest Service personnel, have 

consistently stated that this road, has historically 

been a huge problem, because of its diversity of 

users, and it adjoining private land and residences. 

There is also huge resource damage currently 

taking place in this area. Victoria watershed is 

being demolished by off-road usage.

A parking area off FSR 159 will limit travel on this road 

to highway-legal vehicles only from Sheridan Lake Road 

to the parking area. Parking areas provide a point of 

contact for better enforcement, education, and 

management.

066/4

1385 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Please don‟t open up the Dugout Gulch Botanical 

Hiking Trail, Tinton Road area, Red Lake and 

Limestone Plateau, and the Crow Peak area to 

ATVs.

A range of Alternatives was considered for the botanical 

area around Sand Creek. Alternatives A, D, and E do 

not propose any public motorized use within the

botanical area.

069/1

1386 Route 

Specific 

I strongly believe that the Dugout Gulch hiking 

trail should remain closed to ATV recreational 

A range of Alternatives was considered for the botanical 

area around Sand Creek. Alternatives A, D, and E do 

071/1
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

305

Comment activities. The FS has spent a lot of taxpayer‟s 

dollars developing this trail for a non-motorized 

experience. Let‟s keep it this way. There is a threat 

to the botanical area this trail represents.

not propose any public motorized use within the 

botanical area.

1387 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Red Lake Area - This area is in the Northern Hills 

approximately 10 miles south of Spearfish 

adjacent to FSR 134. The following roads are 

included in this area: 225.1, 225.1A, 225.1D, 

225.1E, 134.2S, U050002, U050006, CZ 1403, 

U060015.

These closed system routes were analyzed to be opened 

in Alternatives B and C. And, they were analyzed to be 

left closed in Alternatives D and E. Any decision on 

routes selected will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

074/1

1388 Route 

Specific 

Comment

639.1 - In the Northern Hills, this road connects 

Higgins Gulch to Beaver Ridge. Currently closed 

to motorized use and provides a good purpose 

being closed. This road will be opened 

(Alternatives A, B, and C) and provide access to 

the area behind Crow Peak. The roads go directly 

through a quiet area and more than likely the 

ATV will venture off the road and the whole 

Crow Peak area will be compromised. Was any 

consideration given to not allowing ATV access 

to the non-motorized areas? Also this is a known 

elk calving area. Was any consideration given to 

wildlife in the EIS for this planned to be opened 

area?

Concerns for effects of the alternatives on wildlife 

habitat are reflected in Issue 1, and concerns for 

conflicts with non-motorized recreation opportunities 

are reflected in Issue 2. The alternatives vary as to how 

they address each of these issues. FSR 639.1 was 

analyzed to stay closed in Alternatives D and E. Any 

decision on routes selected will be documented in the 

Record of Decision. Once a decision is made individual 

users will be expected to stay on the designated route. 

ATV trails were not proposed in non-motorized areas. 

Wildlife was analyzed in pages 143-229 of the DEIS. 

The assumption regarding wildlife disturbance from 

noise was disclosed in the DEIS (page 145) and has 

been retained in the FEIS. Forest Service Law 

Enforcement personnel play a critical role in ensuring 

compliance with laws and regulations, protecting public 

safety, and protecting National Forest Resources.

074/2

1389 Route 

Specific 

Comment

It appears that no consideration was given to 

existing non-motorized areas. For example 

consider the following area: Area south of Hanna 

Campground. Roads 211.1I, 211.1H, 211.1J, 

211.1G, 209.2B all closed roads will be opened 

under Alternative A and B.

FSR's 211.1I, 211.1H, 211.1J, and 211.1G were 

analyzed to be open in alternative B and removed in 

Alternatives D and E. FSR 211.1G was analyzed to be 

open in Alternatives C and D. FSR 209.2B is currently 

open and was analyzed to be a road open to all in all 

Alternatives. The current management area for that 

location is 5.1 Resource Production Emphasis. This 

area is open to all types of recreation including 

motorized and non-motorized and on and off road 

recreation. Any decision about routes selected will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

074/4

1390 Route 

Specific 

CZ1403 - This trail ends at the border of the 

Spearfish Canyon Roadless area. It makes no 

You are correct in Alternative B CZ 1403 travels 

through the Spearfish Canyon management area where 

074/5
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

306

Comment sense to expect ATV users to turnaround. How 

will you close the end of this road?

no off road traffic is allowed. This was an error and it 

was removed from Alternatives C, D and E. 

1391 Route

Specific 

Comment

Will the ATV and motorcycle trails be designed to 

a Forest Service Standard? Will the current trail 

locations be reviewed by an Engineer and 

Hydrologist before they are opened? For example 

road 134.2B has a 35% grade for 300‟, road 

U010077 goes through a spring and has 3‟ deep 

ruts, and road 134.3D crosses live water of the 

headwaters of Little Spearfish Creek. These have 

been listed as examples of many more problem 

areas.

OHV routes will meet FS standards for trails. Some 

routes may be easy and some very difficult. Routes that 

traverse a steep slope will be engineered with climbing 

turns and appropriate water crossings will be built where 

necessary. Not all routes will be available to use the first 

year after the decision is made and will be opened up 

after mitigations are done.

074/6

1392 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Dugout Gulch Botanical Trail - Located on the 

Bearlodge District in the area of Sand Creek. A 

portion of this trail will be converted into an ATV 

trail. (Alternatives A, B, and C) This trail is in a 

semi-primitive non-motorized management area, 

within a botanical area and eight years ago the 

Forest Service spent $112,000 on developing this 

trail for non-motorized users. The entire trail will 

be affected because the noise of ATVs on the 

upper loop will ruin the quiet area on the lower 

section.

A range of Alternatives was considered for the botanical 

area around Sand Creek. Alternatives A, D, and E do 

not propose any public motorized use within the 

botanical area.

074/7

1393 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Eagle Cliff Hiking Trails - ATV trails (733.1A, 

733.1K) will go right into the middle of the Eagle 

Cliff Trail System. (Alternatives A, B, and C) 

Noise is an issue; also some ATV users will get 

lost and start following the hiking trails.

FSR 733.1A and & 733.1K are currently open system 

roads. They were analyzed to be left open in 

Alternatives B, C and E, and analyzed to be closed in 

Alternative D. Any decision about selected routes will 

be documented in the Record of Decision. Motorized 

traffic will be expected to stay on the open motorized 

routes. Common to all Alternatives noise level will be 

will be set at 96 decibels for OHV's. 

074/8

1394 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Little Spearfish Trail - All Alternatives have Road 

734.1 which dead ends at the trail. This will 

encourage ATVs to follow the Little Spearfish 

Trail.

FSR 734.1 is a currently open system. It was analyzed to 

be left open in all Alternatives. Motorized traffic will be 

expected to stay on the open motorized routes. 

074/9

1395 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Rimrock Trail - ATV trail U050002 goes right up 

against the Rimrock Trail. Just when you think 

you get away an ATV comes past you. Also 

encourages use of Rimrock Trail.

U050002 was analyzed to be opened in Alternatives B 

and C and was removed from Alternatives D and E. 

Any decision about selected routes will be documented 

in the Record of Decision. Motorized traffic will be 

expected to stay on the open motorized routes. 

074/10
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

307

1396 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Centennial Trail - Remove the motorized section 

of Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot 

Knob. This trail section is in horrible condition 

due to over use. Most non-motorized users know 

to never go on this section of trail due to the 

heavy ATV use.

The Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob is 

currently open to motorized traffic. It was analyzed to 

be open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed from 

Alternative D. Any decision about selected routes will 

be documented in the Record of Decision. 

074/11

1397 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Roads 137.1B, 1371C, 137.D and 137.1E 

currently closed roads. By opening them 

(Alternatives A, B, and C) access is provided to a 

secluded part of Centennial Trail. Roads 703.1C 

and 703.1D are planned to be opened and are 

within mere feet of Centennial Trail. Roads 

224.1D and 224.1E dead end at Centennial Trail. 

By opening these roads it will be near impossible 

to keep ATVs off Centennial Trail.

Roads 137.1B, 137.1C and 137.1E were analyzed to be 

open in Alternatives B and C and removed from 

Alternatives D and E. 703.1C and 703.1D are currently 

seasonally opened roads. They were analyzed to be left 

open in all Alternatives. FSR 224.1D and 224.1E are 

currently seasonally opened system roads. They were 

analyzed to be open in Alternatives B, C and E and 

closed in Alternative D. Any decision about selected 

routes will be documented in the Record of Decision. 

Motorized traffic will be expected to stay on the open 

motorized routes. 

074/12

1398 Route 

Specific 

Comment

It appears that no consideration was given to 

existing non-motorized trails. For example 

consider the following trail: Deerfield Trail and 

Beaver Creek Trails - Many sections are 

motorized.

Portions of the Deerfield Trail are co-located on Forest 

System Roads. Non-motorized trails are outside the 

scope of the DEIS analysis.

074/13

1399 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Tinton Trail - Although the Tinton Trail is not a 

system trail it is probably the most popular 

mountain bike trail in the Northern Hills. In fact, 

Mountain Bike Magazine picked the Tinton Trail 

as the best trail in South Dakota. No 

consideration for this trail was given whatsoever. 

ATV trails cross it and follow it in many 

locations.

In Alternative D and E many motorized routes that 

cross this non system trail were removed. This EIS deals 

with motorized travel only and therefore the request for 

designating this trail as part of the non-motorized 

system is beyond the scope of this project.

074/14

1400 Route 

Specific 

Comment

This letter is a request for support in regards to 

the USFS Travel Management Plan (TMP) for the 

Black Hills National Forest. The TMP proposes 

that Forest Service Road 150/1E be closed. Road 

150/1E is the only public access to Victoria 

Canyon (VC). I enjoy hiking, climbing, and 

relaxing in Victoria Canyon. The canyon is 

beautiful [and] allows for the quick enjoyment of 

nature close to the city. The only access to this 

public land is via Forest Service Road 150/1E. 

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a userrequested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

076/1
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

308

Please do not close this road and keep access to 

this wonderful place.

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

1401 Route 

Specific 

Comment

We feel that the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement should give a reason and show effects 

of opening these roads and areas (FDR 134, 

Tinton Rd), Red Lake and Limestone Plateau 

Crow Peak, Eagle Cliff, area south of Hanna 

Campground and the Botanical Trail!

The DEIS analyzes the effects of the motorized travel 

system in varying capacities in Alternatives B, C, D, and 

E for wildlife, botany, archeology, hydrology, recreation, 

engineering, socio- economic, soil, scenery and range. 

FSCB and EF suggested need to be more specific about 

the different routes being considered in the various 

alternatives.

079/2

1402 Route 

Specific 

Comment

There should be no motorized vehicles on the 

Centennial Trail. We need to protect our history, 

not destroy it.

The motorized portion of the Centennial Trail was 

removed in Alternative D. Any decision about selected 

routes will be documented in the Record of Decision.

082/2

1403 Route 

Specific 

Comment

My only suggestion is that somehow the Forest 

Service gain public access to the lower end of the 

road into Thompson Canyon from the Beaver 

Creek road. The first one quarter mile or less of 

the Thompson Canyon road is owned by a family 

named Vore. The Vores are very stingy with 

access to the Thompson Canyon road. I truly 

think they could be traded out of an access that 

would benefit all of the users to the Limestone 

trail system.

Thompson Canyon access. Although Forest Service 

road # 816 provides access into Thompson Canyon, it 

must cross other ownership, and therefore cannot be 

designated as a trail. The Forest Service does not have 

the authority to designate a trail that crosses or enters 

other private ownership. 

086/4

1404 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I live on and own H.E.S. 609 in Lawrence County 

SD surrounded by National Forest. For many 

years I have asked and at times been told the road 

FDR 259 would be rerouted to the west of my 

private property in approximately the same route 

the road went when my property was 

homesteaded. The main reason I had hoped it 

would be rerouted was public safety as the current 

route goes between my house and barn and splits 

my property in two. I have had many close calls 

with cars and trucks almost killing my children as

they go to the barn or the creek! Now we also 

have a problem with ATVs. The road is made of 

old mine tailing‟s mercury, cyanide, graphite, lead 

and many more harmful substances. When the 

road is dry the dust permeates my house. My 

children have suffered asthma, colds and we have 

spent many hours at the hospital. I am talking 

FSR 259 is a currently open system road that was 

analyzed to be left open in all Alternatives Rerouting 

roads and safety concerns about toxic road materials are 

beyond the scope of this document.

097/1
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

309

about toxic clouds of dust lasting for many 

minutes from speeding cars, trucks and ATVs. 

When the new County Road was built HWY 17 

AKA Rochford RD the current FDR 259 was 

started to be rerouted, there is evidence of this on 

my south property line of FDR 259. I remember a 

bulldozer on the beginning of the road for over a 

year!

1405 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I would like to have a substantial Fire Break on 

the West side of my property [H.E.S. 609 in 

Lawrence County, SD]. I feel that a road is the 

only way to achieve this.

Construction of fire breaks is beyond the scope of this 

document.

097/2

1406 Route 

Specific 

Comment

FDR 259 AKA Nahant Rd Lawrence County, 

SD, is a not improved road on the Black Hills 

map. It cannot be driven in the winter except 

when the private landowners plow it. We have 

had many problems with people in trucks getting 

stuck and we have to help them get out. It has 

sort of become a betting game of sorts watching 

out the window to see if they will get stuck or 

crash off the road!

Plowing of roads and winter maintenance are beyond 

the scope of this document.

097/5

1407 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I know money is tight but this is a case for 

economic stimulus as well as public safety and 

environmental conservation. My Ranch is being 

surveyed and property lines marked soon by the 

Forest Service for a possible timber sale; this is 

the time to reroute the road [FDR 259]!

Rerouting of FSR 259 for a timber sale is beyond the 

scope of this document.

097/6

1408 Route 

Specific 

Comment

This Proposal [Erratum - March 19 2009 

Alternative C] is faulty: 1.) there is no outlet; 2.) 

it‟s located in a residential area; and 3.) it does not 

form a “loop” to a trailhead.

The errata trail (NH 9) on Alt C was included to address 

a public need for access to a section line route which is 

considered open for public travel by the State of SD. 

This route was not included in analysis in Alternatives B, 

D and E. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

099/2

1409 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The amendment to Alternative C map is not to 

my liking: there is no outlet and is much too close 

to private homes.

The errata trail (NH 9) on Alt C was included to address 

a public need for access to a section line route which is 

considered open for public travel by the State of SD. 

This route was not included in analysis in Alternatives B, 

D and E. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

101/2

1410 Route I would like to make a comment on the change The errata trail (NH 9) on Alt C was included to address 102/2
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

310

Specific 

Comment

you made to Alternative C Map. I believe that this 

change does not have an outlet and also it is too 

close to a residential area. This change is not 

good.

a public need for access to a section line route which is 

considered open for public travel by the State of SD. 

This route was not included in analysis in Alternatives B, 

D and E. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

1411 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Range 5 E, Township 4 N:Rock Crawlers: How 

was the hill in section 7 designated for rock 

crawlers - even in Alternative D? And, will the 

whole hill be allowed to be used for this? Without 

being allowed to use the whole hill, the only 

existing trail on that hill that would seemingly 

attract rock crawlers with its steepness is on the 

south face and is of a soil / fractured rock 

composition that I know will erode quickly. I 

definitely object to allowing the whole hill to be 

used for rock crawling and have concerns with 

the trail use and enforcement of it. The rock 

crawler designation in areas such as the Bear 

Butte Creek drainage (R4E, T4 & 5N) makes 

sense as the large granite boulders will support the 

usage.

This rock crawling trail was analyzed to be included in 

Alternatives B, C and D and, removed from Alternative 

E. Several rock crawling routes were left in Alternative 

D because even though it is a smaller motorized system 

opportunities for rock crawling should still be looked at. 

This route is currently being authorized during special 

events. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. Rock Crawler 

Use is proposed on trails open to all (see Table 7 in 

Chapter 2). Rock crawler use is not identified for cross 

country use under any alternative. Enforcement will take 

place as needed.

105/1

1412 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Trails: On the west side of FH26 (Vanocker 

Canyon Road) just opposite 139.1 (Veterans Peak 

Tower Road), there is a long standing trail/road 

roughly along the section line 5/8, 6/7. It 

connects to the 541 series of FS roads. I was 

wondering if this could be opened for 50" and 

less vehicles. I like the designation of 168.1 for 

50" and less vehicles as a connector to the 139 

and 169 series of FS roads.

No routes were analyzed in this location and therefore 

cannot be included in this decision. This area will be 

considered in future projects on the Northern Hills 

District.

105/3

1413 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Range 4 E, Township 4 N:Trails:Kirk Hill in

section 12 has great trails on established 

roadbeds. Is there a reason this could not be 

opened for 50" and less vehicles?

No routes were analyzed in this location and therefore 

cannot be included in this decision. 

105/4

1414 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Range 4 E, Township 4 N:Trails: It would be nice 

to have a connection from the Galena area to the 

Brownville area. If you can figure it out, more 

power to you.

The land surrounding Galena and Brownville is checker 

boarded with other ownerships that are outside Forest 

Service Jurisdiction and beyond the scope of this EIS.

105/5

1415 Route 

Specific 

Range 4 E, Township 5 N:Trails: In section 16, 

can there be a 50" and less vehicle connection 

No routes were analyzed in this location and therefore 

cannot be included in this decision. 

105/6
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

311

Comment from Camp 5 to the 542 series of FS roads?

1416 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Range 4 and 5 E, Township 3, 4 & 5 N:Trails: For 

50" and less vehicles, is it possible to connect the 

Camp 5 area to the Nemo area using FS 151.1 

and 155.1? From Nemo, it appears there is a 

connection to the Rochford area and others and 

the connection to Camp 5 would make an 

attractive touring route.

FSR 151.1 and 155.1 from Camp 5 to Nemo are 

currently open system roads and they were analyzed in 

all Alternatives to stay that way.

105/7

1417 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Range 4 & 5 E, Township 3, 4 & 5 N:Paved 

Highways: To connect trail areas for non-licensed 

vehicles, is it possible to have 50" and less vehicle 

trails in the right-of-ways of paved highways such 

as FH26 and US-14A?

Use of right of ways on paved roads by vehicles is 

outside of Forest Service Jurisdiction and beyond the 

scope of this EIS.

105/8

1418 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The TMP proposes that Forest Service Road 

150/1E be closed. I believe Forest Service Road 

150/1E should remain open to public access 

because it is the only public access road to 

Victoria Canyon, a recreational area. Victoria 

Canyon will be landlocked if the road is closed, as 

all other access points are privately owned or have 

already been closed.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a userrequested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

106/1

1419 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Victoria Canyon houses many types of recreation 

including hiking, rock climbing, bouldering, and 

kayaking. These types of recreation are low 

impact and non-motorized; thus they are activities 

worth not only permitting, but also supporting.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a userrequested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

106/2

1420 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Victoria Canyon is one of the closest rock 

climbing areas to Rapid City. The Falling Rock 

climbing area bears a lot of impact due to its close 

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

106/3
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

312

location to Rapid City. Keeping Road 150/1E 

open will help disperse recreational impact on one 

area.

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a userrequested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

1421 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I do not think we have been given a real choice in 

the four Alternatives of the Black Hills National 

Forest Travel Plan. I am mostly in favor of 

Alternative D for the BHNF Travel Management 

Plan, DEIS (draft environmental impact survey). 

However, I must protest. I do not like the 

inclusion of ATVs or ORVs on the Pilot Knob 

(north) section, a 12-mile section of the 

Centennial Trial. The document says this is not 

up for change. I wrote several letters during the 

“open time” last year to the head planner in 

Custer State Park, Tom Willems, but his office 

told me it was a “done deal”. “ATVs get that 

section of the Centennial Trail! Period! It is only 

12 miles!” This section of the Centennial Trail 

should not allow any vehicles on it for at least one 

of the Alternatives. Therefore, we do not have a 

real valid choice! This section of the Centennial 

Trail has been damaged by the ORVs, but that is 

not a good reason to just “give it over to them”. 

One day last July I personally picked up 25 beer 

cans along that section of the Centennial Trail 

and saw that the ORV users have dug up dirt 

along the trail and made bumps on this trail to 

make it more “fun”. Many hikers I now would 

not come to the Black Hills to hike through on 

this world-class trail because of this 12-mile part 

used by ATVs. ORVs can have their own trails 

designated along many dirt roads in the Black 

Hills, but should not be allowed at all on the 

Centennial Trail. Please look into this matter and 

The Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob is 

currently open to motorized traffic. It was analyzed to 

be open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed from 

Alternative D. Any decision about selected routes will 

be documented in the Record of Decision. 

111/1
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

313

give residents and concerned citizens a real 

choice.

1422 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I am concerned about the botanical trail in the 

Sand Creek area being converted to an ATV trail. 

Other areas that should remain closed to ATVs 

include roads intersecting FDR 134, areas 

adjacent to FDR 134, known as Red Lake and 

Limestone Plateau, a connector road through the 

Crow Peak non-motorized area, an ATV trail on 

and into the middle of the Eagle Cliff Trail 

System, and an area to the south of Hanna 

Campground. Please don‟t allow the roar of 

motorized vehicles disturb the peace of all our 

trails in the lovely Black Hills. We need a refuge 

from our noisy world more now than ever.

A range of Alternatives was considered for the botanical 

area around Sand Creek. Alternatives A, D, and E do 

not propose any public motorized use within the 

botanical area.

116/1

1423 Route 

Specific 

Comment

None of the proposed Alternatives designate 

enough of a motorized trail system to 

accommodate the demand for motorized public 

access, especially in the southern Black Hills. 

While I am not familiar with most of the forest 

roads and trails, I am intimately familiar with the 

roads and trails nearest my house between Sidney 

Park Road and Highway 385 in Sections 11, 12, 

13, 14, 23, 24, 25, T.4 S., R 4 Epsom of these 

roads were created by very old mining so could 

possibly be RS 2477 roads, others were used to 

access a 100 year old homestead, and the rest 

most likely were created from logging. Since these 

roads and trails are remnants of old logging and 

mining, most are deeply cut into the side slopes 

indicating use by larger vehicles. Recently I have 

noticed these trails are used by the Star Academy 

for exercises, by equestrian folks, and by a small 

number of us locals on ATVs. Pacer Corporation 

has a continuing mining operation of some kind 

in this area, and there is at least one grazing 

allottee that uses some of these roads for his own 

motorized interest.

The area referred to in your letter dated 4/15/09 located 

between Sidney Park Road and Highway 385 in Sections 

11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24, 25, T 4S., R 4E was considered by 

the Hell Canyon District Staff. The specific reasons for 

not considering these routes as trails include concerns 

with soil and water, known heritage sites that need to be 

protected, livestock grazing conflicts, conflicts with 

adjacent private land owners and the isolated nature of 

this area did not lend itself to provide adequate 

motorized opportunities. 

119/1

1424 Route 

Specific 

None of the proposed Alternatives designate 

enough of a motorized trail system to 

The area referred to in your letter dated 4/15/09 located 

between Sidney Park Road and Highway 385 in Sections 

119/3
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

314

Comment accommodate the demand for motorized public 

access, especially in the southern Black Hills. 

While I am not familiar with most of the forest 

roads and trails, I am intimately familiar with the 

roads and trails nearest my house between Sidney 

Park Road and Highway 385 in Sections 11, 12, 

13, 14, 23, 24, 25, T.4 S., R 4 E.I figured out my 

use of public lands over the last 4 years of living 

here, I spend an average of one hour a day, 365 

days a year enjoying the use of public lands. My 

normal activities are hiking with my dogs, 

exploring, metal detecting, rock hunting, firewood 

gathering, fishing and shooting; I use my ATV 

and/or motorcycle on the existing trail system to 

access places farther away from my house, then 

hike into more remote parts of the forest for 

these activities. If motorized access is not allowed, 

the amount of country I can currently explore and 

enjoy in a few hours will require a 2-day overnight 

camping expedition. The proposed Travel 

Management Plan will close all the trails and 

roads to any motorized access; this will devastate 

my current lifestyle and recreational activities as it 

will the other citizens living here.

11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24, 25, T 4S., R 4E was considered by 

the Hell Canyon District Staff. The specific reasons for 

not considering these routes as trails include concerns 

with soil and water, known heritage sites that need to be 

protected, livestock grazing conflicts, conflicts with 

adjacent private land owners and the isolated nature of 

this area did not lend itself to provide adequate 

motorized opportunities. 

1425 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I feel that the Forest Service Road 343-1F should 

be deleted from the Travel Management Plan 

because it is less than one half mile long and is 

not interconnected with any other road or trail. 

This road dead ends at a location right next to 

private property and then the vehicle has to make 

a u-turn to go back out. This road is shown on 

Alternatives A, B, C and E but is not part of 

Alternative D. Your consideration for removal of 

this road from any Alternative which is adopted 

would be appreciated.

Your request to remove Forest Service Road 343.1F will 

be considered in the Final Decision for this Project.

120/1

1426 Route 

Specific 

Comment

[In regards to map titled “Erratum - March 19, 

2009”] [Motorized Recreation] lobbyists will win 

this [opening and closing of trails] again and you 

know that, I‟m certain.

The errata trail (NH 9) on Alt C was included to address 

a public need for access to a section line route which is 

considered open for public travel by the State of SD. 

This route was not included in analysis in Alternatives B, 

D and E. Any decision about selected routes will be 

125/2
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

315

documented in the Record of Decision.

1427 Route 

Specific 

Comment

In a recent publication in the BH Pioneer letter to 

the editor section, I read an article from Mr. Paul 

Bosworth of Spearfish regarding the new trail 

mapping. I am disheartened and fearful of your 

plan to convert several hiking trails into ATV 

trails. My family and I and our two dogs love to 

primarily use the hiking trails throughout the 

Black Hills, but tend to use the NH trail system 

weekly. While I am not against ATV trails and 

feel they should be able to enjoy the beauty of our 

area in the manner they choose, subscribing 

additional trails to the ATV community would be 

a big disservice for this area. We frequently see 

people on these trails systems doing the same 

thing we are, enjoying the beautiful surroundings 

and appreciating the Black Hills for what they are. 

Why on earth would you consider converting 

several of these trails to ATV use only, or worse 

yet, sharing ATV with hiking, biking and 

horseback riding? Have you ever been on one of 

these trails, enjoying the serenity that comes with 

hiking around the Black Hills, only to have an 

ATV come up behind you? In my opinion the 

Black Hills Trails system should be used primarily 

for the hiking purpose. I am not asking you to get 

rid of the current ATV trails, but I am asking with 

profound concern for your reconsideration of 

making the trails on your list of changeover to 

ATV trails. Please keep our beautiful Black Hills 

as close to natural as we can!

No system hiking trails on the NH Ranger District were 

analyzed to be converted to motorized vehicles trails.

127/1

1428 Route 

Specific 

Comment

We are not given a real choice with these 

Alternatives. As an outdoor enthusiast I am 

appalled that you would allow ATVs or ORVs on 

the Pilot Knob portion of the Centennial Trail. 

This is a matter of safety! One cannot have a 

hiking trail and an ORV on the same trail. Don‟t 

misunderstand me, I believe that the National 

Forest is for the people to use. Therefore, I think 

that the areas should be designated for hiking and 

The Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob is 

currently open to motorized traffic. It was analyzed to 

be open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed from 

Alternative D. Any decision about selected routes will 

be documented in the Record of Decision. 

129/1
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

316

biking and another for ORVs. Don‟t be fooled 

dear South Dakota... when traveling east one sees 

hundreds of ORVs on the Interstate 90 leaving 

Minnesota and Wisconsin. Those states are ahead 

of South Dakota... they have realized that hiking, 

biking and ORVs do not mix. If I am forced to 

vote on these Alternatives, I favor Alternative D.

1429 Route 

Specific 

Comment

We hike the non-motorized trails in the Crow 

Peak and Tinton areas. Opening more trails, 

especially near the Botanical Trail to ATV travel 

will reduce the natural beauty and solitude of 

these areas. If all ATV riders would respect the 

rights of others to enjoy the forest there would be 

no problem. It seems more and more riders want 

to go full open through the forest with disregard 

to others. We have already encountered ATV 

riders in non-motorized areas. Opening more 

trails will provide them greater access to the 

closed areas deep in the forest. I would like to see 

the ATV trails concentrated in the areas of high 

use and leave the more wild and serene areas for 

those willing to walk in and enjoy the wildlife.

No system hiking trails on the NH Ranger District were 

analyzed to be converted to motorized vehicles trails. 

No additional routes were proposed in any Alternative 

in botanical areas other then existing system roads.

130/1

1430 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I am a Black Hills Climber and would like to 

share my thoughts on the proposed BHNF Travel 

Management Plan Road Closure of Forest Service 

Road 150/1E. This road is the only public access 

to the beautiful limestone climbing area known as 

Victory Canyon (VC). Without this road the VC 

would be land locked. Climbing has occurred in 

this area since the 80s and I would have to say 

this is my favorite place due to the wondrous 

beauty of this area. It would be a shame to close 

this area and not let people enjoy its beauty. This 

climbing area is very close to Rapid City and is 

heavily used due to the convenience. If this area 

were closed it would increase the impact at Falling 

Rock, another limestone climbing area close to 

Rapid City, keeping the VC open helps to 

disperse the impact on these areas. The Dark 

Canyon side to this climbing area is all private 

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a user-

requested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

131/1
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

317

property and if the public access road was closed 

I am afraid there would be problems with 

climbers crossing private land and causing issues 

between climbers and residents. I understand you 

have everyone‟s best interest in your decisions 

and I am sure you have reasons to close this road, 

however I hope you will consider the reasons to 

leave this road open. If you ever get a chance to 

see this area, especially in the spring, you would 

know why I feel it would be such a shame to 

close Road 150/1E.

1431 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Too many new trails are being opened north of 

Hill City. Specifically, FSR 249 should remain 

seasonal all the way from the intersection of FSR 

254 (Log Cabin Road) to FSR 251 (Nugget Gulch 

Road).

FSR 249 remains closed seasonally from just north of 

FSR 254 to the junction with FSR 251 in Alternative E.

134/3

1432 Route 

Specific 

Comment

There are many ATV trails being proposed east 

and south of FSR 249 and west of FSR 251 that 

today are closed. Specifically 675.1x and 249.2x 

system of trails. Even though these trails are high 

and dry, the only way to connect them is through 

675.1 (Middle Nugget) which is a perennial 

stream. Middle Nugget is a beautiful walk-in area 

with waterfalls and streams. This whole area 

should be protected and no trails should be 

opened there. Why open new trails when there 

are so many other trails that are already open and 

familiar to the public. Please keep this area closed.

Alternative E includes FSR 675.1 and the 675.1X system 

as seasonally closed routes. This is a mapping error, as 

these routes are currently closed yearlong, and would 

continue as such in a corrected Alternative E. The 

675.1X system is closed in Alternative D, and the 

249.2X system of trails are closed in Alternatives D and 

E.

134/4

1433 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Trail MY90 on Alternative C does not exist. It is 

impossible to create a trail as shown in Alternative 

B.

Trail MY90 does not exist and is not included in

Alternatives C, D, or E.

134/9

1434 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Alternatives B, C, and D propose opening trails 

that are currently closed around the Middle 

Nugget area (T1N R4E). Specifically trails 249.2A 

through 249.2E and 675.1A through 675.1N. 

They should stay closed. There is no need to open 

currently closed trails.

Alternative E includes FSR 675.1 and the 675.1X system 

as seasonally closed routes. This is a mapping error, as 

these routes are currently closed yearlong, and would 

continue as such in a corrected Alternative E. The 

675.1X system is closed in Alternative D, and the 

249.2X system of trails are closed in Alternatives D and 

E.

138/5

1435 Route 

Specific 

Alternatives B, C, and D propose opening Middle 

Nugget (FSR 675.1). This road has been closed 

Alternative E includes FSR 675.1 as a seasonally closed 

route. This is a mapping error, as this route is currently 

138/6
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

318

Comment for many years because of the perennial stream 

that crisscrosses the road. The road should stay 

closed.

closed yearlong, and would continue as such in a 

corrected Alternative E. 

1436 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Trail MY90 on Alternative C does not exist. This 

is a very steep incline with old growth. Even with 

adequate resources it will not be possible to build 

a trail as shown on MY90.

Trail MY90 does not exist and is not included in 

Alternatives C, D, or E.

138/7

1437 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The area south of Rapid Creek and west of 

Pactola has always been restricted to seasonal 

travel. It seems that the Forest Service is trying to 

find a year-round connector from Hill City to 

Silver City. We don‟t agree with this. It is 

important that the Rapid Creek and Pactola 

watersheds be protected and no new trails are

open[ed] south of Rapid Creek and west of 

Pactola. All existing trails should remain seasonal, 

especially FSR 249 all the way from China Gulch 

Road to FSR 251.

FSR 249 remains closed seasonally from just north of 

FSR 254 to the junction with FSR 251 in Alternative E. 

Many of the routes south of Rapid Creek and west of 

Pactola are not included in Alternatives D or E.

138/8

1438 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Alternative map C shows a new trailhead to be 

built north of Hill City on China Gulch Road. 

This trailhead should not be opened. This area is 

quiet and should remain that way.

A parking area off FSR 249 will limit travel on this road 

to highway-legal vehicles and licensed operators only 

from Highway 16/385 to the parking area. Parking 

areas provide a point of contact for better enforcement, 

education, and management. A trailhead at this location 

is not included in Alternatives D or E.

138/9

1439 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Trails 436.1D, 437.1E, 437.1G, 437.1F, 437.1D, 

437, 142.1A, and 5671.1D on both sides of Kelly 

Gulch (FSR 142) should be eliminated. These 

trails are currently closed. In the spring these trails 

make many stream crossings, all of which lead to 

Rapid Creek. Furthermore, there is already an 

excess of trails to the north and east of these trails 

and they are not needed. These trails were not in 

your 2007 plan. Some of these trails were created 

after 2007 by ATVers for the exclusive purpose 

of adding them to Alternative C. Please stop the 

creation of new trails by the off-roaders.

None of these routes are included in Alternatives D or 

E.

139/6

1440 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Alternatives B, C, and D propose opening trails 

that are currently closed around the Middle 

Nugget area (T1N R4E). Specifically trails 249.2A 

through 249.2E and 675.1A through 675.1N. 

Alternative E includes the FSR 675.1X system as 

seasonally closed routes. This is a mapping error, as 

these routes are currently closed yearlong, and would 

continue as such in a corrected Alternative E. The 

140/5
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

319

They should stay closed. There is no need to open 

currently closed trails.

675.1X system is closed in Alternative D, and the 

249.2X system of trails are closed in Alternatives D and 

E.

1441 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Alternatives B, C, and D propose opening Middle 

Nugget (FSR 675.1). This road has been closed 

for many years because of the perennial stream 

that crisscrosses the road. The road should stay 

closed.

Alternative E includes FSR 675.1 and the 675.1X system 

as seasonally closed routes. This is a mapping error, as 

these routes are currently closed yearlong, and would 

continue as such in a corrected Alternative E. 

140/6

1442 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Trail MY90 on Alternative C does not exist. This 

is a very steep incline with old growth. Even with 

adequate resources it will not be possible to build 

a trail as shown on MY90.

Trail MY90 does not exist and is not included in 

Alternatives C, D, or E.

140/7

1443 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The area south of Rapid Creek and west of 

Pactola has always been restricted to seasonal 

travel. It seems that the Forest Service is trying to 

find a year-round connector from Hill City to 

Silver City. We don‟t agree with this. It is 

important that the Rapid Creek and Pactola 

watersheds be protected and no new trails opened 

south of Rapid Creek and west of Pactola. All 

existing trails should remain seasonal, especially 

FSR 249 all the way from China Gulch Road to 

FSR 251.

FSR 249 remains closed seasonally from just north of 

FSR 254 to the junction with FSR 251 in Alternative E. 

Many of the routes south of Rapid Creek and west of 

Pactola are not included in Alternatives D or E.

140/8

1444 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Alternative map C shows a new trailhead to be 

built north of Hill City on China Gulch Road. 

This trailhead should not be opened. This area is 

quiet and should remain that way.

The parking area off FSR 249 was not included in 

Alternatives D or E.

140/9

1445 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Alternative C shows a trailhead to be added at 

China Gulch Road (FSR 249). There is no need 

for this trailhead. You should consider a trailhead 

closer to Hill City and better suited for accessing 

the Southern Hills.

The parking area off FSR 249 was not included in 

Alternatives D or E. Alternative C addresses 

connecting Hill City to points south to the extent 

possible, but opportunities are limited due to private 

property, paved highways, and other jurisdictions.

141/9

1446 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Alternatives B, C, and D all propose opening FSR 

675.1 to all vehicles. This trail should be opened 

only seasonally and even then it should be 

monitored closely because it is very soft most of 

the year. It is probably not a good idea to open to 

all vehicles. It should probably be seasonal ATV 

[use] only.

Alternative E includes FSR 675.1 and the 675.1X system 

as seasonally closed routes. This is a mapping error, as 

these routes are currently closed yearlong, and would 

continue as such in a corrected Alternative E. 

141/10

1447 Route FSR 671.1D and 142.1A as shown in Alternative FSR 671.1D and 142.1A are closed in Alternatives D 141/11
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

320

Specific 

Comment

C should be closed. By opening it you are 

increasing traffic near Sunnyside neighborhood 

and the town of Silver City. This could lead to 

unwanted conflict.

and E.

1448 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Road FSR 613 has been closed for many years. 

There is no need to open this road to all vehicles. 

It is too close the Centennial Trail and will give 

motorized users the temptation to go on 

Centennial Trail with their vehicles. Furthermore, 

it is too close to private property.

FSR 613 was inadvertently included as a motorized 

route in Alternatives C and E, but was omitted from 

Alternative D. Your comment has been evaluated and 

will be considered in the Record of Decision.

141/12

1449 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The road between Straight Lake and Williams 

Springs needs to be either open for all vehicles or 

at least ATVs. This road was closed at Williams 

Springs because of the archeological area. To 

mitigate this, there is already a road in place 300 

yards west of Williams Springs which would bypass this area. It ties in with the road to Straight 

Lake and it also goes west on the ridge above 

Surprise Gulch and Williams Gulch. This is a 

great way to cross the top of these areas without 

going down to the Grand Canyon road and saves 

about an hour trying to get from Williams Spring 

to Plato Gulch.

Alternative C of the DEIS and FEIS provided 

additional access around the Straight Lake area. While 

the specific route mentioned in the comment is not 

included in the Alternative, many additional routes are 

that provide the same opportunity, to access Plato 

Gulch (FS 863.3A) from Surprise Gulch (FS 803) 

without traveling on Grand Canyon (FS 863). 

142/12

1450 Route 

Specific 

Comment

We do not want to see Gorman Gulch FSR 

141.2B connect with Kelley or Sunnyside so that 

we don‟t have a loop through the Southern part 

of this high concentration area of off-road and 

single-track trails. We would like to see Gorman 

stay open though.

FSR 141.2B does not connect to other routes in 

Alternatives D and E.

146/2

1451 Route 

Specific 

Comment

We do not want trail #249 open year round, 

anything to not make that a major thoroughfare 

to Hill City would be helpful as those vehicles go 

right past our house.

FSR 249 remains closed seasonally from just north of 

FSR 254 to the junction with FSR 251 in Alternative E.

146/3

1452 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I have looked at the maps in our area. We live just 

west of Trout Haven and the Sugar Shack. I have 

noticed two connecting roads that do not show 

up on the map. We have used them to connect to 

other trails. Both are vehicle type roads. I will do 

my best to describe. I do not have exact mileage 

on the routes. Trail 261.3 going north off the 

The first route you describe is U130149 and it was 

analyzed in Alternative B and C. The second route you 

describe is U120137 it was analyzed in Alternative B and 

was dropped from all other Alternatives because of 

resource concerns. Any decision about selected routes 

will be documented in the Record of Decision. 

149/1
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

321

Rochford Road. Road is known as Jenny Gulch 

Road (north of Rochford Rd.) It goes north and 

then turns east to Hwy. 385. At about 2 miles. 

There is a gated home on the east side of the 

road. Across from the gate is a road going west 

over the hill it connects with 663. This connecting 

road gets you into the Experimental Forest trails. 

We hope this trail can be added to the map. The 

next road is in the Experimental Forest along the 

west side. Take 616.1 north off the Rochford 

Road into the Experimental Forest. Turn west on 

660.1. At about 2 to 3 miles you will be going 

north and have crossed two cattle guards. A wellused vehicle road goes west down a draw; at the 

bottom you angle SW and come to Trail #204.2g. 

This is a good connecting road as you can then go 

north up to 204.2 known as the Killorn Springs 

Road. We hope this road could be added to 

provide access north to the Roubaix Lake area.

1453 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Alternative B - Too many conflicting rules on 

various trails. Example = T3N, R5E, Sec. 29 and 

30 on Forest Service Road 152. FS 152 for the 

most part is marked “All Vehicles” except a small 

section where it exits Sec. 30 to Sec. 29. There it 

is marked as “Highway Legal” only. We live in 

Sec. 30 so we could not use our ATV or dirt bikes 

to travel to Nemo.

In Alternative C FSR 152 was changed to open to all 

vehicles. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. 

158/2

1454 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Alternative “B”: Township T3N - R5E Section 30 

to 29 Forest Service #152 does not allow licensed 

vehicles. Access to our property is blocked for 

non-licensed vehicles as this area is “highway legal 

vehicles only”.

In Alternative C FSR 152 was changed to open to all 

vehicles. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. 

159/3

1455 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Trail 675.1 in the central hills is shown as open in 

Alternatives B, C, and D. However, this road was 

closed a few years ago because of the impact that 

vehicles were having on the road. This road is 

very wet year-round. It has a few beaver dams and 

multiple springs that come out of the ground. I 

have even gone fishing in that stream for brown 

trout. Opening this trail to all vehicles will be 

Alternative E includes FSR 675.1 as a seasonally closed 

route. This is a mapping error, as this route is currently 

closed yearlong, and would continue as such in a 

corrected Alternative E. 

169/2
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

322

irresponsible. Maybe it should only be open in the 

summer and only if there is no running water 

over the trail. If I‟m not mistaken all the water 

ends up in Pactola drainage. You have so many 

roads and trails to choose from, why open a trail 

that is currently closed?

1456 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Centennial Trail needs to remain non-motorized. The Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob is 

currently open to motorized traffic. It was analyzed to 

be open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed from 

Alternative D. Any decision about selected routes will 

be documented in the Record of Decision.

169/6

1457 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The Dugout Gulch Hiking Trail is one of the best 

hiking trails in the Spearfish area. The Forest 

Service just got it done not that long ago. Please 

find another way for the ATV trail to get to Sand 

Creek. Farther south!

A range of Alternatives was considered for the botanical 

area around Sand Creek. Alternatives A, D, and E do 

not propose any public motorized use within the 

botanical area.

174/1

1458 Route 

Specific 

Comment

In 2008 the Forest Service spent time and money 

to rehabilitate turkey guzzlers along FSR 243.2B 

which the wildlife do use now. The Forest Service 

also had a prescribed burn last summer to 

decrease pine encroachment into openings, 

improve forage and browse production, 

improving fawning bedding habitat for big game, 

and stimulate hardwood restoration by reducing 

competition from ponderosa pine. So to me the 

Forest Service is still to this day treating the 

McVey Wildlife Winter Refuge as a part of the 

Forest Plan so why the change now.

FSR 243.2B is closed yearlong in Alternative D, and 

closed seasonally in Alternative E.

179/3

1459 Route 

Specific 

Comment

In the Black Hills National Forest Travel

Management Plan and the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement under the Engineering and 

Transportation section it clearly states that sound 

levels associated with off-highway vehicles in 

otherwise quiet areas will be an important issue. It 

states that, “A distance of 300 feet from private 

land was selected as an indicator because it is the 

approximate distance at which the sound emitted 

from a motorized vehicle at a sound level of 96 

dB(A) would attenuate to approximately 50 dB(A) 

which is the sound level of an average office.” 

FSR 243.2B is closed yearlong in Alternative D, and 

closed seasonally in Alternative E.

179/5
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

323

Well, NFSR 243.2B is within 100 feet of my 

home, not my land my home, this road is 

currently a seasonally closed road, which gives me 

some reprieve during the winter from the 

constant road noise and dust. If the NFSR 243.2B 

is going to be a connector route, it will be a very 

dangerous path as it has to cross Hwy 385. The 

only foreseeable area to cross Hwy 385 to meet 

up with the existing NFSR 243.2B is at the 

junction with Sheridan Lake Road. The sight 

distance is not far enough to successfully cross 

safely. I don‟t personally think that these areas all 

need to have a connector route. I feel that if the 

Forest Service insists on opening these routes that 

they should use the Alternative D or Map D with 

a modification. The modification is to relocate the 

existing NFSR 243.2B to a reasonable distance 

from my front door. I feel that having the added 

vehicle travel to this road will increase the safety 

hazards to me and my animals. 100 feet is a lot 

closer than it sounds and I have already had 

problems with individuals using that road. They 

taunt my animals and cause them stress and in 

return their barking makes my neighbors angry 

which causes me stress.

1460 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I‟m a landowner in the Nemo area. This is my 

second letter I‟ve written against your proposed 

motorcycle trail NW of Nemo [[T3N R5E SEC 

17, 20, 21]]. BHNF Travel Management Plan 

DEIS Alternative C Feb/2009 Map 2 of 3 S.D. 

North. The proposed trail will be a completely 

new trail where none exists now. I feel with all the 

trails and roads that exist already creating new 

trails is completely unnecessary.

The motorcycle trail was analyzed in Alternatives B and 

C and removed in Alternatives D and E. The purpose of 

this EIS is to analyze where motorized traffic will be 

allowed to go including possibly new routes. Any 

decision about selected routes will be documented in the 

Record of Decision.

180/1

1461 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I‟m a landowner in the Nemo area. This is my 

second letter I‟ve written against your proposed 

motorcycle trail NW of Nemo [[T3N R5E SEC 

17, 20, 21]]. BHNF Travel Management Plan 

DEIS Alternative C Feb/2009 Map 2 of 3 S.D. 

North. The trail will run right next to our private 

The motorcycle trail was analyzed in Alternatives B and 

C and removed in Alternatives D and E. The purpose of 

this EIS is to analyze where motorized traffic will be 

allowed to go including possibly new routes. Any 

decision about selected routes will be documented in the 

Record of Decision. Fires caused by arson, equipment 

180/2
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

324

ranch property which in turn will disrupt the 

peace and quiet of the area, frighten livestock and 

wildlife and increase the risk of forest fires. The 

proposed location is in an area where severe 

erosion will occur as a result. Litter, garbage and 

damage to fences are other concerns. I don‟t 

think the Forest Service has any idea how much 

damage these people have done and I find it hard 

to believe that they continue to allow it.

and smoking combined account for less than 10% of 

ignitions on the Black Hills National Forest annually. 

Any action alternative selected for this project would 

reduce the total area currently available for motorized 

use and thus could decrease the risk of unwanted 

ignitions. And, routes open to motorized recreation 

could also provide access to fire suppression equipment 

should the need arise. 

1462 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I‟m a landowner in the Nemo area. This is my 

second letter I‟ve written against your proposed 

motorcycle trail NW of Nemo. (T3N R5E Sect 

17,20,2), BHNF TMP DEIS Alternative C, Feb 

2009, map 2 of 3, SD North. The proposed trail 

will be a completely new trail where none exists 

now. I feel with all the trails a and roads that exist

already, creating new trails is completely 

unnecessary.

The motorcycle trail was analyzed in Alternatives B and 

C and removed in Alternatives D and E. The purpose of 

this EIS is to analyze where motorized traffic will be 

allowed to go including possibly new routes. Any 

decision about selected routes will be documented in the 

Record of Decision.

180/3

1463 Route 

Specific 

Comment

There is a proposed [motorcycle] trail at the base 

of Crystal Mountain that we are against [[T3N 

R4E SEC 24, 25]]. BHNF Travel Management 

Plan DEIS Alternative D Feb 2009. It will cross 

and damage a section of riparian on S. Box Elder 

Creek and also another spring riparian further 

south of that crossing.

The motorcycle trail was analyzed in Alternatives B and 

C and removed in Alternatives D and E. Hydrology had 

been considered and any chosen routes that make 

stream crossings will be mitigated appropriately. Any 

decision about selected routes will be documented in the 

Record of Decision.

180/4

1464 Route 

Specific 

Comment

There is a proposed [motorcycle] trail at the base 

of Crystal Mountain that we are against [[T3N 

R4E SEC 24, 25]]. BHNF Travel Management 

Plan DEIS Alternative D Feb 2009. Part of this 

proposal would create a new trail where none 

exists now.

The motorcycle trail was analyzed in Alternatives B and 

C and removed in Alternatives D and E. The purpose of 

this EIS is to analyze where motorized traffic will be 

allowed to go including possibly new routes. Any 

decision about selected routes will be documented in the 

Record of Decision.

180/5

1465 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I am saddened by the damage ATVs are doing to 

the ditches and other, more-sensitive areas of our 

Black Hills. I am chagrined that the snowmobilers 

will not honor the small bit of Mickelson Trail 

they are not to be on. I want to see regulations 

that allow the ATVs and the snowmobilers 

designated spaces and designated spaces for those 

of us who love nature, quiet, serenity.

Use of right of ways on paved roads by vehicles is 

outside of Forest Service Jurisdiction and beyond the 

scope of this EIS. The Mickelson trail is outside Forest 

Service Jurisdiction and beyond the scope of this EIS. 

The purpose of this EIS is to analyze where motorized 

traffic will be allowed to go

184/1

1466 Route I would like to comment on the proposed ATV The Tinton trail is a non-system that is authorized by a 185/1
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

325

Specific 

Comment

trails near Spearfish‟s Tinton mountain bike and 

hiking/running trail. I ask that you preserve this 

trail for the many outdoor enthusiasts that use a 

human motor to experience the forest. I would 

like to ask that you preserve this trail from 

potential ATVs that destroy single track without 

realizing it. I ask that you preserve the trail for the 

type of people that love nature and love to 

traverse it in as natural a state as possible.

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS 

deals with motorized travel only and therefore the 

request for designating this trail as part of the nonmotorized system is beyond the scope of this project.

1467 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Tinton‟s mountain bike/hiking trail was originally 

laid out by one of your own Forest Service agents 

in the 90‟s. He created a tight yet wonderfully 

flowing single track which has matured over the 

last 15-20 years into an American gem. The 

Tinton Trail was featured in 4 premier mountain 

biking magazines in the last 18 months. It was 

voted the best single track in the Midwest last 

year in BIKE magazine (the best magazine of 

them all). It beat all of Minnesota, Nebraska, 

North Dakota and Iowa‟s trails, which is not a 

small feat when you consider that Minnesota 

alone dwarfs South Dakota with the number of 

mountain bike trails that are paid for and 

maintained by wealthy cycling enthusiasts in their 

area.

The Tinton trail is a non-system that is authorized by a 

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS 

deals with motorized travel only and therefore the 

request for designating this trail as part of the nonmotorized system is beyond the scope of this project.

185/2

1468 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I‟ve been riding Tinton Trail since the mid 

nineties, and know every rock, root, turn and lowlying tree. The trail in its infancy was crude and 

hard to ride because the “tunnel” was tight. But 

like a caterpillar, with repeated responsible riding 

and maintenance of the trail, Tinton Trail has 

metamorphosed into a beautiful section of single 

track. Each corner over the years has developed 

just the right amount of berm to support a turn. 

When I say berm I don‟t mean a three-foot 

downhiller‟s berm but on Tinton Trail, an inch or 

two in just the right spots supports the flow. 

Because Tinton Trail is wilder, and not overbuilt, 

it is fragile. Last summer three kids with 

motorbikes rode the trail maybe three or four 

The Tinton trail is a non-system that is authorized by a 

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS 

deals with motorized travel only and therefore the 

request for designating this trail as part of the nonmotorized system is beyond the scope of this project.

185/3
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

326

times. The damage they created with their 

powerful machines and unskilled hands destroyed 

at least two or three of those berms. Again, not 

tons of damage, but can you imagine what will 

happen when we get 2-3 ATVs on Tinton Trail 

per day? Worse yet, can you imagine what will 

happen when four wheelers ride up the middle of 

the single track? Tinton Trail would be destroyed 

in less than one season.

1469 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Please keep the ATVs and motorcycles as far 

from Tinton Trail as possible. ATVs have 

thousands of miles of dirt roads to explore. 

Mountain bikers might have 100 miles of single 

track in the Black Hills. I beg that you protect this 

trail for every mountain biker in our country.

The Tinton trail is a non-system that is authorized by a 

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS 

deals with motorized travel only and therefore the 

request for designating this trail as part of the non-

motorized system is beyond the scope of this project.

185/4

1470 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I would like to comment on the proposed ATV 

trails near Spearfish‟s Tinton mountain bike and 

hiking/running trail. I ask that you preserve this 

trail for the many outdoor enthusiasts that use a 

human motor to experience the forest. I would 

like to ask that you preserve this trail from 

potential ATVs that destroy single track without 

realizing it. I ask that you preserve the trail for the 

type of people that love nature and love to 

traverse it in as natural a state as possible.

The Tinton trail is a non-system that is authorized by a 

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS 

deals with motorized travel only and therefore the 

request for designating this trail as part of the non-

motorized system is beyond the scope of this project.

186/1

1471 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Tinton‟s mountain bike/hiking trail was originally 

laid out by one of your own Forest Service agents 

in the 90‟s. He created a tight yet wonderfully 

flowing single track which has matured over the 

last 15-20 years into an American Gem. The 

Tinton Trail was featured in 4 premier mountain 

biking magazines in the last 18 months. It was 

voted the best single track in the Midwest last 

year in BIKE magazine (the best magazine of 

them all). It beat all of Minnesota, Nebraska, 

North Dakota and Iowa‟s trails, which is not a 

small feat when you consider that Minnesota 

alone dwarfs South Dakota with the number of 

mountain bike trails that are paid for and 

maintained by wealthy cycling enthusiasts in their 

The Tinton trail is a non-system that is authorized by a 

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS 

deals with motorized travel only and therefore the 

request for designating this trail as part of the non-

motorized system is beyond the scope of this project.

186/2
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

327

area.

1472 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I‟ve been riding Tinton Trail since the mid 

nineties, and know every rock, root, turn and low-

lying tree. The trail in its infancy was crude and 

hard to ride because the “tunnel” was tight. But 

like a caterpillar, with repeated responsible riding 

and maintenance of the trail, Tinton Trail has 

metamorphosed into a beautiful section of single 

track. Each corner over the years has developed 

just the right amount of berm to support a turn. 

When I say berm I don‟t mean a three-foot 

downhiller‟s berm but on Tinton Trail, an inch or 

two in just the right spots supports the flow.

The Tinton trail is a non-system that is authorized by a 

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS 

deals with motorized travel only and therefore the 

request for designating this trail as part of the non-

motorized system is beyond the scope of this project.

186/3

1473 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Please keep the ATVs and motorcycles as far 

from our trail as possible. ATVs have thousands 

of miles of dirt roads to explore. Mountain bikers 

might have 100 miles of single track in the Black 

Hills. I beg that you protect this trail for every 

mountain biker in our country and those from 

Canada that I have seen come to Spearfish just to 

ride Tinton trail. This is selfish, but I beg that you 

save the trail for me. Tinton Trail has become 

part of my psyche and it soothes my soul after a 

long winter in Spearfish. Part of the reason I live 

in Spearfish is to ride Tinton Trail home after a 

long day of doctoring. I can honestly say that if 

Tinton Trail is destroyed and not replaced I 

would consider leaving for a more bike friendly 

community.

The Tinton trail is a non-system that is authorized by a 

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS 

deals with motorized travel only and therefore the 

request for designating this trail as part of the non-

motorized system is beyond the scope of this project.

186/4

1474 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I would be very excited to discuss a deal with the 

Forest Service to help you maintain and pay for 

the maintenance of Tinton Trail. I‟m speaking for 

my friends, but I‟m sure the Queen City Ramblers 

Biking Club and the Ridge Riders Biking Clubs 

are here to help you with time and money. We 

could make signs and barriers to at traffic or 

whatever you would like. Please consider my 

offer.

The Tinton trail is a non-system that is authorized by a 

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS 

deals with motorized travel only and therefore the 

request for designating this trail as part of the non-

motorized system is beyond the scope of this project.

186/5

1475 Route 

Specific 

I would like to advocate leaving Forest Service 

Road 150/1E open to vehicle traffic. To my 

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

189/1
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

328

Comment knowledge this is the only legal access road into 

the Victoria Canyon climbing area. Losing access 

to this area would be a huge loss to the climbing 

community. Victoria Canyon is special to climbers 

not only because of the beautiful setting and close 

proximity to Rapid City, but also because it offers 

the steepest climbing currently found in South 

Dakota. In other words, the limestone walls of 

the canyon are very overhung, and offer a very 

athletic and challenging style of climbing, not 

found at other climbing areas in the state. Please 

consider keeping this road open.

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a userrequested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

1476 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I am writing in regards to the proposed closure of 

Forest Service Road 150/1E near Rapid City, SD. 

I live in Spearfish, SD and have been climbing in 

Victoria Canyon for about 3 years now. Victoria 

Canyon can only be accessed by the Forest 

Service Road 150/1E. Victoria Canyon has been a 

place for roped climbing and bouldering since the 

1980‟s and has been recently expanded with new 

climbing routes which make it a more and more 

popular place for the local climbers.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a userrequested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

194/1

1477 Route 

Specific 

Comment

If Victoria Canyon could be kept open all year, 

with no seasonal closure, it would definitely be a 

benefit to and appreciated by the people that 

frequent the area.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a userrequested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

194/2

1478 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I am and have been my whole life a resident of 

the Black Hills and live in Spearfish, SD about 55 

miles west of Rapid City. I live here because I 

love to climb. When I heard that there may no 

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

195/1
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

329

longer be access to Victoria Canyon I was 

immediately concerned about the prospect of not 

being able to access the unique and beautiful 

features of that canyon. Not only is it a joy for me 

as a climber but also is for hikers and occasionally 

kayakers. I am writing to ask if you could please 

keep Forest Service Road 150/1E near Rapid 

City, SD open as it is the only access left for 

climbers and hikers to get down into Victoria 

Canyon being bordered at the entrance by private 

property and because of the Victoria Lake Road 

Closure that was established years ago. I would 

like to point out that climbing is a low-impact 

sport on the environment, with walking and 

standing at the base of the cliffs being the only 

traffic. It‟s also a benefit because it‟s so close to 

Rapid City. With Victoria Canyon only one mile 

out of town it makes for another option for 

climbers to go to other than the other climbing 

area close to Rapid City, Falling Rock. This would 

also help disperse people from the Falling Rock 

area (which is somewhat more dangerous with its 

rappel in to the base of the climbing routes) to 

Victoria Canyon. Also, because much of the Black 

Hills, including Rapid City, industry is tourism, 

Victoria Canyon is a jewel for climbers and not to 

mention beautiful to be in as a hiker as well. This 

canyon definitely has level of rock that could 

interest many, not just local, climbers.

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a user-

requested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

1479 Route 

Specific 

Comment

A matter that was brought to my attention was 

the seasonal closure (December 15th - May 15th) 

of [Road 150.1E] Victoria Canyon. Because South 

Dakota can be sometimes very temperate during the winter it would be nice to have all-year access 

to Victoria Canyon for climbing - we would 

appreciate it! I truly hope that you will see the 

benefit of allowing us to continue to have access 

to Victoria Canyon.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a user-

requested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

195/2
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

330

Record of Decision.

1480 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I would like to comment on the proposed ATV 

trails near Spearfish‟s Tinton mountain bike and 

hiking/running trail. I ask that you preserve this 

trail for the many outdoor enthusiasts that use a 

human motor to experience the forest. I would 

like to ask that you preserve this trail from 

potential ATVs that destroy single track without 

realizing it. I ask that you preserve the trail for the 

type of people that love nature and love to 

traverse it in as natural a state as possible.

The Tinton trail is a non-system that is authorized by a 

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS 

deals with motorized travel only and therefore the 

request for designating this trail as part of the nonmotorized system is beyond the scope of this project.

202/1

1481 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Tinton‟s mountain bike/hiking trail was originally 

laid out by one of your own Forest Service agents 

in the 90‟s. He created a tight yet wonderfully 

flowing single track which has matured over the 

last 15-20 years into an American gem. The 

Tinton Trail was featured in 4 premier mountain 

biking magazines in the last 18 months. It was 

voted the best single track in the Midwest last 

year in BIKE magazine (the best magazine of 

them all). It beat all of Minnesota, Nebraska, 

North Dakota and Iowa‟s trails, which is not a 

small feat when you consider that Minnesota 

alone dwarfs South Dakota with the number of 

mountain bike trails that are paid for and 

maintained by wealthy cycling enthusiasts in their 

area.

The Tinton trail is a non-system that is authorized by a 

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS 

deals with motorized travel only and therefore the 

request for designating this trail as part of the nonmotorized system is beyond the scope of this project.

202/2

1482 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I‟ve been riding Tinton [Trail] since the midnineties, and know every rock, root, turn and lowlying tree. The trail in its infancy was crude and 

hard to ride because the “tunnel” was tight. But 

like a caterpillar, with repeated responsible riding 

and maintenance of the trail, Tinton has 

metamorphosed into a beautiful section of single 

track. Each corner over the years has developed 

just the right amount of berm to support a turn. 

When I say berm I don‟t mean a three-foot 

downhiller‟s berm but on Tinton, an inch or two 

in just the right spots supports the flow. Because 

Tinton Trail is wilder, and not overbuilt, it is 

The Tinton trail is a non-system that is authorized by a 

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS 

deals with motorized travel only and therefore the 

request for designating this trail as part of the nonmotorized system is beyond the scope of this project.

202/3
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

331

fragile. Last summer three kids with motorbikes 

rode the trail maybe three or four times. The 

damage they created with their powerful machines 

and unskilled hands destroyed at least two or 

three of those berms. Again, not tons of damage, 

but can you imagine what will happen when we 

get 2-3 ATVs on Tinton per day? Worse yet, can 

you imagine what will happen when four wheelers 

ride up the middle of the single track? Tinton 

Trail would be destroyed in less than one season.

1483 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Please keep the ATVs and motorcycles as far

from our [Tinton] Trail as possible. ATVs have 

thousands of miles of dirt roads to explore. 

Mountain bikers might have 100 miles of single 

track in the Black Hills. After living the last 10 

years in Colorado, I can personally tell you that 

Tinton Trail is a true gem and deserves to be 

preserved. It ranks among the best trails 

anywhere, including Colorado, and it is one of the 

reasons I returned to the Black Hills.

The Tinton trail is a non-system that is authorized by a 

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS 

deals with motorized travel only and therefore the 

request for designating this trail as part of the non-

motorized system is beyond the scope of this project.

202/4

1484 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I would be very excited to discuss a deal with the 

Forest Service to help you maintain and pay for 

the maintenance of Tinton Trail. I‟m speaking for 

my friends, but I‟m sure the Queen City Ramblers 

Biking Club and the Ridge Riders Biking Clubs 

are here to help you with time and money. We 

could make signs and barriers to ATV traffic or 

whatever you would like. Please consider my 

offer.

The Tinton trail is a non-system that is authorized by a 

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS 

deals with motorized travel only and therefore the 

request for designating this trail as part of the non-

motorized system is beyond the scope of this project.

202/5

1485 Route 

Specific 

Comment

In relation to the BHNF we are located at the 

junction of FS Road 17 and FS Road 238. FS 

Road 238 intersects our property. Easement 

granted by us in the early 1970‟s stipulated USFS 

would maintain the road at least every 2 years or 

the easement would be withdrawn. The 2-year 

maintenance was not met in the past. Due to 

increased development beyond our property; 

ATV and 4-wheeler use increased [and] we have 

more excessive traffic, much more dust. Our 

house is very close to FS Road 238. We request 

The western portion of FSR 238 (east of South 

Rochford Road) is open to highway legal vehicles only 

in Alternatives C, D, and E. 

210/1
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

332

speed/dust control. Both of us have breathing 

problems that is aggravated by the increased dust. 

Another road, FS Road 181.1D is available for 

use. This road does not intersect any private

property.

1486 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I prefer “Alternative C”. Talk going around 

locally is that an employee of the National Forest 

Service has had letters published in the Rapid City 

Journal asking others to write you in an effort to 

further limit off-road motorized vehicles. He rides 

mountain bikes and doesn‟t want motorized 

vehicles anywhere near where he might choose to 

go. A specific trail he is picking on, among others, 

is a nature trail in the “Ranch A” area on the 

Wyoming side of the Black Hills. The group I ride 

with is older with medical problems and cannot 

access this trail or any others in the Northern 

Hills by bike or on foot. Please keep this trail(s) 

available to us.

A range of Alternatives was considered in the DEIS and 

FEIS for motorized opportunities around the Ranch A 

community. While Alternatives B and C proposed 

different motorized opportunities; Alternatives A, D, 

and E do not propose any public motorized use except 

along existing motorized public roads.

216/1

1487 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Need a Paiute Trail type loop (274 miles) with 

various trails feeding off of the main loop trail.

This comment is similar to Recommendation #5 of the 

National Forest Advisory Board, as described in 

Chapter 1 of the EIS. Alternatives B, C and D feature 

looped trail systems in certain portions of the Forest. 

Alternatives B and C would allow motorized vehicles to 

transit between these looped trail systems; Alternative D 

would restrict such transit to address the issue of user 

safety. The alternatives address this concept to varying 

degrees. 

221/15

1488 Route 

Specific 

Comment

(cont from comment no. 1) This draw is also a 

major access point for our cattle and some debate 

has existed as to which user is responsible for the 

damage to soil stability. In a letter by District 

Ranger Steve Kozel addressed to W.W. 

Thompson and Sons, Inc., dated October 24, 

2008, it was stated that due to activities (read 

motorized vehicle) other than grazing in the area, 

the draw could no longer function as a 

benchmark area for monitoring and should no 

longer be used as a benchmark. This 

demonstrates yet another externality of off-road 

This comment can not be addressed at this time. The 

"draw" mentioned can not be accurately identified for 

an on-the-ground location to provide a response. It is 

uncertain whether the DEIS identified the "draw" as a 

route for motorized use that would complicate cattle 

grazing opportunities. 

232/2
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

333

motorized travel that has complicated both the 

grazing permittees and the Forest Service‟s ability 

to manage the grazing allotment.

1489 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The DEIS Travel Management Plan for the Black 

Hills NF recognizes the increase in demand for 

OHV use, page 3 under background. It also 

recognizes the state rankings of OHV 

participating in activities and recreation. However, 

the proposed action falls short of supporting the 

needs of this ranking. The 627 mile increase in 

50" or less in motorized trail miles is on the 

central, northern, and Wyoming districts while the 

Hell Canyon District only provides 2 trails, both 

of minimum distance. More trails are needed to 

help minimize concentration of use in the 

proposed areas, thereby reducing potential 

damage in those areas.

Additional routes were reviewed and considered, and 

those chosen will be documented in the Record of 

Decision. If no trails are designated in Custer County 

with this decision, this does not limit the Hell Canyon 

Ranger District from consideration of trail designation 

in the future. 

233/1

1490 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I am writing about the proposed motorcycle trail 

by my parent‟s ranch at the base of Crystal 

Mountain [[T3NR4E Sec 24, 25]] I am against this 

trail. It will cross and damage at least 2 riparians, 

one on the South Box Elder Creek and another 

nice spring on the other end of the trail. I thought 

the Forest Service was very interested in taking 

care of these resources.

The motorcycle trail was analyzed in Alternatives B and 

C and removed in Alternatives D and E. Hydrology had 

been considered and any chosen routes that make 

stream crossings will be mitigated appropriately. Any 

decision about selected routes will be documented in the 

Record of Decision.

242/1

1491 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I am writing about the proposed motorcycle trail 

by my parent‟s ranch at the base of Crystal 

Mountain [[T3NR4E Sec 24, 25]] I am against this 

trail. Your proposal states this will be a 

motorcycle only trail, but as fast as a trail is made, 

it is an open invitation for the ATVs to start using 

also. I don‟t know if you realize the damage these 

people have done already. I would be happy to 

show you. It‟s hard to believe the Forest Service 

allows this to continue.

The motorcycle trail was analyzed in Alternatives B and 

C and removed in Alternatives D and E. Once a 

decision is made vehicle classes will be expected to use 

their appropriate trails. Any decision about selected 

routes will be documented in the Record of Decision. 

There will be designation of route and vehicle types, use 

of other vehicles will be prohibited. The rule includes 

definitions, procedures, and criteria for designation of 

National Forest Service trails, vehicle use, and a 

prohibition on motor vehicle use that occurs off the 

designated system or that is inconsistent with motor 

vehicle designations.

242/2

1492 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I am writing about the proposed motorcycle trail 

by my parent‟s ranch at the base of Crystal 

Mountain [[T3NR4E Sec 24, 25]] I am against this 

The motorcycle trail was analyzed in Alternatives B and 

C and removed in Alternatives D and E. Common to all 

Alternatives sound limit for OHV's is set at 96 decibels. 

242/3
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

334

trail. This trail will run right next to our private 

ranch property. This will ruin the peace and quiet 

of the whole area involved, besides the increased 

risk of forest fires and frightening wildlife and 

livestock.

Any decision about selected routes will be documented 

in the Record of Decision. Fires caused by arson, 

equipment and smoking combined account for less than 

10% of ignitions on the Black Hills National Forest 

annually. Any action alternative selected for this project 

would reduce the total area currently available for 

motorized use and thus could decrease the risk of 

unwanted ignitions. And, routes open to motorized 

recreation could also provide access to fire suppression 

equipment should the need arise. 

1493 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I am writing about the proposed motorcycle trail 

by my parent‟s ranch at the base of Crystal 

Mountain [[T3NR4E Sec 24, 25]] I am against this 

trail. My parents have a Forest Service permit, 

which they have had for 50 years. Last year I 

actually came across 5 or 6 motorcyclists chasing 

our cattle on their bikes. This will most certainly 

increase this problem.

The motorcycle trail was analyzed in Alternatives B and 

C and removed in Alternatives D and E. Any decision 

about selected routes will be documented in the Record 

of Decision. The harassment of livestock is a law 

enforcement concern and should be reported as such. 

There will be designation of route and vehicle types, use 

of other vehicles will be prohibited. The rule includes 

definitions, procedures, and criteria for designation of 

National Forest Service trails, vehicle use, and a 

prohibition on motor vehicle use that occurs off the 

designated system or that is inconsistent with motor 

vehicle designations.

242/4

1494 Route 

Specific 

Comment

We live on USFS Road 561 roughly nine miles 

SSW of Lead, and would like to go on record in 

support of Option [Alternative] E. All other 

options provide connectivity from USFS [Road] 

561 through to Custer Peak via Snowmobile Trail 

# 7 and other existing traces. As has been

evidenced by heretofore ATV use, this will result 

in an increased level of noise disturbance and 

road dust at our residence and those of our 

neighbors.

Thank you for your comment. Common to all 

Alternatives sound levels for OHV's will be set at 96 

decibels.

245/1

1495 Route 

Specific 

Comment

USFS 561 is the driveway for three permanent 

residences and two seasonal-use dwellings. There 

are a number of turns and hills that compromise 

visibility; and the increased level of low-profile 

vehicles not intended for road use would 

constitute a significant safety risk.

FSR 561 was analyzed in Alternatives B, D and E as 

open to highway legal vehicles only and in Alternative C 

as road open to all. Any decision about selected routes 

will be documented in the Record of Decision. Any 

routes selected as part of the motorized travel system 

may include recommended mitigation measures in place 

to ensure the safety of the users.

245/2

1496 Route We live on USFS Road 561 roughly nine miles Thank you for your comment. 245/3
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

335

Specific 

Comment

SSW of Lead, and would like to go on record in 

support of Option [Alternative] E. The recently 

increased level of ATV traffic, especially during 

the summer of 2008 (a normal moisture year), 

resulted in substantial damage to the Snowmobile 

Trail [# 7] particularly in the area of the North 

Rapid Creek/Elk Creek divide approximately 300 

yards east of the [USFS Road] 561 jump off to 

said trail.

1497 Route 

Specific 

Comment

We live on USFS Road 561 roughly nine miles 

SSW of Lead, and would like to go on record in 

support of Option [Alternative] E. Options other 

than [Alternative] “E” provide for unrestricted 

travel on existing logging trail USFS [Road] 561-

1C running south from USFS [Road] 561 along 

and immediately east of private land...

Thank you for your comment. 245/4

1498 Route 

Specific 

Comment

We would like to note that regardless of which 

Alternative plan is chosen, particular attention 

must be paid in addressing the crossing of North 

Rapid Creek immediately west of the Dumont 

Trailhead. During the 2008 season, ATV traffic 

effectively destroyed the stream bank system as 

well as the riparian bog for a considerable 

distance up and downstream of the Snowmobile 

Trail # 7 Crossing. This not only affects erosion 

of the immediate area but adds considerably to 

the silt load and degradation of fish habitat for 

several miles downstream.

No OHV routes were analyzed in any alternative for the 

area west of Dumont at the Rapid Creek crossing on 

snowmobile trail 7 and, therefore, it is outside the scope 

of this project.

245/5

1499 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I would like to see the 830 [USFS] Road open to 

Cook Lake and Hershey Creek to Coral Creek 

open to 50" or less ORVs.

These routes have been considered open to motorized 

use under Alternative B and C of the DEIS and FEIS.

251/2

1500 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Mechanized non-motorized travel should be 

restricted to a designated trail system, such as the 

Mickelson Trail, that is routinely monitored to 

assure the safety and well being of all users.

Thank you for your comment. The Mickelson Trail is 

not Forest Service Jurisdiction. Mechanized non-

motorized travel is outside the scope of this document 

as this EIS deals with motorized traffic.

254/4

1501 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I want to urge the Forest Service to limit

motorized vehicles to designated areas. I am so 

saddened by the damage I see that ATVs have 

done to the Mickelson Trail, as they careen up the 

power lines and use the Trail (which is off limits 

Motorized access would be limited to designated areas 

and routes. Mickelson Trail is not being considered for 

motorized travel under any Alternative in the DEIS and 

FEIS. The Mickelson Trail is not Forest Service 

Jurisdiction. The purpose of the EIS is to determine 

255/1
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

336

to motorized vehicles) to get to their next off trail 

area.

which routes motorized traffic will be allowed on.

1502 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The concentration of ATV and motorcycle trails 

around Hwy 385 North of Pactola is excessive. 

This is an excellent elk hunting area, especially 

west of Hwy 385. The number of trails should be 

reduced or at least made seasonal only.

Many of the routes around Highway 385 and north of 

Pactola were eliminated in Alternatives D and E.

264/5.

1503 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Motorized camping and game retrieval should not 

be allowed in FSR 141.2B, 671, and 671.1B. 

These gulches are too narrow and steep. Crosscountry motorized use would adversely affect the 

soil and vegetation. A better option for motorized 

game retrieval and camping would be FSR 672.

These routes are open to highway legal vehicles only in 

Alternatives D and E.

264/6.

1504 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Trails 671.1A, 671.1D, 142.1A, 142.1B, U190001, 

437.1C, 437.1G,437.1F, 437.1E, 436.1E, and 

237.1I are shown on Alternative C. These trails 

were not part of the October 2007 plan and are all 

currently closed. These new proposed trails 

should be removed. Kelly Gulch (FSR142) is 

frequented by fishermen and families going on 

day trips. There should be no other motorized use 

around FSR 142. The road itself crosses perennial 

streams multiple times and just about every gulch 

carries water as this is an important drainage area 

into Rapid Creek.

Most of these routes are not included in Alternatives D 

or E. FSR 142.1B is open to highway legal vehicles only 

in Alternative E, and is closed in Alternative D.

264/7.

1505 Route 

Specific 

Comment

My primary uses of the BHNF are hiking and off 

highway driving in a Jeep or Suzuki Samurai. Both 

are over 50 inches wide. I enjoy driving rugged 

trails but not full blown rock crawling. The local 

clubs refer to these as difficulty 3 and 3+. I feel 

that Alternative C does a good job of laying out a 

very usable trail system with lots of though routes 

and loops. However most of the trails are limited 

to vehicles less than 50" wide. 460 miles of trails 

are limited to 50" or less and only 154 miles are 

open to all vehicles. A similar ratio shows up in 

Alternative B. Some of the width limited trails 

need the limit because the trails are very narrow.

Based on guidelines from the Travel Management Rule, 

the DEIS identified trails as open to less than 50 inch 

wide for motorized opportunities. Vehicles over 50-

inches wide was identified as a special designation route 

on the DEIS. In the Final EIS, trails within South 

Dakota will be re-evaluated for widths less than 65 

inches, allowing wider vehicle to access these routes. 

Any motorized vehicle exceeding this width will be 

limited to roads. Wyoming will continue to evaluate 

motorized trails for less than 50-inch widths due to 

compliance with the State ORV program.

273/1.

1506 Route 

Specific 

Make the Shanks Canyon/Wild Irishman to Log 

Porch Road area non-motorized except for the 

Many of the motorized routes in this area were removed 

in Alternative D, and are limited to highway legal 

274/3.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

337

Comment 603 Road tied to the 199 Road (Wild Irishman) 

tying Shroeder/Nemo road and Highway 44. 

There are tremendous potential opportunities for 

developing this area specifically for mountain 

biking and hiking. This area has historically been 

used by these user groups. By allowing motorized 

recreation in this area, it would make it, in my 

opinion, far more difficult to implement a 

mountain bike/hiking specific area leading to 

greater user conflict.

vehicles only in Alternative E.

1507 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I would like to see the 830 Road open to Cook 

Lake and Hershey Creek to Coral Creek open to 

50" or less ORVs.

These routes have been considered open to motorized 

use under Alternative B and C of the DEIS and FEIS.

275/2.

1508 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Motorized travel from Pilot Knob to Dalton Lake 

on the Centennial Trail must be eliminated! It is a 

premier hiking trail and its intent was not 

designed to include motorized travel. It appears 

that part of Dugout Gulch allows motorized use 

and this must be eliminated.

A variety of motorized opportunities was evaluated in 

the DEIS and FEIS. The motorized portion of 

Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob was 

analyzed to be open in Alternatives B, C and E and 

removed from motorized consideration under 

Alternative D.

280/4.

1509 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Alternative D - The number of motorized-mixed 

trails and trails must be reduced if this Alternative 

is considered. Although it has fewer total number 

of miles for motorized routes compared to 

Alternative E, more of them are on trails, which 

have more impact on habitat than an existing 

road. It appears it does not actually allow 

motorized use of the Centennial Trail, but there 

are lots of trails in the area of the Centennial 

Trail, especially in the areas from Dalton Lake to 

Nemo and northwest of Pactola to Pactola. These 

trails must be eliminated because the Centennial 

Trail needs buffer zones.

All trails were eliminated in Alternative E. Varying 

numbers of trails were evaluated in all other Alternatives 

to meet the purpose of providing a motorized trail 

system for the public. Thank you for your comment on 

the Centennial Trail.

280/6.

1510 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I strongly oppose the “Trails Open to 

Motorcycles Only” in two areas: 1. Motorcycle 

trail labeled CZ-4885 (the trail lays in and near the 

Experimental Forest) for Alternatives B, C, and 

D, and 2. Motorcycle trail labeled CZ-4829 (the 

trail begins near Nemo and extends north 

approximately 13 miles) for Alternatives B and C. 

I oppose these trails primarily because of the 

Common to all Alternatives noise levels for OHV's is 

set at 96 decibels. Sound levels and noise was 

recognized as a concern with the alternatives, and is 

addressed in Issue 4. The alternatives generally vary as 

to how many miles of trails are located near nonNational Forest System lands. 

281/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

338

noise associated with motorcycles that causes 

fragmentation of Elk Habitat and increased 

stream sedimentation in the Box Elder Creek 

drainage. Elk are found where they are least 

disturbed. The more trails you have the less 

habitat for elk. Also I dislike the noise myself. 

Both the American Motorcycle Association and 

the USFS DEIS commented on here recognize 

the importance of the noise issue:”An increasingly 

important issue in the Black Hills and across the 

nation is the sound level associated with offhighway vehicles especially in otherwise quiet 

areas.” (USFS DEIS, p.76).

1511 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I live near these trails [CZ-4885, CZ-4829] and 

have recreated in the area affected by the 

proposed “Trails Open to Motorcycles Only” 

routes described above. I have first-hand 

experience with the noise motorcycles and OHVs 

make on the road on which I live (Nemo Road), 

and the inability of government authorities to 

monitor and enforce noise standards let alone 

speeding, unlicensed vehicles and underage 

unlicensed drivers on public roads. The proposed 

route CZ-4885 comes within a mile of my family‟s 

property, and a combination of “Seasonal Roads 

Open to Highway Legal Only Vehicles” and 

“Roads Open to All Vehicles” could easily bring 

the motorcycles to our property. Enforcement is 

hard to visualize in this area. They can‟t even do it 

on the paved Nemo Road. The fewer trails you 

have the easier it will be to enforce the new travel 

plan. With the current budget this is something to 

be considered.

Common to all Alternatives noise levels for OHV's is 

set at 96 decibels. NM: This is beyond the scope of 

the rule. Nemo road is a state highway, a person would 

need to contact local Sheriff Dept.

281/2.

1512 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I have land and a cabin along FSR134 and ask 

that you not expand the access for any motorized 

vehicle use in this area. I have observed over the 

last 10 years that what used to be hiking trails and 

mountain bike trails are being increasingly used by 

motorized vehicles. I have observed other areas in 

the Black Hills where this has occurred over the 

Thank you for your comment. Varying numbers of 

routes for motorized traffic were analyzed in 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E. Any decision about 

selected routes will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

282/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

339

past 10 years as small ATVs have become more 

popular. Don‟t let this happen in the Tinton Road 

area. The heavy traffic in the summer to Iron 

Creek Lake is bad enough; we don‟t need more 

vehicles of any type.

1513 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Merrill Allotment: Please keep the 3 or 4 roads 

(trails) that are shown as existing on the old 

Forest Service maps. There is only one public 

access to this allotment and that road goes only 

about 1/2 mile. The other roads (trails) originate 

on private land and need to be left as is. On all of 

your proposed plans, there are no trails or roads 

shown.

Access into and out of this allotment will remain as is. 

Access for permitted administration of this allotment 

will also remain unchanged. 

307/1.

1514 Route 

Specific 

Comment

As a resident of Silver City, I have seen a large 

increase in motorcycle and ATV traffic through 

town. The concentration of motorized travel 

around this area is not welcome. Close road 

141.2B. The motorcyclists are using it to get to 

their trails. To get to 141.2B they go through 

Silver City Road in from of my house. They create 

dust which depending on the winds comes 

through my windows or ends up in the creek. 

There is no need to open 141.2B other than to 

access the private property up there.

FSR 141.2B does not connect to other routes in 

Alternatives D and E.

308/1.

1515 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Close road 675.1 (Middle Nugget). It was closed 

years ago because of problems with the running 

stream. It was debated and analyzed and finally 

closed. Why are you thinking about opening it up 

again along with a bunch more trails on both 

sides of it? Please leave it closed.

Alternative E includes FSR 675.1 as a seasonally closed 

route. This is a mapping error, as this route is currently 

closed yearlong, and would continue as such in a 

corrected Alternative E. 

308/2.

1516 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I have noticed on the plan map that square 30 off 

Tinton Road in the Northern Black Hills needs to 

connect 626.1 to 134.213 to complete the trail.

This access in on other jurisdiction lands and outside 

the scope of this document.

309/1.

1517 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The section around Stageyard trailhead should be 

applied to alt [Alternative] C. Area that [includes] 

Rochford, Mystic, [and] Bloody Gulch, [under] [ 

Alternative] B should go to [Alternative] C and 

keep ATV trails.

The routes were analyzed in both Alternative B, C and 

D. Routes were changed in Alternative C and D 

because an concern raised was to have more looped 

trails and less dead end routes. The dead end routes 

were eliminated to address this.

309/2.

1518 Route 

Specific 

Looking for ditch permission on square #21, 

206.1 to 219.1.

FSR 206 passes through private property in section 21. 

Granting permission to use the ditch is outside the 

309/3.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

340

Comment scope of this document.

1519 Route 

Specific 

Comment

My name is Keith Grimm, owner of Wild Bill‟s 

Campground located on Highway 385 and Galena 

Road. I feel a trail system for ATVs and off road 

vehicles is a step in the right direction. My 

concern is our campground patrons will not have 

direct access to the proposed trail. In the 

immediate proximity there are five campgrounds; 

Fish and Fry, Hidden Valley, Creekside, Steel 

Wheel and Wild Bills Campground; one ATV

rental; Mad Mountain, a complete gas and 

convenience store; Steel Wheel. This trail system 

will significantly impact our businesses. I would 

appreciate if you would consider including a trail 

from our campground to the suggested ATV trail 

system. In your proposed trail system we are not 

included; I ask you to reconsider and add our 

location to connect with the trail.

This area is on private and other jurisdiction lands and 

outside the scope of this EIS.

310/1.

1520 Route 

Specific 

Comment

This map is from 1970 F.S. [see ATT 1]. 807 Rd 

was Forest Service road from 180, the county 

maintained this to the end of pavement only. 

After the private group bought Homestake land, 

Moskee Road was shut down as an entrance to 

S.D. and at the same time all access on 807 or 

Grand Canyon Road was shut down. These are 

marked in red ax's [ATT 1]. This made it very 

easy for this group to have extra land to use for 

hunters that pay stupid prices and limit public 

hunting and fishing and camping areas that are off 

the main road. Smith Draw off 805 “circled” was 

also shut. This was a camping area that hunters 

used that was well off main roads. Now everyone 

has to camp on the main roads ditches. As for 

me, I hunt on foot. The old 4-W is for dragging 

out my game I may get, so plan [Alternative] A 

would have better retrieval in the summer when 

people from Gillette come over with their kids. 

The kids are the ones that tear the hell out of 

everything.

Road 807 was a county road from I-90 to State line. 

County advertised in the local paper for potential 

abandonment of the portion of road through the private 

land. No public opposition was made for abandonment 

of the road. Alternative C of the DEIS and FEIS 

provided additional motorized access to the Smith Draw 

area that would also included opportunities for 

dispersed camping. 

312/1.

1521 Route I would like FS Road 838 opened through the Neither roads 838 or 832 has public easement through 313/2.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

341

Specific 

Comment

private land as it did 30-50 years ago. It gives 

good access to hunting also FS Road 832 stops at 

private land and does not go through to 

Bearlodge campground.

private property. Until public easement can be obtained 

, these roads would not be listed as open to public travel 

on any map.

1522 Route 

Specific 

Comment

If you want to have a complete trail system the 

trails need to connect where possible. Dead-ends 

should be and can be avoided. This will enhance 

the experience. There are so many good trails that 

are missing from the plan that it would be 

impossible to identify all of them herein. 

However, as specific examples I would suggest 

adding the existing trails that connect FS 685.1C 

to FS 308.1C; FS 685 to FS 308.1F; FS 309 to FS 

314.1C; FS 309 to FS 314.1C; FS 314.1E to 

308.1B for starters. I would respectfully suggest 

that FS personnel actually ride some of the many 

trails and make an effort to add connections 

between the trails as to eliminate some of the 

dead-ends. I would be happy to show your people

specific trails.

Thank you for your interest in this project. Many of the

examples you suggest adding have been reviewed and 

some of these will be considered by the Decision Maker 

at the time of Decision. It is possible that in the future 

as the need arises, additional trails may be proposed and 

analyzed in a separate environmental analysis and 

decision. 

314/5.

1523 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Regarding DEIS Alternative B & C Feb/2009 

Maps 2 or 3: On both maps you show a 

Trailhead at the entrance of F.S. 204.2 In the past 

people have used this area to leave their trucks 

and trailer as they are out on their ATV, 

motorcycles or whatever. They have absolutely no 

consideration for the people who live at the end 

of F.S. 204.2A. Every summer weekend we are 

picking up beer and pop cans, toilet paper and 

trash of all kinds that‟s left behind. They have 

gone so far as to park at the entrance of my 

driveway preventing my family from entering our 

home! The location you are proposing for this 

Trailhead is at the top my driveway. I do not want 

to have a Trailhead in my backyard. Please 

eliminate.

Your comment will be considered. The proposed 

trailhead on FSR 204.2 was removed in Alternatives C 

and E. Any decision on trailhead locations will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

316/1.

1524 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Regarding DEIS Alternative B & C Feb/2009 

Maps 2 or 3: You show a motorcycle only trail 

running parallel with FS 204.2. This trail was only 

created 3 - 4 years ago by a bunch of ATV riders 

The proposed motorcycle near 204.2 was analyzed in 

Alternatives B, C and D and removed in Alternatives E. 

Any decision on trail locations will be documented in 

the Record of Decision.

316/2.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

342

from Minnesota. They were approaching our 

home and decided it not best to come down any 

further so they cut through the trees. Two times a 

year this same bunch comes and uses this trail. It 

would be difficult for a person to even find the 

head of this trail (where 204.2 and 204.2A meet) 

since it is only used by a few who know of it. I do 

not feel there is a need for a motorcycle only trail 

at this location.

1525 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Regarding DEIS Alternative B & C Feb/2009 

Maps 2 or 3: Motorcycle only trail [parallel with 

204.2]: You show it crossing HWY 385 (going to 

the East) and running the ditch a short distance 

until crossing into what you label as Experimental 

Forest. Have you contacted the Department of 

Transportation regarding the use of this ditch? I 

am currently working with the DOT to make it 

unlawful to use this ditch for ATVs and/or 

motorcycles. I am asking it be a fine punishable 

up to $500.00 for any ditch damage. Not only is 

this an eyesore but it is an extremely dangerous 

place to cross. Vehicles heading South on HWY 

385 are going 55 MPH. They come to a top of a 

hill (F.S. 204.2 entrance) and all of a sudden you 

have ATVs and motorcycles crossing.

The proposed motorcycle near 204.2 was analyzed in 

Alternatives B, C and D and removed in Alternatives E. 

For any route selected the FS will work with other 

government agencies to make crossing along any high 

speed road engineered in a safe manner. Your comment 

will be considered and any decision on trail locations 

will be documented in the Record of Decision.

316/3.

1526 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Regarding DEIS Alternative B & C Feb/2009 

Maps 2 or 3: You show a trail coming from FS 

616.2A, listed in what should be Experimental 

Forest, and tying into FS 664.1A. 95% of the time 

the Forest Service has the gate closed for any 

vehicle access to 664.1A. If a person were to get 

onto 616.2A and travel it as shown and approach 

the exit at 664.1A and find the gate closed, what 

should they do? Are they to turn back and exit the 

way they came in? Yes they should but will they? 

No. They have created a trail that goes around the 

gate! FS 616.2A dead ends and should remain that 

way. Please do not allow this to connect with 

664.1A.

The proposed ATV near 616.2A was analyzed in 

Alternatives B, C and D and removed in Alternatives E. 

The gate you speak of is currently a seasonal closure and 

would be opened during the time OHVs were allowed 

to use the trail. Your comment will be considered and 

any decision on trail locations will be documented in the 

Record of Decision.

316/5.

1527 Route This road or trail [CZ-4885] is carried over from The proposed motorcycle CZ-4885 was analyzed in 317/3.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

343

Specific 

Comment

the original Travel Management Proposed Action 

Plan and is a year-round, motorcycle-only trail. 

My client [Boyd Vincent] objects to this trail for a 

variety of reasons. This trail is in very close 

proximity to the northern edge of my client‟s 

private property. Given the relatively small 

amount of “motorcycle-only” designated trails 

under any of the Alternatives, it is natural to 

assume that motorcycle traffic will be greatly 

concentrated in the allowed areas.

Alternatives B, C and D and removed in Alternatives E.

1528 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The section of CZ-4885 which is closest in 

proximity to my client‟s [Boyd Vincent] private 

property [HES 624, section 25-36-3-4 and 

sections 30 and 31-3-5] contains an almost 

perpetual bog and the attendant risk of resource 

damage. My client recently visited [the] site and 

took the attached photographs [ATT 26, 27, 28, 

29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36]. The fence lines 

reflected in the photographs mark the boundary 

between my client‟s property and the National 

Forest. As is dramatically shown, there are at least 

two locations along this proposed trail, both of 

which are directly adjacent to my client‟s property, 

which have both running and standing water 

across and along the trail itself. There is

very little evidence this location is being actively 

used by motorcycles or other off road vehicles. 

Yet, resource damage at the present (limited) level 

of activity is substantial. One can only imagine the 

destruction and damage which would attend the 

increased activity brought about by the proposed 

designation (as well as the proposed new trailhead 

in the near vicinity of my client‟s property). My 

client can attest that these areas remain wet, 

regardless of the moisture of any particular year. 

The water in both denoted locations has taken on 

the characteristics of a “stream” and appears to be 

running generally in an easterly direction feeding 

the sensitive areas between my client‟s property 

and Nemo.

The proposed motorcycle CZ-4885 was analyzed in 

Alternatives B, C and D and removed in Alternatives E. 

Soils hydrology was analyzed in pages 100-131. If this 

route is selected mitigation measures will be taken to 

protect soil resources as appropriate. Your comment 

will be considered and any decision on trail locations 

will be documented in the Record of Decision.

317/4.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

344

1529 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The photographs [ATT 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 

33, 34, 35, and 36] reflect that these water sources 

[on and nearby CZ-4885] are being used as a 

guzzler by elk, deer and other wildlife. The 

disturbed areas shown in the photographs reflect 

a high level of wildlife activity. I would hope that 

you would agree that a high level of motorcycle 

only traffic in and around this location would be 

most detrimental to wildlife in the area.

The proposed motorcycle CZ-4885 was analyzed in 

Alternatives B, C and D and removed in Alternatives E. 

Wildlife were analyzed in pages 143-229. Your 

comment will be considered and any decision on trail 

locations will be documented in the Record of Decision.

317/5.

1530 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The section of my client‟s [Boyd Vincent] private 

property [HES 624, section 2536-3-4 and sections 

30 and 31-3-5] closest to this trail [CZ-4885] is 

highly unique and capable of development. The 

views and surroundings would make this an ideal 

location for an additional permanent structure. 

My client has long considered this option but 

believes the close proximity of a year-round 

motorcycle-only trail will frustrate these plans. 

The proposed motorcycle trail is literally adjacent 

to my client‟s private property to the north (as 

shown by the attached photographs [ATT 26, 27, 

28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36]), thus being 

inconsistent with the Forest Service‟s original goal 

of an at least 300-foot buffer between private 

property and Forest Service-designated roads or 

trails.

The proposed motorcycle CZ-4885 was analyzed in 

Alternatives B, C and D and removed in Alternative E. 

Your comment will be considered and any decision on 

trail locations will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

317/6.

1531 Route 

Specific 

Comment

CZ-4885 in the areas adjacent to my client‟s 

[Boyd Vincent] property [HES 624, section 25-

36-3-4 and sections 30 and 31-3-5] has been 

designated by The Norbeck Society as “Special” 

as pertains to wildlife and botanical interests. 

Motorcycles are widely known to be the fastest 

moving, noisiest, and ultimately most destructive 

form of off-road travel, and my client believes it is 

inconsistent with the Norbeck Society‟s Special 

Designation.

Thank you for your comment. The proposed 

motorcycle CZ-4885 was analyzed in Alternatives B, C 

and D and removed in Alternatives E. Your comment 

will be considered and any decision on trail locations 

will be documented in the Record of Decision.

317/7.

1532 Route 

Specific 

Comment

As reflected in the attached maps, [ATT 3, 4, 5, 9, 

10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 

and 25] this is denoted as an all-vehicle road 

which in its entirety runs directly adjacent to the 

FSR 741.1A is an existing Forest Service road currently 

open to all vehicles. It was analyzed in all alternatives to 

remain as such. The allegation of trespass of this road 

on private property is apparently a long standing issue 

317/8.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

345

east side of my client‟s [Boyd Vincent] private 

property [HES 624, section 25-36-3-4 and 

sections 30 and 31-3-5]. In fact, Road 741-1A 

actually encroaches upon the Vincent private 

property. Proof of this encroachment can be 

provided upon request. For this reason alone, this 

read needs to be eliminated for consideration as 

part of any final Travel Management Plan. This is 

true regardless of any particular permitted vehicle 

designation. Allowing 741.1A to remain as part of 

any of the Travel Management Plans would foster 

a trespass upon my client‟s private property. 

Whatever other considerations exist, this fact 

alone must trump all others. Even when not 

encroaching on my client‟s private property, the 

road is in very close proximity to the property line 

and thus inconsistent with the “buffer zone” goal 

as originally expressed by the Forest Service.

that may require an engineering survey to resolve with 

the Northern Hills Ranger District. 

1533 Route 

Specific 

Comment

This road [741.1A] is in close proximity to the 

wildlife watering area, or “guzzler”, located on my 

client‟s private property.

FSR 741.1A is a currently open existing forest service 

road open to all vehicles. It was analyzed in all 

Alternatives to remain as such. Structures on private 

property were not analyzed by this EIS as it is outside 

the scope of this project.

317/9.

1534 Route 

Specific 

Comment

A close inspection of this road [740.1A] reveals 

that it [is] nearly impassable due to the rocky 

terrain.

FSR 740.1A is a currently open existing forest service 

road open to all vehicles. It was analyzed in all 

Alternatives to remain as such.

317/10.

1535 Route 

Specific 

Comment

It [740.1A] is denoted as all-vehicle accessible, i.e., 

the highest possible use category. Considering 

that Road 740.1A should be closed as 

encroaching upon my client‟s [Boyd Vincent] 

private property [HES 624, section 25-36-3-4 and 

sections 30 and 31-3-5], Road 740.1A would be a 

dead end road and thus inconsistent with the goal 

of establishing “loops” for off-road travel. The 

presence of a dead end road or trail in close 

proximity to my client‟s property naturally gives 

rise to concerns over unauthorized access to the 

forest and even unauthorized trespass upon my 

client‟s private property. Even without reference 

to Road 741.1A, 740.1A is a dead end road for 

FSR 740.1A is a currently open existing forest service 

road open to all vehicles. It was analyzed in all 

Alternatives to remain as such. All motorized traffic will 

be expected to remain on the designated routes. Any 

decision about selected routes will be documented in the 

Record of Decision.

317/11.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

346

vehicles as it runs directly into the proposed 

motorcycles-only trail, CZ-4885.

1536 Route 

Specific 

Comment

My client [Boyd Vincent] objects to this allvehicle road [730.1] in that it is a dead end road 

which terminates in very close proximity to the 

north and west portions of my client‟s private 

property [HES 624, section 25-36-3-4 and 

sections 30 and 31-3-5]. The dead end nature of 

this road makes it limited in terms of recreation, 

doubles the number of contacts in the proximity 

of my client‟s private property, and creates the 

risk of users failing to abide by the road 

designations.

FSR 730.1 is a currently open existing forest service 

road open to all vehicles. It was analyzed in all 

Alternatives to remain as such. All motorized traffic will 

be expected to remain on the designated routes. Any 

decision about selected routes will be documented in the 

Record of Decision.

317/13.

1537 Route 

Specific 

Comment

This small section of all-vehicle road [730.1D] is 

in very close proximity to the northern end of my 

client‟s private property [HES 624, section 25-36-

3-4 and sections 30 and 31-3-5] and is a dead end 

in that it terminates on the proposed motorcycleonly trail, CZ-4885.

FSR 730.1D is a currently open existing forest service 

road open to all vehicles. It was analyzed in all 

Alternatives to remain as such. All motorized traffic will 

be expected to remain on the designated routes. Any 

decision about selected routes will be documented in the 

Record of Decision.

317/14.

1538 Route 

Specific 

Comment

My client [Boyd Vincent] objects to this road [U130097], designated as being for 50-inch vehicles 

or less, due to its very close proximity to the 

north and west sections of my client‟s private 

property [HES 624, section 25-36-3-4 and 

sections 30 and 31-3-5]. A piece of this road or 

trail actually appears to terminate directly onto my 

client‟s property.

U130097 was analyzed as a trail less then 50" in 

Alternatives B, C, and D and removed in Alternative E. 

Any decision about selected routes will be documented 

in the Record of Decision.

317/15.

1539 Route 

Specific 

Comment

My client [Boyd Vincent] objects to this road 

[741.1B], designated as open to all vehicles, given 

its very close proximity to my client‟s private 

property [HES 624, section 25-36-3-4 and 

sections 30 and 31-3-5]. Upon physical 

inspection, this road also “dead ends” as a 

practical matter because of a bog created by 

ground water.

FSR 741.1B is a currently open existing forest service 

road open to all vehicles. It was analyzed in all 

Alternatives to remain as such. 

317/16.

1540 Route 

Specific 

Comment

[From ATT 37] Attachment 2 [ATT 2] vividly 

demonstrates the disproportionate burden my 

client‟s [Boyd Vincent] property [HES 624, 

section 25-36-3-4 and sections 30 and 31-3-5] 

(and those surrounding) is to bear with respect to 

All system roads surrounding Mr. Vincent's property 

currently exist and are open to motorized traffic and 

were analyzed to remain as such in all Alternatives. 

Once the decision is made vehicles will not be allowed 

to travel off roads or designated trails. The existing 

317/21.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

347

yearlong off road vehicle travel. This is 

particularly true when compared to the vast tracts 

of land to the north of my client‟s property where 

virtually all roads and trails are to be closed.

system roads north of Mr. Vincent's property were also 

analyzed in the same manner.

1541 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The Pilot Knob - Nemo section of the Centennial 

Trail and the area around Dalton Lake have been 

significantly degraded by OHV incursions that 

have resulted in a significant amount of resource 

damage. These areas were historically designated 

as being areas of non-motorized recreation. 

However, in the DEIS, these areas, and the 

Centennial Trail from Pilot Knob to Pactola, have 

been re-designated as motorized recreation areas. 

BCA [Biodiversity Conservation Alliance] views 

this re-designation of traditionally non-motorized 

trails as dominating multiple uses of the forest. 

The following two photos [ATT 2 and 3] are 

examples of the currently designated motorized 

trails on the Pilot Knob - Nemo section of the 

Centennial Trail. [These photos] [ATT 2 and 3] 

reflect the heavy damage that has been caused in 

the past and still exists today. In order to redress 

the domination of multiple uses of the forest by 

the OHV community, the Norbeck Society 

requests that the USFS re-designate all sections 

and trailheads of the Centennial Trail as nonmotorized, place priority on rehabilitation of 

“user-created” trails within a 1-mile buffer of 

Dalton Lake.

The Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob is 

currently open to motorized traffic. It was analyzed to 

be open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed from 

Alternative D. Any decision about selected routes will 

be documented in the Record of Decision. A 

portion of the Centennial Trail (FSR 613) was 

inadvertently included as a motorized route in 

Alternatives C and E, but was omitted from Alternative 

D. FSR 613, 746, 746.1B, 1D, and 1F in the area of 

Deer Creek Trailhead were inadvertently included in 

Alternatives B and C as motorized routes, but were 

removed from Alternative D. Your comment has been 

evaluated and will be considered in the Record of 

Decision. 

319/56.

1542 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Areas with high riparian risk:- Big Hill - Road 

626- Spearfish Canyon - location 5N 2E. It is 

requested that the Forest Service withdraw any 

motorized routes in these areas [from Alternative 

D] to protect sensitive natural resources.

FSR 626 is an existing seasonally open system road for 

motorized traffic. It was analyzed as such in all 

Alternatives.

319/87.

1543 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Roads in conflict with Botanical Management 

Areas:- Higgins Gulch - location 6N 1E- Upper 

Sand Creek - 51N 60W- Northwest of Custer 

Peak - Roads 228 and 205. It is requested that the 

Forest Service withdraw any motorized routes in 

these areas [from Alternative D] to protect 

Roads within the botanical area designated as Upper 

Sand Creek are closed to public motorized use from all 

Alternatives in the DEIS and FEIS. Administrative 

motorized activities may be authorized by district 

ranger. No routes were proposed in the Higgins Gulch 

and Englewood botanical areas other then the existing 

319/88.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

348

sensitive natural resources. currently open system roads in any Alternative. Any 

decision about selected routes will be documented in the 

Record of Decision.

1544 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Roads in conflict with Montane Grassland -

Cement Ridge - 50N 60W- West of Black Buttes -

Roads 878, 872, and 1A- Hardy - Roads 107, 108, 

183- Ditch Creek - location 1S 2E. It is requested 

that the Forest Service withdraw any motorized 

routes in these areas [from Alternative D] to 

protect sensitive natural resources.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS proposed 

motorized routes on FS 805.1 because it is a historical 

access route to the Cement Ridge fire tower. FS 878, 

872, and 872.1A are not associated with known 

montane grasslands. Motorized routes in montane 

grassland in the Ditch Creek area and FSR 107 and 180 

are existing system roads in Alternatives D and E.

319/89.

1545 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Roads in conflict with Weed Infested Areas:-

West of Hardy - Roads 107, 108- South West 

Jewel Cave - Roads 1A, 1B- North of Clayton 

Quarry - Roads 209, 210, and 232. It is requested 

that the Forest Service withdraw any motorized 

routes in these areas [from Alternative D] to 

protect sensitive natural resources.

Motorized routes in the FSR 107, 108, 209, 210 and 232 

are existing system roads in all Alternatives with no 

changes proposed in any alternative. Management of 

weed infestations will not change under any of the 

alternatives.

319/90.

1546 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Roads prohibited within Management Areas:-

Between Dugout Gulch and Crow Peak - 6N 1ESouth of Crook Mountain - Roads 1D, 542. It is 

requested that the Forest Service withdraw any 

motorized routes in these areas [from Alternative 

D] to protect sensitive natural resources. Secondly 

it also appears that no consideration was given to 

existing non-motorized areas.

The DEIS and FEIS under Alternative D eliminated all 

opportunities for motorized access for Dugout Gulch, 

except for administrative purposes. There are currently 

five seasonally open existing roads from Crow Peak to 

Dugout gulch areas. They were analyzed in all 

Alternatives to remain as such. No additional routes 

were proposed in existing non-motorized management 

areas. FSR 542.1D in Crook Mountain area is also a 

seasonally open existing road that was analyzed in all 

Alternatives. It is in a management area that allows 

motorized traffic. 

319/91.

1547 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Red Lake Area - This area is in the Northern Hills 

approximately 10 miles south of Spearfish 

adjacent to FSR 134. The following roads are 

included in this area: 225.1, 225.1A, 225.1D, 

225.1E, 134.2S, U050002, U050006, CZ 1403, 

U060015. All of these roads are currently closed 

and provide an excellent quiet area for the nonmotorized enthusiast. With Alternatives A, B, and 

C these roads will be opened. How does opening 

these roads affect wildlife? Was this analyzed in 

the EIS? How does opening the roads affect the 

non-motorized community? Was that analyzed [in 

These closed system routes were analyzed to be opened 

in Alternatives B and C. And, they were analyzed to be 

left closed in Alternatives D and E. Effects to wildlife 

were analyzed in pages 143-229 in the draft EIS. 

Recreation was analyzed in pages 46-61 of the DEIS. 

Any decision on routes selected will be documented in 

the Record of Decision.

319/92.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

349

the] EIS? Why is no consideration given to 

existing non-motorized areas? These areas and 

roads were closed for a reason. Why were they 

closed in the first place? The EIS should give a 

reason and show effects of opening these roads 

and areas. The EIS should list every road that is 

currently closed that will be opened so that the 

public knows what is going on and what affect 

this has on all resources.

1548 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Limestone Plateau - This area is in the Northern 

Hills approximately 20 miles south of Spearfish 

adjacent to FSR 134. The following roads are 

included in this area: 733.2B, 733.2C, 733.3A, 

733.3B, 733.3C, 733.3D, U050089. This currently 

closed area will be opened with Alternatives A, B, 

and C. How does opening these roads affect 

wildlife? Was this analyzed in the EIS? How does 

opening the roads affect the non-motorized 

community? Was that analyzed [in the] EIS? Why 

is no consideration given to existing nonmotorized areas? These areas and roads were 

closed for a reason. Why were they closed in the 

first place? The EIS should give a reason and 

show effects of opening these roads and areas. 

The EIS should list every road that is currently 

closed that will be opened so that the public 

knows what is going on and what affect this has 

on all resources.

These closed system routes were analyzed to be opened 

in Alternatives B and C. And, they were analyzed to be 

left closed in Alternatives D and E. Effects to wildlife 

were analyzed in pages 143-229 in the draft EIS. 

Recreation was analyzed in pages 46-61 of the DEIS. 

Any decision on routes selected will be documented in 

the Record of Decision.

319/93.

1549 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Roads off FSR 134 - 134.2B, 134.2L, 214.1D, 

U010071, 134.3A, U010072, U010060, 134.2U, 

U710095. These roads were closed be a previous 

ranger and now they will be opened [under] 

Alternative A, B, and C. How does opening these 

roads affect wildlife? Was this analyzed in the 

EIS? How does opening the roads affect the nonmotorized community? Was that analyzed [in the] 

EIS? Why is no consideration given to existing 

non-motorized areas? These areas and roads were 

closed for a reason. Why were they closed in the 

first place? The EIS should give a reason and 

These closed system routes were analyzed to be opened 

in Alternatives B and C. And, they were analyzed to be 

left closed in Alternatives D and E. Effects to wildlife 

were analyzed in pages 143-229 in the draft EIS. 

Recreation was analyzed in pages 46-61 of the DEIS. 

Any decision on routes selected will be documented in 

the Record of Decision.

319/94.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

350

show effects of opening these roads and areas. 

The EIS should list every road that is currently 

closed that will be opened so that the public 

knows what is going on and what affect this has 

on all resources.

1550 Route 

Specific 

Comment

639.1 - In the Northern Hills, this road connects 

Higgins Gulch to Beaver Ridge. Currently closed 

to motorized use and provides a good purpose 

being closed. This road will be opened [under 

Alternatives A, B, and C] and provide access to 

the area behind Crow Peak. The roads goes 

directly through a quiet area and more than likely 

the ATV will venture off the road and the whole 

Crow Peak area will be compromised. Was any 

consideration given to not allowing ATV access 

to the non-motorized areas? Also this is a known 

elk caving area. Was any consideration given to 

wildlife in the EIS for this planned to be opened 

area? Why is no consideration given to existing 

non-motorized areas? These areas and roads were 

closed for a reason. Why were they closed in the 

first place? The EIS should give a reason and 

show effects of opening these roads and areas. 

The EIS should list every road that is currently 

closed that will be opened so that the public 

knows what is going on and what affect this has 

on all resources.

Concerns for effects of the alternatives on wildlife 

habitat are reflected in Issue 1, and concerns for 

conflicts with non-motorized recreation opportunities 

are reflected in Issue 2. The alternatives vary as to how 

they address each of these issues. FSR 639.1 was 

analyzed to stay closed in Alternatives D and E. Any 

decision on routes selected will be documented in the 

Record of Decision. Once a decision is made individual 

users will be expected to stay on the designated route. 

ATV trails were not proposed in non-motorized areas. 

Wildlife was analyzed in pages 143-229 of the DEIS.

319/95.

1551 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Area south of Hanna Campground. Roads 211.1I, 

211.1H, 211.1J, 211.1G, 209.2B all closed roads 

will be opened [under Alternatives A and B]. Was 

any consideration given for a non-motorized 

buffer around our [the forest‟s] existing nonmotorized trail system? In many cases [under 

Alternatives A, B, and C] the motorized trail 

either parallels, dead ends, or is on an existing 

hiking trail. This pretty much ruins the nonmotorized users‟ experience.

The closed routes south of Hanna Campground were 

analyzed to be opened in Alternative B and removed 

from Alternatives C, D and E. There are no system 

hiking trails near any of the routes mentioned.

319/96.

1552 Route 

Specific 

Comment

CZ1403 - This trail ends at the border of the 

Spearfish Canyon Roadless area. It makes no 

sense to expect ATV users to turn around. How 

You are correct in Alternative B, CZ 1403 travels 

through the Spearfish Canyon management area where 

no off road traffic is allowed. This was an error and it 

319/97.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

351

will you close the end of this road? Was any 

consideration given for a non-motorized buffer 

around our [the forest‟s] existing non-motorized 

trail system? In many cases [under Alternatives A, 

B, and C] the motorized trail either parallels, dead 

ends, or is on an existing hiking trail. This pretty 

much ruins the non-motorized users‟ experience.

was removed from Alternatives C, D and E. 

1553 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Will the ATV and motorcycle trails be designed to 

a Forest Service Standard? Will the current trail 

locations be reviewed by an Engineer and 

Hydrologist before they are opened? For example 

road 134.2B has a 35% grade for 300‟, road 

U010077 goes through a spring and has 3‟ deep 

ruts, and road 134.3D crosses live water of the 

headwaters of Little Spearfish Creek. These have 

been listed as examples of many more problem 

areas. Was any consideration given for a nonmotorized buffer around our [the forest‟s] 

existing non-motorized trail system? In many 

cases [under Alternatives A, B, and C] the 

motorized trail either parallels, dead ends, or is on 

an existing hiking trail. This pretty much ruins the 

non-motorized users‟ experience.

OHV routes will meet FS standards for trails. Some 

routes may be easy and some very difficult. Routes that 

traverse a steep slope will be engineered with climbing 

turns and appropriate water crossings will be built where 

necessary. Not all routes will be available to use the first 

year after the decision is made and will be opened up 

after mitigations are done.

319/98.

1554 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Dugout Gulch Botanical Trail - Located on the 

Bearlodge District in the area of Sand Creek. A 

portion of this trail - miles of the total trail length 

of - miles [distances not provided] will be 

converted into an ATV trail [under Alternatives 

A, B, and C]. This trail is in a semi-primitive nonmotorized management area, within a botanical 

area and eight years ago the Forest Service spent 

$112,000 on developing this trail for nonmotorized users. The entire trail will be affected 

because the noise of ATVs on the upper loop will 

ruin the quiet area on the lower section. Was any 

consideration given for a non-motorized buffer 

around our [the forest‟s] existing non-motorized 

trail system? In many cases [under Alternatives A, 

B, and C] the motorized trail either parallels, dead 

ends, or is on an existing hiking trail. This pretty 

Alternative A represents the existing condition for 

motorized opportunities on the Black Hills NF which 

does not include motorized opportunities on the 

Dugout Trail. The portion of Dugout trail considered 

under Alternatives B and C for motorized opportunities 

is an existing road that doubles as a trail for nonmotorized activities and motorized administrative 

activities. No funding was spent on this road for 

development of the trail. For trails that are not defined 

roads, motorized opportunities were restricted.

319/99.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

352

much ruins the non-motorized users‟ experience.

1555 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Eagle Cliff Hiking Trails - ATV trails (733.1A, 

733.1K) will go right into the middle of the Eagle 

Cliff Trail System [under Alternatives A, B, and 

C]. Noise is an issue. Some ATV users will get 

lost and start following the hiking trails. Was any 

consideration given for a non-motorized buffer 

around our [the forest‟s] existing non-motorized 

trail system? In many cases [under Alternatives A, 

B, and C] the motorized trail either parallels, dead 

ends, or is on an existing hiking trail. This pretty 

much ruins the non-motorized users‟ experience.

FSR 733.1A and & 733.1K are currently open system 

roads. They were analyzed to be left open in 

Alternatives B, C and E, and analyzed to be closed in 

Alternative D. Any decision about selected routes will 

be documented in the Record of Decision. Motorized 

traffic will be expected to stay on the open motorized 

routes. Common to all Alternatives noise level will be 

will be set at 96 decibels for OHV's. 

319/100.

1556 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Little Spearfish Trail - All Alternatives have a 

Road 734.1 which dead ends at the trail. This will 

encourage ATVs to follow the Little Spearfish 

Trail. Was any consideration given for a nonmotorized buffer around our [the forest‟s] 

existing non-motorized trail system? In many 

cases [under Alternatives A, B, and C] the 

motorized trail either parallels, dead ends, or is on 

an existing hiking trail. This pretty much ruins the 

non-motorized users‟ experience.

FSR 734.1 is a currently open system. It was analyzed to 

be left open in all Alternatives. Motorized traffic will be 

expected to stay on the open motorized routes. 

319/101.

1557 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Rimrock Trail - ATV trail U050002 goes right up 

against the Rimrock Trail. Just when you think 

you get away an ATV comes past you. Also 

encourages [ATV] use of Rimrock Trail. Was any 

consideration given for a non-motorized buff 

around our [the forest‟s] existing non-motorized 

trail system? In many cases [under Alternatives A, 

B, and C] the motorized trail either parallels, dead 

ends, or is on an existing hiking trail. This pretty 

much ruins the non-motorized users‟ experience.

U050002 was analyzed to be opened in Alternatives B 

and C and was removed from Alternatives D and E. 

Any decision about selected routes will be documented 

in the Record of Decision. Motorized traffic will be 

expected to stay on the open motorized routes. 

319/102.

1558 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Centennial Trail - Remove the motorized section 

of Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot 

Knob. This trail section is in horrible condition 

due to overuse. Most non-motorized users know 

to never go on this section of trail due to the 

heavy ATV use. Roads 137.1B, 1371C, 137.D and 

137.1E [are] currently closed roads. By opening 

them [under Alternatives A, B, and C] access is 

The Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob is

currently open to motorized traffic. It was analyzed to 

be open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed from 

Alternative D. Any decision about selected routes will 

be documented in the Record of Decision. Roads

137.1B, 137.1C and 137.1E were analyzed to be open in 

Alternatives B and C and removed from Alternatives D 

and E. 703.1C and 703.1D are currently seasonally 

319/103.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

353

provided to a secluded part of Centennial Trail. 

Roads 703.1C and 703.1D are planned to be 

opened and are within mere feet of Centennial 

Trail. Roads 224.1D and 224.1E dead end at 

Centennial Trail. By opening these roads it will be 

near impossible to keep ATVs off Centennial 

Trail. Was any consideration given for a nonmotorized buffer around our [the forest‟s] 

existing non-motorized trail system? In many 

cases [under Alternatives A, B, and C] the 

motorized trail either parallels, dead ends, or is on 

an existing hiking trail. This pretty much ruins the 

non-motorized users‟ experience.

opened roads. They were analyzed to be left open in all 

Alternatives. FSR 224.1D and 224.1E are currently 

seasonally opened system roads. They were analyzed to 

be open in Alternatives B, C and E and closed in 

Alternative D. Any decision about selected routes will 

be documented in the Record of Decision. Motorized 

traffic will be expected to stay on the open motorized 

routes. 

1559 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Deerfield Trail and Beaver Creek Trails - Many 

sections are motorized. Was any consideration 

given for a non-motorized buffer around our [the 

forest‟s] existing non-motorized trail system? In 

many cases [under Alternatives A, B, and C] the 

motorized trail either parallels, dead ends, or is on 

an existing hiking trail. This pretty much ruins the 

non-motorized users‟ experience.

Portions of the Deerfield Trail are co-located on existing 

Forest System Roads. Non-motorized trails are outside 

the scope of the DEIS analysis. 

319/104.

1560 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Tinton Trail - Although the Tinton Trail is not a 

system trail it is probably the most popular 

mountain bike trail in the Northern Hills. In fact, 

Mountain Bike Magazine picked the Tinton Trail 

as the best trail in South Dakota. No 

consideration for this trail was given whatsoever. 

ATV trails cross it and follow it in many 

locations. Was any consideration given for a nonmotorized buffer around our [the forest‟s] 

existing non-motorized trail system? In many 

cases [under Alternatives A, B, and C] the 

motorized trail either parallels, dead ends, or is on 

an existing hiking trail. This pretty much ruins the 

non-motorized users‟ experience.

In Alternative D and E many motorized routes that 

cross this non system trail were removed. This EIS deals 

with motorized travel only and therefore the request for 

designating this trail as part of the non-motorized 

system is beyond the scope of this project.

319/105.

1561 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The signers of this letter are local residents of the 

Peaceful Pines neighborhood that is northwest of 

Black Hawk, SD. Our rural residential 

neighborhood consists of approximately 30 

homes, some of which are within a few yards of 

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in 

the Record of Decision.

320/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

354

the proposed, new OHV Trailhead on Forest 

Service Road #126 (U150012, CZ1758). We have 

examined the different action Alternatives in the 

DEIS and support Alternative D.

1562 Route 

Specific 

Comment

[Alternative D] does not include the proposed, 

new OHV Trailhead on Forest Service Road 

#126 (U150012, CZ1758). An OHV Trailhead at 

this location would significantly increase the 

probability for major contamination of the 

underground Karst-based hydrological system 

that is the sole source of our community‟s water 

supply.

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in 

the Record of Decision.

320/2.

1563 Route 

Specific 

Comment

[Alternative D] does not include the proposed, 

new OHV Trailhead on Forest Service Road 

#126 (U150012, CZ1758). An OHV Trailhead at 

this location would require new, county and 

Forest Service law enforcement to minimize 

improper human activities, environmental threats, 

[and] general safety problems at this particular 

location because it is over 20 miles from a 24/7 

police or USFS office.

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in 

the Record of Decision.

320/3.

1564 Route 

Specific 

Comment

[Alternative D] does not include the proposed, 

new OHV Trailhead on Forest Service Road 

#126 (U150012, CZ1758). An OHV Trailhead at 

this location would definitely enhance the 

likelihood of human-caused fires, illegal drug 

activities, inappropriate firearm usage, diseases 

from decaying animal carcasses and their related 

damages to property, wildlife habitat and life.

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in 

the Record of Decision.

320/4.

1565 Route 

Specific 

Comment

[Alternative D] does not include the proposed, 

new OHV Trailhead on Forest Service Road 

#126 (U150012, CZ1758). An OHV Trailhead at 

this location would greatly magnify traffic from 

travelers unfamiliar with the steep, narrow two-

lane roads (Peaceful Pines and Ridgeview) that 

provide the only vehicle access to our community 

and this proposed trailhead.

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in 

the Record of Decision.

320/5.

1566 Route 

Specific 

Comment

[Alternative D] does not include the proposed, 

new OHV Trailhead on Forest Service Road 

#126 (U150012, CZ1758). An OHV Trailhead at 

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in 

the Record of Decision.

320/6.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

355

this location would result in greater noise and 

airborne pollution from the increased OHV 

usage.

1567 Route 

Specific 

Comment

[Alternative D] does not include the proposed, 

new OHV Trailhead on Forest Service Road 

#126 (U150012, CZ1758). An OHV Trailhead at 

this location would negatively impact the natural 

beauty and serenity of this portion of the Black 

Hills.

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in 

the Record of Decision.

320/7.

1568 Route 

Specific 

Comment

[Alternative D] does not include the proposed, 

new OHV Trailhead on Forest Service Road 

#126 (U150012, CZ1758). An OHV Trailhead at 

this location would be completely unnecessary 

because an established trailhead already exists a 

few miles away at Piedmont.

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in 

the Record of Decision.

320/8.

1569 Route 

Specific 

Comment

We [Peaceful Pines local residents] support the 

removal of trails 777.1C and 149.5B, as reflected 

in Alternative D. These particular trails currently 

traverse an existing, sensitive wildlife wintering 

habitat area and an important surface, subsurface 

watershed region. This watershed functions as an 

important recharge zone for the community water 

system.

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in 

the Record of Decision.

320/12.

1570 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Alternative B: Eliminate road 238.1B by 

Rochford. It dead ends on private property 

parallel to the Mickelson Trail.

FSR 238.1B is open to highway legal vehicles only in 

Alternatives D and E.

326/5.

1571 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Alternative B: Creating ATV parking at Nahant, 

Rochford, and Mystic trailheads will restrict the 

number of bicyclists that will be able to park their 

vehicles in these areas. In addition, Nahant has no 

designated parking area. Making these areas ATV 

parking may also increase the likelihood that ATV 

riders may use the Mickelson Trail, which is nonmotorized.

No OHV trailheads were proposed at Englewood, 

Nahant, Dumont or Rochford in any Alternative on the 

Northern Hills District. The Mystic trailhead was not 

included in Alternative E. 

326/6.

1572 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Alternative C: Road 237.1L, North of Mystic, 

accesses private properties of Johnson and 

Maybee, and dead ends into the Mickelson Trail, 

opening this road to ATV use may promote more 

wheeled vehicle travel on the Mickelson and these 

private properties. There is also a bridge missing 

This route is proposed as road open to all in 

Alternatives B, C. and D and as road open to highway 

legal in Alternative E. There is no route proposed 

where the bridge is out in any Alternative. 

326/7.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

356

which makes the old road impassable and would 

cause environmental damage if off-road use was 

allowed.

1573 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Alternative C: Road 143 is accessible to Mystic 

land owners who live along the Mickelson Trail. 

This road connects into the Mickelson for a brief 

period to allow homeowners access to their 

property. The Mickelson Trail from the Mystic 

Trailhead serves as a secondary access in case of 

fire. We [South Dakota Department of Game, 

Fish, and Parks] recommend this trailhead be 

taken off all Alternatives as an OHV trailhead on 

the ATV trail system because we would not be 

able to gate off the Mickelson Trail at this point. 

This area needs to be open in case of fire or other 

emergency. The Mystic Trailhead is also too small 

to park trucks and ATV trailers. It is one of the 

busiest trailheads on the Mickelson during the 

summer months. There is not enough parking for 

the current Mickelson Trail users.

The trailhead at Mystic is not included in Alternative E. 

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in 

the Record of Decision.

326/8.

1574 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Alternative C: Road 245 in the Deerfield area 

allows access to the Mickelson Trail through the 

Forest Service Trail #40. We [South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish, and Parks] 

recommend the road 245 be closed from the 

Mickelson Trail intersection points during the 

summer but open for hunting use.

FSR 245 is closed yearlong in Alternative D, and 

seasonally open to highway legal vehicles only in 

Alternative E.

326/9.

1575 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Alternative C: User created trail U250067, south 

of Hill City, could possibly be one of the routes 

to connect the Mickelson Trail with Mount 

Rushmore. Although no decision has been made 

about where this connector trail will be located, 

we [South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, 

and Parks] would recommend no OHV trails 

overlap with Mount Rushmore and Mickelson 

trails. Keeping OHV trails away from the final 

connector trail at a manageable distance would 

mitigate conflicts between the user groups.

U250067 is not included as a motorized route in 

Alternatives D or E.

326/10.

1576 Route 

Specific 

Alternative C: Trailheads on the Mickelson Trail 

are provided for hikers and cyclists in the 

These trailheads are not included in Alternative E. No 

OHV trailheads were proposed at Englewood, Nahant, 

326/11.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

357

Comment following areas: Englewood, Dumont, Rochford, 

Mystic, Redfern, The Mountain, White Elephant, 

Pringle, and Minnekata. If ATV trucks and trailers 

start parking in these areas, there will not be room 

for the Mickelson Trail users. This would impact 

the user rate of the Mickelson Trail and also has 

the potential to increase motorized traffic on the 

trail which we [South Dakota Department of 

Game, Fish, and Parks] do not want to promote.

Dumont or Rochford in any Alternative on the 

Northern Hills District. There are no changes proposed 

to any of the existing Mickelson Trailheads, and there 

are no plans to allow recreational motorized use on the 

Mickelson Trail in the Southern Hills. 

1577 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Alternative D: There are very few trails accessing 

trailheads at Englewood, Dumont, Nahant, and 

Rochford Mystic. It would seem more prudent to 

place trailheads where there are more trails. Those 

few trails that are close are connected to larger 

circuits. The use of the above trailheads will limit 

the amount of parking for bicyclists and hikers 

that use the Mickelson Trail. This would adversely 

affect the trail and its users. If these areas were to 

be used as trailheads for the ATV system it would 

create confusion in use of the Mickelson Trail. 

Even though the trail is signed, there is the 

distinct possibility that motorized vehicles will use 

these sections of trail. We [South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish, and Parks] do not 

want to promote or even hint at motorized 

vehicles on the non-motorized Mickelson Trail.

These trailheads are not included in Alternative E. No 

OHV trailheads were proposed at Englewood, Nahant, 

Dumont or Rochford in any Alternative on the 

Northern Hills District. There are no changes proposed 

to any of the existing Mickelson Trailheads, and there 

are no plans to allow recreational motorized use on the 

Mickelson Trail in the Southern Hills. 

326/12.

1578 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Alternative D: For further clarification, the 

Mickelson Trail Right-of-Way (ROW) varies in 

distance from the trail center line and is not 

consistent along the Mickelson Trail. We [South 

Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks] 

would like to reiterate the fact that any dispersed 

camping in the ROW of the Mickelson Trail is 

prohibited.

The Mickelson Trail is not Forest Service Jurisdiction 

and camping in the trail ROW is beyond the scope of 

this document. Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS 

analyzed no dispersed camping anywhere on the Black 

Hills National Forest, which includes along the 

Mickelson Trail. 

326/13.

1579 Route 

Specific 

Comment

(SDGFP [South Dakota Department of Game, 

Fish, and Parks] 2007 Issue #12). We [SDGFP] 

support 100 foot fixed limit for dispersed 

camping and parking in Alternative B with 

modifications to avoid the Mickelson Trails, 

streams, and other sensitive habitats. 

Dispersed camping is discouraged within a minimum of 

100 feet of lakes and streams per Guideline 5301. Other 

limitations to avoid dispersed camping within 100 feet 

of the Mickelson Trail and other sensitive habitats will 

be difficult to depict on the MVUM, but may appear as 

limitations described in narrative text on the MVUM. 

326/14.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

358

Inconsistency between fixed distances could be 

confusing to the forest user to distinguish 

between which use allows 100‟ versus 300‟ (game 

retrieval) in Alternative B, and lead to 

enforcement issues. (SDGFP 2007 Issue #13). 

We support motorized game retrieval areas similar 

to Alternative C, but for elk only. We do not 

support 300‟ retrieval in Alternative B for 

numerous reasons (including #4 above). To avoid 

duplicate comments, we reference and 

incorporate herein our November 12, 2007, letter 

and supporting reasons.

We share your concern regarding the potential 

confusion and enforcement challenge posed by having 

different distances allowed off-road for dispersed 

camping versus big game retrieval in Alternative B. 

Motorized retrieval of downed big game presents a 

variety of management considerations. We appreciate 

your comments and look forward to continuing our 

productive partnership in addressing this issue.

1580 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Pleasant Valley Walk-in Area: A 3 mile x 2 mile 

year-round non-motorized east of SDGFP [South 

Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks] 

properties. The South Project created this area 

but we noted on some of the Alternative, the 

South Decision and Order could be rescinded and 

would defeat the purposes of the South Analysis 

and designation. Elk use our state land and find 

refuge to the east in the FS forested landscapes. 

Elk use is annual and we have identified that elk 

come here for the Wind Cave area to calve. The

herd of about 100 head generally stays in the 

surrounding area then head back east in the late 

fall. Our conservation officer has also identified 

this area for prime archery deer. The recent 

prescribed fires will enhance native vegetation and 

a non-motorized area would assure recovery and a 

place for humans to simply enjoy the views. We 

[SDGFP] ask that all roads be closed except to 

administrative uses. Road numbers with the Hell 

Canyon South Project Maps and the proposed 

BHNF Route Map do not jive so we list all 

possible combinations: all user-created trails in 

addition to 715.3D, South 077, 316.1M, 316.1N, 

U420010, U420017, U420009, CZ-3236, 316.1H, 

315.1U, 315.1R, 315.JQ, South 076.

Thank you for your interest in this project. The 

Pleasant Valley Walk-in Area you suggest adding has 

been reviewed and will be considered by the Decision 

Maker at the time of Decision. 

326/28.

1581 Route 

Specific 

Designation of Motorized Routes to Create NonMotorized Area (Walk-in Areas): (SDGFP [South Thank you for your interest in this project. The Roger's 

Shack Fire Walk-in Area you suggest adding has been 

326/29.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

359

Comment Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks] 

2007 Issue #11). Designation of motorized routes 

by default create areas with less or no motorized 

disturbances for a myriad of forest users, as best 

illustrated in Alternative D. Seasonal closures that 

begin December 15 are too late to create walk-in 

areas for hunting seasons that begin in September 

and go through winter. Therefore, we [SDGFP] 

suggest the following area avoid motorized routes 

for the reasons and map we submitted in 2007. 

Walk-in‟s approximate closures of the following 

roads: Roger's Shack Fire Walk-in Area: Open 

views, deer and elk habitat, grasshopper sparrows, 

woodpeckers, native vegetation has responded 

well to the fire falling trees will naturally aid in 

road closures. 307, 307.1A, 307.1D, 307.1F, 

307.1C, 307.1E, 307.1G, 402, 402.1C, 402.1B, 

402.1F, 402.1D, 409, 445, 715.3J, 275, 275.1C, 

275.1D, 715.3I, 715.3E, 715.3M, 715.3L, 310.1H, 

310.1G, 310.1D, 507, 715.3E, 715.3K, 275.1A, 

275.1B, 715.3P, 715.3O, 715.3N, 409.1A, 

U350143, and 310.1E.

reviewed and will be considered by the Decision Maker 

at the time of Decision. 

1582 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Designation of Motorized Routes to Create NonMotorized Area (Walk-in Areas): (SDGFP [South 

Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks] 

2007 Issue #11). Designation of motorized routes 

by default create areas with less or no motorized 

disturbances for a myriad of forest users, as best 

illustrated in Alternative D. Seasonal closures that 

begin December 15 are too late to create walk-in 

areas for hunting seasons that begin in September 

and go through winter. Therefore, we [SDGFP] 

suggest the following area avoid motorized routes 

for the reasons and map we submitted in 2007. 

Walk-in‟s approximate closures of the following 

roads: Jasper Fire - Hell Canyon Walk-in Area: 

Views, deer and elk habitat, seasonal seeps and 

springs in canyons, mountain lion habitat, and 

canyon wren. Close 284.2K, 282.1A, 282.1F,

284.2G, 284.2F, 284.2D, 284.2A, 284.2B, 284.2A, 

Thank you for your interest in this project. The Jasper 

Fire-Hell Canyon Walk-in Area you suggest adding has 

been reviewed and will be considered by the Decision 

Maker at the time of Decision. 

326/30.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

360

284.2J, 284.2F, 284.2J, 284.2T, 681, 680.1A, 

680.1B, 680, 681, 680.1D, 284.2C.

1583 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Designation of Motorized Routes to Create NonMotorized Area (Walk-in Areas): (SDGFP [South 

Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks] 

2007 Issue #11). Designation of motorized routes 

by default create areas with less or no motorized 

disturbances for a myriad of forest users, as best 

illustrated in Alternative D. Seasonal closures that 

begin December 15 are too late to create walk-in 

areas for hunting seasons that begin in September 

and go through winter. Therefore, we [SDGFP] 

suggest the following area avoid motorized routes 

for the reasons and map we submitted in 2007. 

Walk-in‟s approximate closures of the following 

roads: Park Complex and French Creek Walk-in 

Areas: Along the boundaries of Custer State Park, 

Norbeck Wildlife Preserve and Wind Cave 

National Park: Protection of buffer to state and 

Federal parks, Norbeck Wildlife Preserve, Meeker 

Creek. Wildlife are more likely to move freely 

across boundaries if not disturbed by roads and 

vehicles. Meeker Creek purchases by RMEF 

[Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation] and conveyed 

to BHNF in part to retain the solitude and 

habitats adjacent to Norbeck. Close 373.1B, 435, 

340, 337.1D, 342.1Q (and adjacent southern spur 

too short to see number on BHNF map), 339.1B, 

343.1J, 343.1F, 345.1A, 349.1A, 349.1D, 349.1E.

Thank you for your interest in this project. The Park 

Complex and French Creek Walk-in Area you suggest 

adding has been reviewed and will be considered by the 

Decision Maker at the time of Decision. 

326/31.

1584 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Designation of Motorized Routes to Create NonMotorized Area (Walk-in Areas): (SDGFP [South 

Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks] 

2007 Issue #11). Designation of motorized routes 

by default create areas with less or no motorized 

disturbances for a myriad of forest users, as best 

illustrated in Alternative D. Seasonal closures that 

begin December 15 are too late to create walk-in 

areas for hunting seasons that begin in September 

and go through winter. Therefore, we [SDGFP] 

suggest the following area avoid motorized routes 

Thank you for your interest in this project. The Roger's 

Shack Spring Walk-in Area you suggest adding has been 

reviewed and will be considered by the Decision Maker

at the time of Decision. 

326/32.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

361

for the reasons and map we submitted in 2007. 

Walk-in‟s approximate closures of the following 

roads: Roger‟s Shack Spring Walk-in Area: [Close] 

272.2I, 272.2H, 272.2D, 272.2C, 272.2E, 272.2F, 

276.1T, 276.1D, U410011, CZ-3942, 276.1F, 

272.2B.

1585 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Designation of Motorized Routes to Create NonMotorized Area (Walk-in Areas): (SDGFP [South 

Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks] 

2007 Issue #11). Designation of motorized routes 

by default create areas with less or no motorized 

disturbances for a myriad of forest users, as best 

illustrated in Alternative D. Seasonal closures that 

begin December 15 are too late to create walk-in 

areas for hunting seasons that begin in September 

and go through winter. Therefore, we [SDGFP] 

suggest the following area avoid motorized routes 

for the reasons and map we submitted in 2007. 

Walk-in‟s approximate closures of the following 

roads: McVey Burn - Silver City Walk-in Area: 

One of the most traditional sought-after areas for 

big game hunting. [Close] U190001, 142.1B, 142, 

436, 251.1G, 249.3A, 249.2H, 249.2G, 606 (or 

909?).

FSR 606 is open seasonally in Alternatives C, D, and E 

as it provides access to the Deerfield Trail at Flannigan's 

Cabin. Comment has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

326/33.

1586 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Designation of Motorized Routes to Create NonMotorized Area (Walk-in Areas): (SDGFP [South 

Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks] 

2007 Issue #11). Designation of motorized routes 

by default create areas with less or no motorized 

disturbances for a myriad of forest users, as best 

illustrated in Alternative D. Seasonal closures that 

begin December 15 are too late to create walk-in 

areas for hunting seasons that begin in September 

and go through winter. Therefore, we [SDGFP] 

suggest the following area avoid motorized routes 

for the reasons and map we submitted in 2007. 

Walk-in‟s approximate closures of the following 

roads: Silver Mountain Walk-in Area: Hiking 

through mixed conifers and hardwoods, big game 

area. [Close] U260047, 358.1B DE, 674.

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in 

the Record of Decision.

326/34.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

362

1587 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Designation of Motorized Routes to Create NonMotorized Area (Walk-in Areas): (SDGFP [South 

Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks] 

2007 Issue #11). Designation of motorized routes 

by default create areas with less or no motorized 

disturbances for a myriad of forest users, as best 

illustrated in Alternative D. Seasonal closures that 

begin December 15 are too late to create walk-in 

areas for hunting seasons that begin in September 

and go through winter. Therefore, we [SDGFP] 

suggest the following area avoid motorized routes 

for the reasons and map we submitted in 2007. 

Walk-in‟s approximate closures of the following 

roads: Horse Creek Walk-in Area: [Close] 257.1A, 

257, 257.1B, 257.1C, 710, 710.1A, U190099.

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in 

the Record of Decision.

326/35.

1588 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Designation of Motorized Routes to Create NonMotorized Area (Walk-in Areas): (SDGFP [South 

Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks] 

2007 Issue #11). Designation of motorized routes 

by default create areas with less or no motorized 

disturbances for a myriad of forest users, as best 

illustrated in Alternative D. Seasonal closures that 

begin December 15 are too late to create walk-in 

areas for hunting seasons that begin in September 

and go through winter. Therefore, we [SDGFP] 

suggest the following area avoid motorized routes 

for the reasons and map we submitted in 2007. 

Walk-in‟s approximate closures of the following 

roads: Swede Gulch Walk-in Area: [Close] 231.4B, 

234.1, un-numbered spur in Sec. 33 off 206.1, 

206.1G, 206.1D, 206.1E.

FSR 231.4B accesses recreation cabins that are under 

special use permit. This road was analyzed to remain 

open in all Alternatives to provide access. FSR234.1 

and 231.5J (referred to as unnumbered spur) are open 

system roads that are not within the Swede Gulch nonmotorized area. It was analyzed to remain open in 

Alternatives B, C and E and was removed from Alt D. 

FSRs 206.1G, 206.1D and 206.1E are open system 

roads that were analyzed in all Alternatives to remain 

open. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. 

326/36.

1589 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Designation of Motorized Routes to Create NonMotorized Area (Walk-in Areas): (SDGFP [South 

Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks] 

2007 Issue #11). Designation of motorized routes 

by default create areas with less or no motorized 

disturbances for a myriad of forest users, as best 

illustrated in Alternative D. Seasonal closures that 

begin December 15 are too late to create walk-in 

areas for hunting seasons that begin in September 

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in 

the Record of Decision. 

326/37.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

363

and go through winter. Therefore, we [SDGFP] 

suggest the following area avoid motorized routes 

for the reasons and map we submitted in 2007. 

Walk-in‟s approximate closures of the following

roads: Black Fox Botanical Walk-in Area: [Close] 

233.3A, 190.1R, 125, 125.1D, 191.1B, 190.1J.

1590 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Besant Park Walk-in Area: Closure of U100073, 

209.3B. RMEP [Rocky Mountain Elk 

Foundation] Purchase (in part) and conveyed to 

BHNF for elk and riparian habitats. We [South 

Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks] 

highly object to designating an ATV trail 

immediately adjacent to and surrounding this area 

for big game since that defeats the purpose of the 

conveyance and BHNF should already be on 

board with managing the surrounding area to 

meet the objectives of Besant Park. Proposed trail 

in forested site will disturb big game moving from 

meadows into security cover of forest. Custer 

Crossing (Gonzales) Walk-in Area: Currently no 

roads proposed in area or new trails around it and 

we ask it stay that way for the same reasons as 

other RMEF purchased lands.

FSR 209.3B and U100073 were analyzed in Alternative 

B to be open and were removed from Alternatives C, D 

and E. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

326/38.

1591 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Beaver Park Inventoried Roadless Area: We 

[South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and 

Parks] object to a user created or citizen route 

U080156 proposed through MA [Management 

Area] 4.1 Limited Motorized Use and adjacent to 

and possibly encompassing MA 3.32 Backcountry 

Non-Motorized Recreation (and Inventoried 

Roadless Area Beaver Park). Illegal user-created 

routes through drainages should not become a 

system trail or road by rewarding the public that 

created these inappropriate routes. These two 

MAs are a very small percent of the Forest and 

should be managed to retain the characteristics 

and desired conditions in which they were 

classified.

U080156 was analyzed in Alternatives B and C and 

removed from Alternatives D and E. This route is in 

management area 4.1 and not within management area 

3.32. This route was not illegally created as it used to be 

a FS system route as indicated on old FS maps from the 

60's, 70's and 80's. Any decision about selected routes 

will be documented in the Record of Decision. 

326/39.

1592 Route 

Specific 

This letter is to request that road 150/1E remain 

open in the new travel management plan draft, 

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

328/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

364

Comment and if possible, for the seasonal closure from 

December 15 to May 15th be lifted to allow 

access in the warm spring months. 150/1E is the 

only public access point to Victoria Canyon which 

is one of the most beautiful canyons in the Black 

Hills which houses opportunity for hiking, 

kayaking, and some of the most high quality rock 

climbing offered in the country. Other than 

150/1E, Victoria Canyon is landlocked by private 

property, and to lose feasible access to this 

amazing resource would truly be a tragedy.

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a userrequested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

1593 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Black Hills National Forest Travel Information 

map (South Dakota Area, Expires December 31, 

2007 or if Rescinded) shows an access into the 

Hop Creek/Swede Gulch/Tilson [Springs] area 

from road 231.3 on a short road segment 

identified on the map as 235.1. This route cannot 

be accessed without first crossing a private 

property home site, does not appear on Black 

Hills National Forest Maps (i.e. 2001), and was 

verbally identified by prior Northern Hills Ranger 

District administration as being unnecessary to 

Forest Service needs. We request road segment 

235.1 not be a part of the Black Hills National 

Forest Travel Management Plan.

FSR 235.1 is a closed system road that was only shown 

on the existing condition, Alternative A, map. It was 

removed from consideration on all other alternatives.

329/1.

1594 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Comment on road closure in Thomson Canyon. 

Road #816 Section #33: This is a good gravel 

road in the bottom of Thomson Canyon that we 

have been using for 50 years. This canyon is land 

locked and recently the landowner has denied 

access to the road. BHNF seems to have no 

interest in gaining access for the public. I am 

going through the State to try and get access by 

prescriptive right. So I don‟t think this road 

should be closed. The road is in the bottom of the 

canyon, therefore there is little damage that could 

be done.

Although Forest Service road # 816 provides access 

into Thompson Canyon, it must cross other ownership, 

and therefore cannot be designated as a trail. The 

Forest Service does not have the authority to designate a 

trail that crosses or enters other private ownership. 

330/1.

1595 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Closing of road #726 in section #8: This is a nice 

road that we have been using for years. It is 

mostly graveled and goes into a beautiful valley. I 

Portions of this road are designated as a trail open to 

vehicles 65 inches or less in Alternatives B and C on the 

South Dakota side. On the Wyoming side, Stots 

330/2.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

365

do not see any reason to close this road to motor 

vehicles.

Canyon lies on private land. 

1596 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Closing of road 818.1A, 818.1B, 81831F, and 

818.1R on Elk Mountain, Section #10, and the 

main road # 118.1 to Elk Mountain Lookout 

Tower: These roads are well graveled roads and 

provide good access to an area that is great for 

hunting. I have been using them for years and do 

not see any reason to deny motor vehicle access 

to this area.

Portions of this road cross onto private land. The 

Forest Service does not have the authority to designate 

any travel routes onto or through private land. 

330/3.

1597 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Closing of road #189.4B in section #1: This is a 

major graveled road that provides access to the 

old Crooks Lookout Tower. This road is in 

between 2 roads that are open and it provides a 

more direct access to the area. I do not see any 

reason to close this road. 

This road was closed in order to protect wildlife security 

and habitat needs in this area. This decision was made in 

a previous NEPA analysis and decision.

330/4.

1598 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Closing off road #117.5C in section #32: This is 

a good gravel road that we have been using for 

years. It is on flat ground and in good condition. I 

do not see any reason that this road should be 

closed.

This road is designated as open to highway legal in all 

Alternatives.

330/5.

1599 Route 

Specific 

Comment

We are writing in regard to the Forest Service 

developing trails for 4 wheel vehicles, motocross 

bikes and other UTVs. We recently sold our 

property south of Piedmont, SD to our son, 

Donald Walker, Jr. so we are very worried about 

the TOP 50 and their plans to access more of the 

Forest Service by opening a road through the field 

behind our son‟s place. We don‟t understand the 

reason to accommodate this as their interest is 

making money by inviting 4 wheelers form all 

over to come and destroy our Black Hills. From 

what we saw when we lived there, there was no 

respect for the environment of laws (no 

trespassing signs) by these owners or guests.

The route in the field behind Donald Walkers house is 

on private land and not within FS jurisdiction and is 

therefore outside the scope of this document. NH9 

which is within FS jurisdiction was analyzed in alt C and 

removed from all other alternatives. Any decision about 

routes selected will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

331/1.

1600 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I don‟t think people realize the destruction these 

ATVers cause. Meanwhile they pay no fees, 

license et cetera. We however pay (gladly) to walk 

or bike to Mickelson Trail.

Impacts caused from motorized users on the National 

Forest was analyzed in Chapter 3 of the DEIS and 

FEIS. The Mickelson Trail was not proposed for 

motorized use under any alternative. A recreational fee 

program for motorized trail use is being analyzed and 

331/5.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

366

discussed for the Black Hills National Forest.

1601 Route 

Specific 

Comment

My preference for the DEIS is plan C, with 

exceptions. The following should remain 

seasonal: 244 Bear Gulch to Horse Creek 243.

FSR 244 is closed seasonally in Alternative E. 332/1.

1602 Route 

Specific 

Comment

My preference for the DEIS is plan C, with 

exceptions. The following should remain 

seasonal: West Nugget (249) intersection with 

(530) Spruce.

FSR 249 is closed seasonally in Alternative E. 332/2.

1603 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Reopen (244.1B) and (251.1C) to Horse Creek. 

Also 606 (Tiffel Mine to 530).

FSR 244.1B is open to highway legal vehicles only in 

Alternative D. FSR 606 is open seasonally in 

Alternatives C, D, and E.

332/3.

1604 Route 

Specific 

Comment

If you are looking for a through route from China 

Gulch to Nemo or beyond travel 149-530-

CZ2570-245-to Mystic. Travel 231.1-231.2 232.1 

to Merritt. Do not make Silver City part of a 

through route. We are cloaked in dust every 

weekend through the summer. It shouldn‟t [go] 

through or adjacent to private properties.

Routes through and adjacent to Silver City are open to 

highway legal vehicles only in Alternatives C, D, and E.

332/4.

1605 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I live on Sand Creek Road outside of Beulah WY 

and I am very concerned that Dugout Gulch is 

listed to become a trail for ATVs. The Botanical 

Trail is for hiking and not for motorized vehicles. 

FS road 864 is what I am referring to. Sand Creek 

Road which turns into 863 is the road to historic 

Ranch A and having increased traffic by ATVs 

will disturb all the people who have property 

along this road. This is the only access to Dugout 

Gulch 864. If this becomes an ATV destination, it 

will ruin this pristine part of the Black Hills, 

disturb the Ice Age plants that grow in the gulch 

and also disturb the elk and other wildlife. Please 

reconsider your plans for this area.

Forest Service road 864 has two portions; a closed 

portion (about 1.5 miles) at the junction with Road 863 

and an open portion (about 2 miles) at the junction of 

Road 865. The only portion considered open for 

motorized activities under the DEIS and FEIS is that 

portion which has historically been open to all 

motorized users at junction with Road 865. 

334/1.

1606 Route 

Specific 

Comment

[Respondent] needs to be able to get to Camp 5 

from Sturgis without going on a major gravel 

road. Need access from 171.1B.

Due to resource concerns the area from 171.1B to the 

Camp 5 area from Sturgis was not analyzed in any 

alternative and therefore is outside the scope of this 

document. 

337/11.

1607 Route 

Specific 

Comment

We [Wyoming Game and Fish Department] 

generally support the proposed travel plan under 

all Alternative on the North Bearlodge, i.e., north 

of Highway 24 along USFS Rd #830. In all 

The Blue Ridge road (FS 830.4) was closed due to 

damage caused by motorized access on sensitive 

resources. This route was not considered for motorized 

access under any Alternative of the DEIS and FEIS to 

346/28.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

367

Alternatives, this area is not proposed to 

significantly change compared to the current 

situation, which provides a large (approximately 

25 miles [squared]) area for walk-in hunting and 

other forms of recreation. This area offers some 

of the best hunting on the BHNF and is heavily 

used. Most of the current road closures here are 

effective and well followed by the public. In the 

past, USFS Rd # 830.4 was open all the way to its 

terminus at the extreme northeast end of the 

forest boundary (Section 6 of Township 55, 

Range 62). In all the proposed Alternatives it is 

indicated this road would be closed approximately 

where it runs into Section 11, T55 R63. We 

suggest this road be opened to the forest 

boundary, as was previously the case. This allows 

better access for hunters, and does not give 

people coming on the BHNF from adjoining 

private land an unfair access advantage.

protect these resources. 

1608 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Raspberry Ridge is a favorite among 4x4 groups 

and is currently a permitted trail used by several 

4x4 clubs for events held throughout the summer 

months. The trail is generally run with the Jake 

Trail and is enjoyed by people of all experience 

levels. Many of us use a spur off of Raspberry 

Ridge that forms a loop back to the original 

Raspberry Ridge trail. The road is existing and no 

maintenance or improvements would need to be 

made to utilize this road in a trail system. There is 

a section that offers an easy rock section and 

scenic opportunities. Off of Raspberry Ridge , 

there is another section that would offer a rock 

crawling opportunity near Raspberry Ridge, and 

would need to be looked at further. However, it 

would be a great chance to designate and look 

into the options further. The maps show the

locations of the add-ons I would like to see.

Raspberry Ridge and Jake were analyzed to Alternatives 

B and C and removed from Alternatives D and E. Since 

the additional routes you speak of were not in any 

Alternative they cannot be considered for this EIS 

decision. They may be considered in future projects 

conducted by the individual Ranger Districts.

348/1.

1609 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The 4x4 rock crawling trails known as the 

Buzzworms have challenged the 4x4 community 

for many years, and have offered world class 

The Buzzworms routes you speak of were not in any 

Alternative they cannot be considered for this EIS 

decision. They may be considered in future projects 

349/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

368

entertainment for people from all over the United 

States at events held in the Black Hills. It also has 

proven that limited use in the right conditions 

show it can be managed to sustain entertainment 

for the 4x4 crowd and minimize interaction with 

the locals. The deep canyon that houses the trails 

offer a secluded trail for enthusiasts to enjoy 

testing their abilities and machines, and yet offer 

the seclusion to the residents that border the 

Forest Service Land in the access corridors to the 

trails. The natural terrain of the canyon minimizes 

any damage to the resources in the area. 

Recreation is abundant in the area, and the limited 

use of the trail should be provided to the 4x4 

community along with others using the trails in 

the area. This trail is a certain attraction to those 

that want this kind of challenge, and folks will 

come from afar to enjoy themselves. This trail 

should be included in the trail system, as it surely 

fits the guidelines set for the trails in the proposed 

trail system. This trail has not been included on 

any of the current DEIS maps at this time. The 

Buzzworms trails are indicated on the included 

map named Buzzworms in the narrow purple line. 

[ATT 1 and 2].

conducted by the individual Ranger Districts.

1610 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Elbow Canyon Trail, Southern Black Hills, South 

Dakota. The trail starts approximately at 

43°26‟45.31N / 103°50‟13.85W, and ends at 

43°27‟04.77N / 103°51‟24.38W. There is an 

alternate route that may make another sustainable 

route through the area south of the main trail. 

The rock crawling trails in the Southern Hills are 

essential for the trail system because to have a 

diversified trail system that is manageable, usable, 

and enforceable, it must be able to deal with 

issues of overcrowding, over-use, and 

encroachment of houses near forest property. 

Lack of trails in the Southern Hills is a major 

concern of the 4x4 community, as this may 

provide a year round opportunity for recreation as 

Thank you for your comments regarding the Southern 

Black Hills and specifically the Elbow Canyon Trail. On 

April 18, 2009 both the Hell Canyon District Ranger, 

Lynn Kolund and the District Archeologist, Anthony 

King hiked this trail to become familiar with the interest 

and concerns with this trail. This trail was requested as 

a rock crawling trail route. The Decision Maker will 

consider this request. If this trail is not designated 

during this planning process it is possible that in the 

future additional trails could be designated in the 

Southern Hills. However, this would need to be 

considered in detail in a separate environmental analysis.

350/1. 470/3. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

369

the area does not usually see as much snowfall as 

in the Northern part of the Hills. The proximity 

of small communities will benefit from having the 

recreation as this would offer a economics of 

tourism in lodging, food, and fuel to the locals. 

The area has been home to local organized mud 

bogs on private land, and the community has 

welcomed the recreation and opportunity. This is 

one of many trails that have been submitted 

through the proper channels via Jon Wermers 

with SDOHVC [South Dakota Off-Highway 

Vehicle Coalition], at the public input meetings in 

Custer and Rapid City, and hand-delivered to the 

Hell Canyon Acting District Ranger in addition to 

being hiked with numerous officials. Elbow 

Canyon was hiked on April 18, 2009 with 

SDOVHC, Black Hills Jeeps, and Black Hills 4X4 

representatives, U.S. Forest Service Archeologist-

Tony King, and Hell Canyon District Ranger-

Lynn Kolund. The trails in the Southern Hills 

seem to have been ignored in the system by the 

previous District Ranger.

1611 Route 

Specific 

Comment

My first comment is in regard to the proposal for 

Forest Service Road 150.1E to be closed. Road 

150.1E is the only public access to Victoria 

Canyon. Victoria Canyon is approximately 1 mile 

from Rapid City and holds 40+ sport climbing 

routes on steep limestone. It is a unique area that 

provides beginner to expert climbing in close 

proximity to Rapid City, SD. Victoria Canyon has 

been used as a climbing area for almost 30-years. 

All types of recreation that take place in Victoria 

Canyon (hiking, climbing, bouldering, kayaking) 

are low-impact and non-motorized. Because 

Victoria Canyon is one of the closest rock 

climbing areas to Rapid City it helps to alleviate 

the impact the Falling Rock climbing area 

receives. Without the climbing in Victoria 

Canyon, Falling Rock‟s impact will be greatly 

heightened. Keeping FSR 150.1E open will help 

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a user-

requested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

353/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

370

disperse recreational impacts.

1612 Route 

Specific 

Comment

FSR 150.1E is the only public access into Victoria 

Canyon. All other access requires crossing private 

land. Due to the Victoria Lake Road closure that 

was established in the past years, all other roads 

that could access Victoria Canyon are already 

closed.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

Alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a userrequested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

353/2.

1613 Route 

Specific 

Comment

In regard to the Tinton Trail in the Northern 

Hills Ranger District, adjacent to Forest Service 

Road 134 proposed to be opened to motorized 

recreation. Although this trail was created illegally 

in the mid-1990‟s, it provides some of the best 

single-track mountain biking and trail running in 

the Black Hills.

The Tinton trail is a non-system trail that is authorized 

by a special use permit during recreation events. This 

EIS deals with motorized travel only and therefore the 

request for designating this trail as part of the nonmotorized system is beyond the scope of this project.

353/3.

1614 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Tinton Trail [FS 134] should remain closed to 

motorized users. Motorized recreationists have 

multiple access points to National Forest land 

immediately surrounding Spearfish. Without 

Tinton Trail, the nearest non-motorized access is 

located approximately 7 miles from Spearfish. 

The Tinton Trail provides citizens with the 

opportunity to enjoy the National Forest for short 

periods throughout the day when they cannot 

take the time to access another trailhead.

The Tinton trail is a non-system trail that is authorized 

by a special use permit during recreation events. This 

EIS deals with motorized travel only and therefore the 

request for designating this trail as part of the nonmotorized system is beyond the scope of this project.

353/4.

1615 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Tinton Trail [FS 134] should remain closed to 

motorized users. It is commonly recognized that 

trails used by both motorized and non-motorized 

users have increased user-conflicts. Allowing 

motorized use decreases the safety of the trail for 

all users, especially children and pets.

Tinton trail is a non-system trail that is authorized by a 

special use permit during recreation events. This EIS 

deals with motorized travel only and therefore the 

request for designating this trail as part of the nonmotorized system is beyond the scope of this project.

353/5.

1616 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Tinton Trail [FS 134] should remain closed to 

motorized users. In places where motorized 

access is allowed, trail quality is often degraded 

significantly.

The Tinton trail is a non-system trail that is authorized 

by a special use permit during recreation events. This 

EIS deals with motorized travel only and therefore the 

request for designating this trail as part of the non353/6.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

371

motorized system is beyond the scope of this project.

1617 Route 

Specific 

Comment

In regard to the Tinton Trail in the Northern 

Hills Ranger District, adjacent to Forest Service 

Road 134 proposed to be opened to motorized 

recreation. Although this trail was created illegally 

in the mid-1990‟s, it provides some of the best 

single-track mountain biking and trail running in 

the Black Hills.

The Tinton trail is a non-system trail that is authorized 

by a special use permit during recreation events. This 

EIS deals with motorized travel only and therefore the 

request for designating this trail as part of the nonmotorized system is beyond the scope of this project.

353/7.

1618 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The Sheridan Lake Highlands (SLH) development 

on Sheridan Lake Road. The trails in this area, 

which are supposed to be closed, are too close to 

the residential. Often times there are individuals 

on these trails and the surrounding areas riding on 

motorized vehicles or motorcycles tearing up the 

land, littering, target shooting, and causing noise 

disturbances. Closing these trails that are located 

near these communities will reduce incidents and 

encounters with the various trail users and help to 

maintain or increase property values. We have 

made a significant investment in our home, as 

have the others in these communities, and do not 

want to see the continued abuse to this area or 

put up with the noise of the ATVs, vehicles, and 

motorcycles.

Motorized routes adjacent to Sheridan Lake Highlands 

are not included in Alternatives D or E.

354/2.

1619 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Both Alternatives [B and D] create a trailhead on 

Victoria Lake Road at the site of the long time, 

well-known area referred to as the “Shooting 

Gallery”. This area has been, and continues to be, 

a dumping ground and trash-filled area, for 

“appliance” targets and shell casings. The building 

of a trailhead, hopefully with restrooms and 

picnic tables, will be a gathering place, and 

provide parking, for the vehicles, motorcycles, 

and ATVs, thereby closing this area to the 

shooters. This area is no longer the remote spot 

for target shooting and is too close to residences 

and their livestock.

Parking areas provide a point of contact for better 

enforcement, education, and management. Thank you 

for your comment.

354/4.

1620 Route 

Specific 

Comment

We are adamantly opposed to Alternative C 

because it places a motorcycle only trail (CZ4889) very close to our homes in SLH [Sheridan 

Route CZ-4889 is not included as a motorized route in 

Alternatives D or E.

354/5.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

372

Lake Road] that connects Victoria Lake Road to 

520.1B/C. The trail can be seen from our home! 

Please keep the motorized trails away from the 

existing communities! We do not want to listen to 

motorcycles tearing up and down the trail.

1621 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The game retrieval plan offered in Alternatives B 

and C has a base in distance from an open road. 

This is not very practical since most of the 

mileage is on the higher class roads, which are not 

within the allowed distance from a likely elk 

harvest. (See WYG&F [Wyoming Department of 

Game and Fish] comments regarding location of 

elk versus highly traveled roads.) Further these 

roads often border private in-holdings (inviting 

trespass) in the BHNF, such as is the case on 

Moskee Road Grand Canyon and Wagon Canyon. 

Vehicle retrieval of elk should be allowed in any 

DEIS Alternative within the specified distance 

from any existing road, closed or not. Further, 

vehicle retrieval would be less intrusive than say 4-5 human walking excursions to retrieve quarters 

and the head of a harvested elk would. The rules 

of evidence on having the required license and an 

elk body are fine. The issue of cased weapons 

seems to be unnecessary given the first two 

requirements and it can be argued that the 

requirement is unsafe should a lion claim a carcass 

in the hunter‟s absence. No one would seriously 

consider that requirement for a successful hunter 

returning on foot!

A range of Alternatives in the DEIS and FEIS was 

considered for motorized game retrieval. 

355/3.

1622 Route 

Specific 

Comment

According to the maps that were issued with the 

DEIS, there should theoretically be no traffic 

through Galena with the exception of local users. 

All the maps show the road ending where county 

maintenance ends. From that point it is heavily 

used as an „illegal trail‟ and through private 

property. This is used as the short cut to one of the motorized off road playgrounds. Traveling 

this direction also takes all these vehicles across 

Bear Butte Creek, which does show erosion from 

All of the roads running in and out of the town of 

Galena are on properties not within Forest Service jurisdiction and are therefore beyond the scope of this 

project.

356/4.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

373

the usage. I believe there is access from the top of 

Spring Run Road, via a numbered spur that would 

take OHVs into their trail system. Signage on 

Galena Road just past Wild Bills Campground 

should help as well as directional signs showing 

where access points are.

1623 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Per the DEIS, Galena Road is listed as a level 4 

maintenance. With that designation, there should 

not be any usage by vehicles that are not licensed 

and insured. Nor should there be any operators 

under the age of 16. We do not have any hard 

statistical data but have at times watched the 

traffic flow and have counted to at least 50% of 

the traffic being unlicensed vehicles and young 

operators. This also seems to be the class of users 

that is most annoying, as they are the ones that 

tend to drive faster and to rev their engines 

needlessly.

The portion of Galena Road you refer to is under 

county jurisdiction. 

356/5.

1624 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The only routes in the Carroll Creek Road vicinity 

that should be included in the final travel plan of 

motorized routes are FSR 313 (Carroll Creek Rd); 

Mayo Rd; FSR 308 to private residence at the 

north end of Section 32 T4S, R4E; FSR 685 (Fox 

Ridge Rd) to dead end in Section 20 T4S, R4E 

[[specifically, no motorized trail on north side of 

Hay Creek/Thunder Mountain that would dead 

end at private property accessed by Pleasant 

Valley Rd (FSR 715)]]. All routes/trails that have 

been opened and used by public motorized users 

in the last 4 years for timber management (and 

which remain open, despite having been closed to 

public motorized use for the 15 previous years) 

between Carroll Creek Rd and Hwy 385 should 

not be included in the final plan/Alternative. 

North of Hopkins Flat Rd (FSR 315 and FSR 

316), existing FSR 309 (dead ending in Section 29 

T4S, R4E and not connecting through to Carroll 

Creek Rd) should be the only constructed route 

between Carroll Rd and Pleasant Valley Rd 

included in the final plan/Alternative. All other 

Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your 

thoughts and concerns regarding this planning process. 

I would first like to address your specific concerns in the 

Carroll Creek Road vicinity. Any routes that are 

maintained by the county should and will remain open 

in all Alternatives and unchanged from current 

management. Any approved access to private lands will

also remain open in all Alternatives and unchanged from 

current management. Other routes that are included in 

the Alternatives as open, vary by Alternative as to 

designation. Some of these routes are designated as 

open to highway legal only. Additionally, in Alternative 

E, many of the routes you may be concerned with are 

not designated as open. Within the Carroll Creek, 

Mayo, Hay Creek and Hopkins Flat areas, none of the 

routes identified as open are designated as trails. The 

Decision Maker will consider your concerns and make a 

decision on designation within the analysis of effects of 

all Alternatives. 

357/4.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

374

routes do not meet reasonable goals for quality 

motorized recreation because they are short, 

many are dead ends, and they are intermingled 

and often cross private property. Use of these 

routes produces impacts of dust and noise to 

private property and regular unauthorized use by 

motorized vehicles of private land. They also 

fragment wildlife habitat (such as elk) and native 

vegetation communities.

1625 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Dome Mountain/Pillar Peak Complex: The 

Dome Mountain/Pillar Peak ridge system lies 

between the Two Bit and the Lost Gulch 

drainages about five miles west of Deadwood. 

The few thousand acre area is note worthy for its 

soaring ramparts, scenic overlooks and, at least in 

its higher reaches, its lack of major resource 

damage from motorized vehicles. It is the only 

significant semi-wild area remaining between the 

Lead Deadwood area and Forest Highway 26 that 

connects Sturgis to Nemo. This few thousand 

acre area is of minimal value for timber, but it is a 

rugged, one of a kind, semi-wild area. Most of this 

area was formed by a massive porphyritic 

intrusion that is now a rugged ridge line known as 

the Dome Mountain/Pillar Peak complex. It is a 

country of hidden parks, aspen groves, unusually 

rugged canyons and splendid overlooks. It is thin 

soiled country and very susceptible to permanent 

damage from motorized off road travel. The main 

characteristic of the area is rugged scenery. It lost 

much of its old growth timber to wild fire in the 

early 1890‟s and in the Grizzly Gulch Fire of 

2002. Its extensive aspen thickets were created by 

the earlier fire, and they now serve as game 

production and crown fire barriers over much of 

the area. Extensive shrub and aspen re-growth is 

now coming in the wake of the Grizzly Gulch fire 

as well. I did the stage 2 timber inventory of the 

region in the late 1970s, and I am quite familiar 

with the area. The following roads, road segments 

Route UO30046 was analyzed to be included in 

Alternatives B and C and removed from consideration 

in Alternatives D and E. Any decision about selected 

routes will be documented in the Record of Decision. 

358/3.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

375

and trails should be closed to all motorized travel. 

UO30046 in sections 21 and 28, T. 5N, R. 3 E. 

This segment of road branches off of Forest 

Road 172.1 about one mile beyond the latter‟s 

junction with Forest Road 306 not far off of 

Highway 14 A. The road follows an increasingly 

steep grade until it passes under the base of Pillar 

Peak. Near here, on the divide with Lost Gulch, it 

interconnects with and continues on as Forest 

Road 172.1H.

1626 Route 

Specific 

Comment

(cont from comment no. 3) This road, UO30046 

does not appear in Alternative D but it does in 

your (preferred) Alternative B. The lower area 

served by the northern end of the road, that is, 

between Pillar Peak and Road 306, was logged 

recently. The higher Pillar Peak area was burned 

in the Grizzly Gulch Fire of 2002. Road 

UO30046 traverses unacceptably steep grades on 

a narrow ridgeline on its approach to the base of 

Pillar Peak. It is a continuing source of erosion, 

and there is no way that this road can be left open 

to motorized travel without doing unacceptable 

resource damage. This road also encourages 

motorized traffic to the edge of the semi-wild 

Pillar Peak/Dome Mountain area. This semi-wild 

area is now being damaged by ORVs that arrive 

on Road 172.1 and its adjoining segments. The 

OHV (mostly ORV) operators, go around or run 

over Forest Service road and trail closure markers 

along the edge of the Pillar Peak/Dome 

Mountain complex. The behavior is 

commonplace. The two segments of Road 

172.1H (with a spur, 171.D) form a loop. The 

loop is completed by a short segment of 172.1 in 

Lost Gulch. The two halves of the loop connect 

with 172.1 in Lost Gulch within a stone‟s throw 

of each other. This is a classic case of road 

building for the sake of road building. The 

southern link of 172.1H should never have been 

built, and anyone with an eye for slope and 

Routes selected for the Record of Decision will have 

mitigation measures in place to deal with erosion issues. 

Once routes are selected motorized users will be 

expected to stay on the designated road or trail. .

358/4.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

376

resource protection can see that. Both segments 

of the loop also encourage motorized travel to the 

lower edge of the Pillar Peak/Dome Mountain 

area. This area has very high wild land value and 

very low timber harvest potential. The 

combination is unusual, and it presents an 

important opportunity in the north central area of 

the Forest, an area that is riddled with roads and 

private in-holdings.

1627 Route 

Specific 

Comment

(cont from comment no. 4) The area between the 

Pillar Peak-Dome Mountain ridgeline and Lost 

Gulch needs rehabilitation to mitigate resource 

damage done by motorized vehicles on several 

roads and trails (above) that exist between Lost 

Gulch and the Pillar Peak/Dome Mountain 

ridgeline. Other than that, it needs to be left 

alone. If a management road into this area was 

needed in the future, the Forest Service could 

provide for this by leaving the main bed of the 

northern link of the loop formed by Road 172.1 

H and its spur, 172.1D, intact at the time of 

closure.

Routes selected for the Record of Decision will have 

mitigation measures in place to deal with erosion issues. 

Once routes are selected motorized users will be 

expected to stay on the designated road or trail.

358/5.

1628 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Road/trail 172.1C is actually the old Pillar Peak 

fire trail, and it was the only access to the Pillar 

Peak ridge before Forest Road 172.1 and its 

adjuncts were constructed. Road/trail 172.1C 

runs immediately alongside of Road 172.1H from 

just above the floor of Lost Gulch to the upper 

end of the northern loop of 172.1H. Road 172.1C 

parallels and duplicates H. It is a relatively short 

but very steep and deeply rutted trail. The Forest 

Service didn‟t bother to close C when the Agency 

built 172.1H and motorized vehicles soon turned 

it into a massive erosion scar. [Road 172.1]C is 

the result of negligence on the part of the Forest 

Service. It is an erosion scar first, a road/trail 

second, and there is no excuse for this kind of 

land damage. Close it and rehabilitate the 

damaged area.

Routes selected for the Record of Decision will have 

mitigation measures in place to deal with erosion issues. 

Once routes are selected motorized users will be 

expected to stay on the designated road or trail.

358/6.

1629 Route Close the short spur, Road 172.1A in the Road 172.1A was analyzed in all Alternatives to be left 358/7.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

377

Specific 

Comment

southern corner of Section 32, T. 5 N., R 3 E. It 

serves no purpose except to encourage resource 

damage and travel toward the southern end of the 

Dome Mountain/Pillar Peak area. Walk this road 

out sometime and see for yourself. OHVs have 

converted this into one of the worst examples of 

resource damage in this Forest. In any case, you 

have already provided more than enough 

motorized access of all kinds in adjacent regions 

along the northeast face of the Black Hills. There 

is no reason to leave 172.1C or A open and there 

are excellent reasons for closing them. These 

roads are prime examples of why restrictions on 

motorized travel were needed to begin with.

open. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. 

1630 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Centennial Trail Segments: Although it doesn‟t 

appear in the Travel Management DEIS, it is my 

understanding that the Forest Service has recently 

proposed that motorized travel be allowed on the 

segment of the Centennial Trail, (Trail 89) that 

runs from Pilot Knob to the Silver City area. Did 

this change come about recently due to political 

pressure from motorized groups? If so, why 

hasn‟t the Forest Service advised us of this 

change? Service personnel have a tough 

assignment. I need only look at the cynical 

approach the Meade County Commission takes to 

the Travel Plan DEIS to see that. Still, that is no 

excuse for proposing that motorized vehicles 

continue to be allowed on the Dalton Lake/Pilot 

Knob segment of the Centennial, or that they be 

allowed on the Pilot Knob/ Silver City section of 

the trail. The Centennial Trail is a hiking and nonmotorized biking trail. Trails of this kind are by 

their nature non-motorized, and their purpose is 

to provide safe, quiet enjoyment of the Forest. 

One of the most disconcerting aspects of this 

business is my having to even remind you of this. 

You know as well as I do about the damage that 

motorized vehicles did along the Centennial 

[Trail] southwest of Nemo. Your responsibilities 

The Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob is 

currently open to motorized traffic. It was analyzed to 

be open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed from 

Alternative D. This portion of the trail has been 

classified as motorized since the trail's beginning in 

1989. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

358/8.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

378

are trans-generational. At the very least be truthful 

with words. Do not deceive the public by 

implying that the distinction between motorized 

and non-motorized trails is meaningless, by 

pretending that words do not mean what they 

mean. People and public agencies may disagree 

sharply without deceiving one another. Deception 

is terribly destructive of public trust. If you 

choose to change segments of the Centennial 

Trail into a motorized trail, so be it. But be 

truthful with the public and remove motorized 

trail segments from the Centennial Trail and mark 

them with an explanation explaining to the public 

and the future why you did so.

1631 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Dalton Lake Road [#224] should not be part of 

the trail system for ATVs. Right now it is being 

used as a playground and a racetrack. This Forest 

Service one lane gravel road should be off limits 

to ATV use period. We are requesting that a sign 

be erected “No ATVs Beyond This Point” for the 

first one mile stretch of Dalton Lake Road #224. 

When they come from the east, another sign can 

reroute them onto Road #224-1A and lead them 

to Nemo. That way they will not be disrupting 

our neighborhood.

FSR 224.1 was analyzed in Alternatives B and C as road 

open to all and in Alternatives D and E as road open to 

highway legal only. Any decision about selected routes 

will be documented in the Record of Decision. 

360/1.

1632 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Dalton Lake Road [#224] should not be part of 

the trail system for ATVs. Dalton Lake Road is 

too congested of an area with regular local traffic 

alone. Hunters, logging trucks, Christmas tree 

cutter, campers, fishermen, horse trailers, 

firewood gatherers and now twice the ATV trailer 

as before, are using this road. Paving Vanocker 

Canyon (Hwy. 26) from Nemo to Sturgis has 

impacted our road with the increased traffic. 

Dalton Lake Road is a very dusty, one-lane (With 

turnouts) road and is very heavily used yearround. Since the new ATV trail map has come 

out, Dalton Lake Road has become one of the 

busiest gravel roads in the Black Hills. There are 

sometimes 24-26 ATVs on one flatbed going 

FSR 224.1 was analyzed in Alternatives B and C as road 

open to all and in Alternatives D and E as road open to 

highway legal only. Any decision about selected routes 

will be documented in the Record of Decision. 

360/2.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

379

down our road, creating dust, noise and unsafe 

and unhealthy conditions. It makes for a very 

dangerous situation. Allowing ATVs to use 

Dalton Lake Road is an accident waiting to 

happen. They have children riding with them as 

they are flying around the curves on this road. I 

can assure you that a lawyer will find a way to sue 

to Forest Service (since this is a Federal road) 

when someone is seriously injured on this road on 

an ATV. It is a one-lane, dusty, winding, 

dangerous gravel road with no warning of what is 

coming around the next curve and no signs.

1633 Route 

Specific 

Comment

We have called the Lawrence County Sheriff 

when these ATVs are speeding past our residence, 

but they do not have the manpower to come out 

here and enforce the speed limit. For that matter, 

there is no speed limit on Dalton Lake Road 

[#224]. The two small signs we erected to trees 

on our land have been completely ignored. We 

hope that our requests will be taken seriously and 

not ignored. We pay extremely high property 

taxes and to have no law enforcement in this area 

to control this very heavy ATV traffic is not going 

to be taken lightly. If you do not do something to 

limit the trails in our area and the ATVs going 

past our homes, rest assured that we plan to file a 

lawsuit against the Forest Service for unfairly 

burdening the Nemo area over and above all 

other parts of the Black Hills National Forest. 

The management of the Black Hills National 

Forest is biased toward ATV users, especially the 

Northern Hills office in Spearfish. When I have 

spoken to that office in the past (I don‟t bother to 

call them anymore because it doesn‟t do any 

good). I have been told that they have no control 

over our road and to call law enforcement. It 

appears that no one is in control over this area except the off road users!

Forest Service law enforcement personnel play a critical 

role in ensuring compliance with laws and regulations, 

protecting public safety, and protecting National Forest 

resources. The Forest Service also maintains 

cooperative relationships with many State and local law 

enforcement agencies that provide mutual support 

across jurisdictional boundaries. Education and 

cooperative relationships with users support 

enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance.

360/3.

1634 Route 

Specific 

We are asking that the first portion of Dalton 

Lake Road (approximately 1 mile) #224 be off 

FSR 224.1 was analyzed in Alternatives B and C as road 

open to all and in Alternatives D and E as road open to 

360/4.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

380

Comment limits to ATVs due to the several homes in this 

section that are being impacted by the traffic. If 

you review the proposed maps [in the DEIS], the 

area to the south of us is overrun with ATV trails 

and there are way too many of them congested in 

this area. We have lived within the National 

Forest for over 30 years. It is worse here now 

than if we live on a busy street in Rapid City! 

Dalton Lake Road is overburdened and over-used 

with heavy traffic. Adding more traffic with the 

proposed addition of a new parking area for 

ATVs at Dalton Lake is absolutely unacceptable! 

This was a quiet campground for 30+ years.

highway legal only. Any decision about selected routes 

will be documented in the Record of Decision. 

1635 Route 

Specific 

Comment

There needs to be a plan to do something about 

our area [Dalton Lake Road] besides creating 

more trails for ATVs! The damage they are 

causing during rainy weather alone is absolutely 

ridiculous and these trails should be closed until 

you have enough money for law enforcement. 

But, of course, last spring, all of sudden there was 

plenty of money to put a mesh layer and several 

hundred tons of gravel on the damaged 

Centennial Trail near Nemo so they could 

continue to damage the trail. I heard it was in 

excess of $25,000. But yet there is no money.

FSR 224.1 was analyzed in Alternatives B and C as road 

open to all and in Alternatives D and E as road open to 

highway legal only. Any decision about selected routes 

will be documented in the Record of Decision. 

360/6.

1636 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I find most of the trail system in the Pettigrew 

grazing allotment, which I am very familiar with, 

completely acceptable. Specific off road trails 

cause considerable conflict with other forest uses. 

It seems reasonable that conflicts caused by open 

gates in fences used for grazing management can 

be eliminated with little impact on the trail 

system. I would like to see 134.2R eliminated 

from the trail system as it is very short and goes 

through a gate next to Iron Creek only to dead 

end on 134 which is not designated for off road 

vehicles.

FSR 134.2R is currently an open system that was 

analyzed in Alternatives B, C, D, as a trail open to 

vehicles less then 50 inches and in Alt E as an road open 

to highway legal vehicles. Your comment will be given 

consideration. Any decision about selected routes will 

be documented in the Record of Decision. 

361/1.

1637 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I find most of the trial system in the Pettigrew 

grazing allotment, which I am very familiar with, 

completely acceptable. Specific off road trails 

Mitigation measures for livestock and gate conflicts will 

be included on selected routes.

361/2.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

381

cause considerable conflict with other forest uses. 

It seems reasonable that conflicts caused by open 

gates in fences used for grazing management can 

be eliminated with little impact on the trail 

system. There will have to be access through the 

gate in Prospect Gulch just south of Iron Creek 

to access the extensive trail system east of 134 on 

the Pettigrew allotment form the Trailhead on Big 

Hill. This would be an excellent location for an 

easy open - easy close gate. Inexpensive gates can 

be installed that return to a closed position after 

they have been accessed.

1638 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I find most of the trial system in the Pettigrew 

grazing allotment, which I am very familiar with, 

completely acceptable. Specific off road trails 

cause considerable conflict with other forest uses. 

It seems reasonable that conflicts caused by open 

gates in fences used for grazing management can 

be eliminated with little impact on the trail 

system. It appears on the proposed trail map that 

225.1 doesn‟t access 222.2. If it does, that would 

cause unnecessary gate conflict.

Mitigation measures for livestock and gate conflicts will 

be included on selected routes.

361/3.

1639 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Black Hills Conservation Initiative [BHCI] lands: 

Buffered areas could allow motorized elk 

retrieval. The areas within the boundary must 

remain non-motorized for all uses. Bessant Park 

[area]: This area was purchased by sportsmen to 

provide a haven for wildlife. In the current 

proposal there are roads and trails surrounding 

this little piece of open area. Roads and trails 

U100073, 209.3B, 209.3A, 209.3J and 206.1A 

should be closed year round to protect this area.

FSR 209.3B, 209.3A, 209.3J and 206.1A were analyzed 

in Alternative B, C, D and E to be a road open to 

all..U100073 was analyzed in Alternative B as a trail 

open to vehicle 50 inches or less and removed from 

Alternatives C, D and E. Any decision about selected 

routes will be documented in the Record of Decision.

362/8.

1640 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Black Hills Conservation Initiative [BHCI] lands: 

Buffered areas could allow motorized elk 

retrieval. The areas within the boundary must 

remain non-motorized for all uses. Tillson Springs 

[area]: This area is protected fairly well. I would 

suggest closing the spur road 234.1.

Designated areas for motorized game retrieval were 

addressed in Alternatives B and C. Alternatives D and 

E did not have any designated areas for cross country 

game retrieval. The closing of spur 234.1 was analyzed 

in Alternative D. Decisions about game retrieval will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. FSR 234.1 was 

analyzed in Alt B and E as a road open to highway legal 

vehicles and in Alt C as a road open to all. It was 

362/9.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

382

removed in Alt D. Any decision about selected routes 

will be documented in the Record of Decision.

1641 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Black Hills Conservation Initiative [BHCI] lands: 

Buffered areas could allow motorized elk 

retrieval. The areas within the boundary must 

remain non-motorized for all uses. Gonzoles: I 

would request no travel on all of the BHCI lands 

turned over to the Forest Service yearlong. To 

create the desired buffer to this area roads 256.1S 

and 219.1G must be closed.

FSR 256.1S and 219.1G were analyzed in all Alternatives 

as road open to all. Any decision about selected routes 

will be documented in the Record of Decision.

362/10.

1642 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Black Hills Conservation Initiative [BHCI] lands: 

Buffered areas could allow motorized elk 

retrieval. The areas within the boundary must 

remain non-motorized for all uses. Meeker Creek, 

Wildcat Canyon, Beaver Creek... note attachment 

[ATT 1] to this document.

Motorized access into these areas is not proposed for 

any changes. If they are currently non-motorized, they 

will remain non-motorized.

362/11.

1643 Route 

Specific 

Comment

McVey Burn. Walk In Areas: This area seems to 

have enough road closures in the new proposal. I 

would encourage you not to add any more roads 

during the next part of this process. This is [a] 

quality hunting area that does receive lots of 

OHV abuse.

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in 

the Record of Decision.

362/13.

1644 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Pleasant Valley GPA [Game Production Area]: 

The timbered ridge adjacent to this parcel is a 

very important habitat that needs to be protected. 

I would request that we close 715.3D, 316.1H, 

U420009, U420079 and CZ 3236 (this one is not 

used by the local resident). Alternative D has 

addressed this well.

Thank you for your interest in this project. The 

Pleasant Valley Game Record of Decision Area is an 

area that has been reviewed and considered as a walk-in 

hunting area. This will be considered by the Decision 

Maker at the time of Decision and documented in the 

Record of Decision for this project. 

362/14.

1645 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Wild Irishman Gulch off Schroeder Road: This 

was a popular hunting area close to Rapid City. 

This is also the reason it has become popular with 

OHV travel and the solitude is now rare in this 

area. It is listed as a winter range area and it needs 

to stay protected. I like the current proposal but I 

am also aware that some of the motorized users 

have requested many trails in this area. I request 

that these user created trails do not be added to 

the map.

Alternative D includes very few motorized routes in the 

Wild Irishman area.

362/15.

1646 Route Roger‟s Shack Burn... note attached document Thank you for your interest in this project. The Roger's 362/17.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

383

Specific 

Comment

[ATT 1] for suggested road closures. Shack Burn Area is an area that has been reviewed and 

considered as a walk-in hunting area. This will be 

considered by the Decision Maker at the time of 

Decision and documented in the Record of Decision for 

this project. 

1647 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Custer State Park and Wind Cave National Park: 

The MVUM [Motor Vehicle Use Map] shows a 

somewhat adequate buffer on the west border of 

these parks. These are valuable corridors for 

wildlife that need to remain protected. Please note 

enclosed attachment [ATT 1] for suggested road 

closures.

Thank you for your interest in this project. The 

Pleasant Valley Game Record of Decision Area is an 

area that has been reviewed and considered as a walk-in 

hunting area. This will be considered by the Decision 

Maker at the time of Decision and documented in the 

Record of Decision for this project. 

362/19.

1648 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Jewel Cave and Mount Rushmore... note 

suggested road closures next to these sensitive 

areas in the enclosed document [ATT 1].

Thank you for your interest in this project. The area 

adjacent to Mount Rushmore on the Hell Canyon 

Ranger District is within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. 

Within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve, no motorized 

travel is allowed except on designated roads. 

362/20.

1649 Route 

Specific 

Comment

My comment is specific to Hwy 385 and F.S. 

204.2. There is not an area for trailhead parking 

and leaving unoccupied vehicles at Hwy 385 and 

F.S. 204.2. Do you even have permission from 

the DOT [Department of Transportation] for 

such? I believe the best trailhead point and trail 

advantageous to the motorcycle riders would be 

at the Pilot Knob location. It is centralized, 

trailhead parking, restaurant, gas and more area 

for trails.

The trailhead on FSR204.2 was analyzed in Alternatives 

B and C and removed from Alternatives D and E. No 

permission would be needed from DOT as any selected 

trailheads will be on NFS lands. The Pilot Knob 

trailhead was analyzed on Alternatives B, C and E and 

not included in Alt D. Any decision about selected 

trailheads will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

363/1.

1650 Route 

Specific 

Comment

My comment is specific to Hwy 385 and F.S. 

204.2. Are you making reference to a dirt bike 

trail? I maintain a motorcycle that is a Harley, 

Honda and Vulcan etc. street legal. I have not 

witnessed any such street legal motorcycles on 

these trails or any trail at any time. If so, please 

consider dangers involved or safety concerns 

related to trees, rocks, car traffic and logging 

trucks. Also, where you have the so called 

motorcycle crossing on [Hwy] 385 there is a 

curve; it‟s on a slight hill coming into a tree area 

from an open straight road. Do you have correct 

planned signage and also do you have DOT 

The reference to motorcycles in the DEIS is for dirt 

bike type motorcycles. Any highway or other high 

speed road crossings would be engineered and signed as 

appropriate to make them safe.

363/2.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

384

[Department of Transportation] permission to 

use the road ditch?

1651 Route 

Specific 

Comment

My comment is specific to Hwy 385 and F.S. 

204.2. Your motorcycle or dirt bike trail runs 

parallel to [Hwy] 385 and there are safety 

concerns of dust, rocks, grass and other debris 

causing difficulty for the regular tourists and daily 

traffic on [Hwy] 385.

The proposed motorcycle near 204.2 was analyzed in 

Alternatives B, C and D and removed in Alternatives E. 

For any route selected the FS will work with other 

government agencies to make crossing along any high 

speed road engineered in a safe manner. Your comment 

will be considered and any decision on trail locations 

will be documented in the Record of Decision.

363/3.

1652 Route 

Specific 

Comment

FS 616.2A has never been a trail and should 

remain so.

The proposed ATV route on 616.2A was analyzed in 

Alternatives B, C and D and removed in Alternatives E. 

Your comment will be considered and any decision on 

trail locations will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

363/4.

1653 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I am commenting on a proposed trail system that 

is on the Alternative C map in Wyoming 

Bearlodge area, the main trail system I am 

referring to is trail numbers 832.1B, 832.1B, 

832.11 and 832.1G that comes off of 832.1. And 

the other trails are 830.3, 832.1 and 830.3. On the 

Alternative C map this part is located between 

T54N and T53N R63W and R61W.The rest of 

the trail that is proposed on Alternative C map I 

think should stay. The reason I would like to see 

trails 832.1B, 832.1B, 832.11 and 832.1G that 

forms a loop, is that it covers an area that is 

needed very much for ones like me that have 

heart trouble or other handicap reasons. I live just 

to the east of there.

Thank you for your comment. 364/1.

1654 Route 

Specific 

Comment

This comment refers to the Black Hills National 

Forest Travel Management Plan. We are looking 

at Alternative C, Feb 2009, Map 2 of 3, South 

Dakota-North. Begin approximately 6 miles south 

of Brownsville at the junction of U.S. Hwy. 385 

and FS 294.2 where a trailhead is shown: The 

Experimental Forest is shown on the northerly 

side of US 385. It is actually at least 1 mile 

southerly and on the southerly side of US 385. FS 

route number 616 is the main route through the 

Experimental Forest.

Experimental Forest in Alt C was an area name given to 

a proposed trailhead and not the actual location of the 

Experimental Forest.

365/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

385

1655 Route 

Specific 

Comment

This comment refers to the Black Hills National 

Forest Travel Management Plan. We are looking 

at Alternative C, Feb 2009, Map 2 of 3, South 

Dakota-North. Begin approximately 6 miles south 

of Brownsville at the junction of U.S. Hwy. 385 

and F.S. 294.2 where a trailhead is shown: A 

motorcycle trail is shown on the northerly side of 

US 385. It is shown in the ditch of US 385 for 

about 1/2 mile. Four wheelers have previously 

used this 1/2 mile and created very dangerous 

conditions due to proximity with highway traffic 

and creation of dust. The motorcycle trail must 

cross US 385 at the shown trailhead and then 

continues adjacent to F.S. 204.2 for 2+ miles. The 

trail as shown has never been used for 

motorcycles and should not be allowed. F.S. 204.2 

is the logical trail.

The proposed motorcycle near 204.2 was analyzed in 

Alternatives B, C and D and removed in Alternatives E. 

For any route selected the FS will work with other 

government agencies to make crossing along any high 

speed road engineered in a safe manner. Your comment 

will be considered and any decision on trail locations 

will be documented in the Record of Decision.

365/2.

1656 Route 

Specific 

Comment

This comment refers to the Black Hills National 

Forest Travel Management Plan. We are looking 

at Alternative C, Feb 2009, Map 2 of 3, South 

Dakota-North. Begin approximately 6 miles south 

of Brownsville at the junction of U.S. Hwy. 385 

and FS. 294.2 where a trailhead is shown. 

Approximately 1 mile south is the junction of 

FS616 and US385. A trail open to 4 wheelers is 

labeled as 616.2A. The experimental Forest has 

many miles of roads as shown, and the trail 

labeled 616.2A is not needed and should be 

eliminated.

The proposed ATV route on 616.2A was analyzed in 

Alternatives B, C and D and removed in Alternatives E. 

Your comment will be considered and any decision on 

trail locations will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

365/3.

1657 Route 

Specific 

Comment

This comment refers to the Black Hills National 

Forest Travel Management Plan. We are looking 

at Alternative C, Feb 2009, Map 2 of 3, South 

Dakota-North. Begin approximately 6 miles south 

of Brownsville at the junction of U.S. Hwy. 385 

and F.S. 294.2 where a trailhead is shown: 

Approximately 4 miles south of the F.S. 616 

junction is the junction of F.S. 672 and US 385. 

To the immediate southerly side of that junction 

is a maze of motorcycle and 4 wheeler trails. 

Eliminate all the motorcycle trails. There are 

Use of motorcycles is a legitimate use of the Forest on 

designated routes. Varying miles of motorcycle routes 

were analyzed in all Alternatives. Any decision on trail 

locations will be documented in the Record of Decision.

365/4.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

386

ample trails without setting specific trails for 

motorcycles.

1658 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I am the owner of private land within the BHNF. 

The land is encompassed by 72 acres just north of 

Silver City, SD. (see attached map) [ATT 1]. Our 

legal access is through FSR 141.2B. Alternative E 

shows FSR 141.2B ending at the property line. 

Alternatives B, C, and D shows the road going 

past the property and dead-ending. The road is 

shown on all the maps as a dead -end spur. The 

DEIS mentions the need to reduce the number of 

dead-end spurs. The road should end at the 

private property line. It is my recommendation 

that the road end at the property line as shown in 

Alternative E.

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in 

the Record of Decision.

367/1.

1659 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The road [FSR 141.2B] is only accessible through 

Silver City Road (Road 141). Being that Silver City 

Road crosses through the town, access through 

FSR 141.2B should be discouraged because of 

increased traffic through residential 

neighborhoods leading to dust, noise pollution, 

and potential conflict. It is my recommendation 

that the road end at the property line as shown in 

Alternative E.

Routes through and adjacent to Silver City are open to 

highway legal vehicles only in Alternatives C, D, and E. 

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in 

the Record of Decision. 

367/2.

1660 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Since the publication of the tentative maps in 

2007, there has been a marked increase of 

motorcycle traffic on this road [FSR 141.2B]. 

Users have created many more trails with the 

intent of connecting this dead-end spur with 

additional trails further north. The community of 

Silver City is unanimously opposed to having FSR 

141.2B be part of the network of trails that are 

exploding North of Silver City (see separate 

signed petition). FSR 141.2B should in no way be 

allowed to connect with other user created trails. 

It is my recommendation that the road end at the 

property line as shown in Alternative E.

FSR 141.2B does not connect to other routes in 

Alternatives D and E. Comment has been evaluated 

and will be considered in the Record of Decision.

367/3.

1661 Route 

Specific 

Comment

A population of Bighorn sheep resides in the 

Rapid Creek Canyon from April to October 

before going to the foothills in the winter. The 

Thank you for your comment. 367/4.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

387

herd crosses this road [FSR 141.2B] twice a day 

(early in the morning and late in the afternoon). 

They feed during the day in the meadows in Silver 

city and go west to the higher rock.

1662 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Alternative B and C allow dispersed camping and 

motorized game retrieval on FSR141.2B. My 

recommendation is that game retrieval and 

dispersed camping not be allowed on this road 

because the road runs on the bottom of a narrow 

gulch. It has high ridges on both sides. Any 

motorized game retrieval would allow travel up 

very steep ground. Since the road is at the bottom 

of the gulch it would be preferable for the hunter 

to drag the animal downhill on foot rather than 

drive up to retrieve it. The DEIS makes the 

assumption that “More areas for motorized game 

retrieval would generally be expected to generate 

more use of those areas” (pg 46) [of the DEIS]. 

Being that the road is between the town of Silver 

City with 80 houses and the Sunnyside 

Subdivision with 12 houses, it would be 

preferable not to cause more use of that area for 

hunting.

FSR 141.2B is open to highway legal vehicles only in 

Alternatives D and E.

367/5.

1663 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Alternative C calls for opening trails 671.1D, 

142.1A, 437.1D, 437.1F, 437.1E and 437.1G. 

These are old logging trails. These trails should be 

eliminated because: the connectors to these trails 

were created within the last two years. Several 

trees were painted with white arrows to indicate a 

circuit for ATVs. Once the connectors were 

created and the trees were marked, the number of 

ATVs increased as they were made aware of the 

trails. The connectors are all user created for the 

sole purpose of being able to add them to the 

DEIS. The trails should be closed. There is 

already a high concentration of ATV and 

motorcycle trails north and east of Silver City. 

The community is very uneasy with this.

Most of these routes are not included in Alternatives D 

or E.

367/6.

1664 Route 

Specific 

It seems so counter to the National Forests 

preservation goals to allow such destruction to 

The Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob is 

currently open to motorized traffic. It was analyzed to 

368/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

388

Comment the section of the formerly beautiful Centennial 

Trail that is open to motorized vehicles. Please 

close the entire Centennial Trail to all motorized 

vehicles. We have been in the Nemo, South 

Dakota area for 23 years and have witnessed the 

destruction that has taken place on the Centennial 

Trail with ATVs and dirt bikes. We used to see 

hikers and pedal bikes on the trail in the past, but 

they are few and far between now. The noise 

factor is also bad.

be open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed from 

Alternative D. Any decision about selected routes will 

be documented in the Record of Decision. Common to 

all Alternatives noise levels will be set at 96 decibels for 

OHV traffic.

1665 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Being a senior citizen in my seventies, I long for a 

time where some of the Mickelson/Centennial 

Trail scenery could be available for those of us 

who now find these areas off limits to use tunnel, 

bridges, etc. Perhaps golf cart vehicles for 8-12 

people between trailheads with a return by road at 

a reasonable fee could be an option in the future. 

(A profitable enterprise to fund the up-keep of 

the trails similar to 1880 train) - just a thought!

The Mickelson Trail and possible outfitting and guiding 

possibility on the designated motorized system are 

beyond the scope of this EIS. 

369/8.

1666 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I'm writing this note to tell you I am in favor of 

Alternative D to save the botanical areas and 

hiking areas.

Thank you for your comment. 371/1.

1667 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I would like to see the Peaceful Pines Trailhead 

changed because it is located in a residential 

neighborhood where people have homes in the 

peacefulness of the forest.

The Peaceful Pines trailhead was not included in 

Alternatives D or E. Comment has been evaluated and 

will be considered in the Record of Decision.

371/2.

1668 Route 

Specific 

Comment

For numerous reasons, I support Alternative D in 

the DEIS. First, motor travel on the Centennial 

Trail (Dalton Lake to Nemo area) must be 

eliminated. The ATV users on this part of the trail 

have done an incredible amount of damage to the 

trail, and have made it unusable by hikers or 

mountain bikers. Recent repair of the trail has 

cost $17,000 per mile, and is an unnecessary waste 

of resources.

The Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob is

currently open to motorized traffic. It was analyzed to 

be open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed from 

Alternative D. Any decision about selected routes will 

be documented in the Record of Decision.

372/3.

1669 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Alternatives B and C must not be allowed because 

864.1, 864.1A and 864.1C would be in conflict 

with the ROS [Recreation Opportunity Spectrum] 

semi-primitive non-motorized status of Dugout 

Gulch. As stated on page 250 of the DEIS, 

Alternatives A, D, and E of the DEIS and FEIS 

addressed this concern and eliminated these routes from 

consideration. 

372/7.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

389

opening these routes to motorized vehicles is in 

conflict with the Forest Plan Guideline 3.1-5103.

1670 Route 

Specific 

Comment

We strongly oppose the “Trails Open to 

Motorcycles Only” on: motorcycle trail labeled 

CZ-4885 (the trail lays in and near the 

Experimental Forest) for Alternatives B, C, and 

D. We oppose these trails primarily because of 

the noise associated with motorcycles.

Thank you for your comment. The proposed 

motorcycle CZ-4885 was analyzed in Alternatives B, C 

and D and removed in Alternatives E. Your comment 

will be considered and any decision on trail locations 

will be documented in the Record of Decision. 

Common to all Alternatives noise levels will be set at 96 

decibels for OHV traffic.

374/1.

1671 Route 

Specific 

Comment

We strongly oppose the “Trails Open to 

Motorcycles Only” on: motorcycle trail labeled 

CZ-4829 (the trail begins near Nemo and extends 

north approximately 13 miles) for Alternatives B 

and C. We oppose these trails primarily because 

of the noise associated with motorcycles.

Common to all Alternatives noise levels will be set at 96 

decibels for OHV traffic.

374/2.

1672 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Both the American Motorcycle Association and 

the USFS DEIS recognize the importance of the 

noise issue: “The Association believes that few 

other factors contribute more to 

misunderstanding and prejudice against the 

motorcycling community than excessively noisy 

motorcycles.” 

http://www.americantrails.org/resources/motors

/amapositionnoise.html “An increasingly 

important issue in the Black Hills and across the 

nation is the sound level associated with offhighway vehicles especially in otherwise quiet 

areas.” (USFS DEIS, p 76). The DEIS suggests a 

96DB (A) sound emission limit, and argues that at 

300 feet the attenuated sound decreases to a more 

acceptable 50DB (A). But the DEIS also 

recognizes that 1. “It is possible that moving 

existing cross-country traffic onto designated 

roads and trails will increase the average sound 

levels in some areas” (pg 87), 2. “Enforcement of 

the sound level limit is key to the success of those 

programs” (p 77), and, regarding the ability to 

enforce sound limits. 3. “Addressing many of the 

management concerns will be dependent on 

available funding sources, which will most likely 

Concerns for noise levels (noise) were recognized in 

Issue 4, in Chapter 1 of the FEIS. That issue lists 

proximity of trails to adjacent non-National Forest 

System (NFS) lands as one indicator to measure the 

performance of the alternatives with respect to this 

issue. The alternatives vary in how many miles of routes 

are proposed near to non-NFS lands. CZ 4885 and CZ 

4829 are included as motorcycle trails in Alternatives B, 

C and D and removed from Alt E. Any decision about 

selected routes will be documented in the Record of 

Decision. Under all action alternatives the sound level 

for OHV traffic would be set at 96 decibels.

374/3.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

390

be limited” (p 15).Since 1934 our family has 

owned and recreated on property [near trails 

CZ4885 and CZ 4829] proposed as “Trails Open 

to Motorcycles Only” routes. We have first-hand 

experience with the noise motorcycles and OHVS 

make on the road on which we live (Nemo Road), 

and the inability of government authorities to 

monitor and enforce noise standards. The 

proposed route CZ-4885 comes within a mile of 

our property, and a combination of “Seasonal 

Roads Open to Highway Legal Only Vehicles” 

and “Roads Open to All Vehicles” could easily 

bring the motorcycles to our property. 

Enforcement is hard to visualize in this area.

1673 Route 

Specific 

Comment

(cont form comment no. 3) CZ-4885 does not 

form a loop, but it is easy to imagine that some 

motorcycles will want to make a loop trip out of 

the ride. That will be easily done by connecting 

Nemo Road, taking Nemo Road northwest to 

Benchmark Road, and Benchmark Road back to 

its intersection with CA-4885. In so doing, the 

motorcycles will go directly past our family 

homes. Alternatively, if “Trails Open to 

Motorcycles Only” route CZ-4829 is built, the 

modified loop for motorcycles becomes even 

more attractive. In that case, motorcycles on CZ-

4885 can join CZ-4829 near Nemo, ride north to 

Nemo Road, follow Nemo Road past our homes, 

and again take Benchmark Road to CZ-4885. Our 

experience is that many motorcycles will be 

revving engines (no doubt past 96 DB(A)) as they 

go past our homes, and that no enforcement will 

be at hand. I have no doubt that for us and many 

like us that value nature‟s quiet, the USFS caution 

“... that moving existing cross-country traffic 

onto designated roads and trails will increase the 

average sound levels in some areas” will indeed 

hold true for our area. And, we have strong 

reservations that the crucial enforcement of 

sound limits will be adequately performed. We 

Motorized traffic would be expected to stay on the 

designated routes. In all alternatives the sound level for 

OHV traffic would be set at 96 decibels. The Forest 

Service expects that the public will generally comply 

with requirements but will conduct enforcement where 

needed. The alternatives present a range of options, as 

stated in the comment, and this concern will be 

considered in making the decision on this project. 

374/4.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

391

have spoken to our family‟s particular situation. 

No doubt others will be negatively affected by 

noise from the motorcycle routes listed here, and 

by other OHV routes given for most of the 

Alternatives. Please eliminate the Motorcycle 

Only routes listed above and restrict 

“concentrated Motorized Use Areas” more than 

in Alternatives B, C, and D. Alternative E 

addresses these concerns and appears much more 

in line with budget and enforcement likelihoods.

1674 Route 

Specific 

Comment

There needs to be a trail from Hwy 385 over to 

Rochford.

There are many routes that go between Hwy 385 and 

Rochford. 

375/5.

1675 Route 

Specific 

Comment

On a couple of Alternatives there is no trail from 

Pilots Knob to Nemo. Are you removing the 

Centennial Trail?

The Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob is 

currently open to motorized traffic. It was analyzed to 

be open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed from 

Alternative D. Any decision about selected routes will 

be documented in the Record of Decision. 

375/6.

1676 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Enclosed you will find letters of support, signed 

petitions, and a copy of an online petition all 

supporting the use of the Top 50 Rally Park as a 

trailhead leading to Forest Service designated 

trails. Please note there are over 440 people 

represented here. We [Top 50 supporters] are 

asking you to designate the 1/3mile on Forest 

Service land leading to the legally open public 

right of way (section line) connecting Top 50 

Rally Park and the Forest Service Trail System. 

With such an action, Top 50 Rally Park plans to 

work with the Forest Service, Meade County who 

has jurisdiction over the section line in question, 

the Off-Road Riders Association, and OHV 

manufacturers to acquire grants and volunteers to 

properly and legally engineer and construct a trail 

from Top 50 Rally Park to the trail system. Some 

of this funding and volunteer labor may be used 

on the Forest Service‟s 1/3 of a mile leading to 

the trail system, trail reconstruction in any 

damaged areas nearby, and in on-going 

The Top 50 Trailhead location is not within FS 

jurisdiction and therefore outside of the scope of this 

DEIS. The route NH9 was analyzed in Alt C and 

removed in Alternatives B, D and E. Any decision 

about selected routes will be documented in the Record 

of Decision. 

377/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

392

maintenance and law enforcement. In further 

consideration of designating use of this 

connection, we refer to Meade County 

Commissioners. In the past Meade County 

Commissioners have voted to keep this section 

line open, and have recently refused taking further 

action, stating no action is necessary as this 

section line is open to travel by the public. Meade 

County Commissioners‟ official response to the 

DEIS (see ** below) requests no action, supports 

motorized access to the forest, and calls for 

additional meetings. We feel these statements and 

actions support leaving the Top 50 Rally Park 

section line access to Forest Service Trails open 

to public use so long as there is no resource 

damage done. There are many people calling out 

for large, easily accessible locations to access the 

trail system from. The City of Sturgis has also 

expressed their need for access to the trail system 

and has discussed the creation of a trailhead on 

city property.

1677 Route 

Specific 

Comment

(cont from comment no. 1) We support this 

effort and encourage the Forest Service to further 

discuss options with Sturgis City Officials.**

“Meade County finds all of the Action 

Alternatives (B, C, D, and E) unacceptable. Thus 

we request that at this time the Forest Service 

continue with Alternative A, the “no action” 

Alternative, pending further revision....We insist 

on additional meetings organized under Title 

36CFR212.53 where the managing agency, states, 

tribal governments, counties, municipalities, and 

other local governments coordinate on an equal 

basis to create a travel management plan. We 

further request that these meetings be conducted 

under Roberts Rules of Order with documented 

agendas and minutes, rather than through the 

dialogue to consensus or facilitated meeting 

process.

Thank you for your comment. The FS will continue to 

work with the City of Sturgis as the motorized travel 

system is developed.

377/2.

1678 Route Folks need a place to get gas and a snack. From FSR 558 was analyzed in all Alternatives. The routes 378/11.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

393

Specific 

Comment

Mystic Hills campground to Boondocks 1/2 mile 

is missing. The number is 558-1 and U070182 and 

should be included to connect. [Users] need more 

connectors and trailheads.

going to Boondocks and Mystic Hills are on private 

property and not under Forest Service Jurisdiction. 

Varying numbers of trailheads were analyzed in all 

Alternatives.

1679 Route 

Specific 

Comment

In the Northern Hills there are not enough trails. 

Trails that are there are not well connected. This 

deprives that region of revenue, and deprives 

enthusiasts of recreational opportunities and 

needs to be remedied. There are no trails near 

Sturgis. Need access to Camp 5 off of road 

171.1B for motorcycles and ATVs. Will have 

conflict on 170.

Thank you for your comment. No routes were analyzed 

between 171.1B and the camp 5 area and therefore are 

outside the scope of this document. Any consideration 

to future trails will be handled by the individual District.

379/12.

1680 Route 

Specific 

Comment

[Respondent] needs access at Camp 5 off of 171. Thank you for your comment. No routes were analyzed 

between 171 and the camp 5 area and therefore are 

outside the scope of this document. Any consideration 

to future trails will be handled by the individual District.

390/11.

1681 Route 

Specific 

Comment

[Respondent] needs to access Camp 5 off of 171. Thank you for your comment. No routes were analyzed 

between 171 and the camp 5 area and therefore are 

outside the scope of this document. Any consideration 

to future trails will be handled by the individual District.

391/11.

1682 Route 

Specific 

Comment

[Respondent] needs to be able to access Camp #5 

off #171 when coming from Sturgis.

Thank you for your comment. No routes were analyzed 

between 171 and the camp 5 area and therefore are 

outside the scope of this document. Any consideration 

to future trails will be handled by the individual District.

392/11.

1683 Route 

Specific 

Comment

There needs to be a connection of 171 to camp 5 

so we [ATV riders] do not need to use the gravel 

roads. This is a hazard to us and vehicles using 

the road.

Thank you for your comment. No routes were analyzed 

between 171 and the Camp 5 area and therefore are 

outside the scope of this document. Any consideration 

to future trails will be handled by the individual District.

394/11.

1684 Route 

Specific 

Comment

My family rides out of Sturgis on 171 and a 

connector to Camp 5 is needed.

Thank you for your comment. No routes were analyzed 

between 171 and the camp 5 area and therefore are 

outside the scope of this document. Any consideration 

to future trails will be handled by the individual District.

395/11.

1685 Route 

Specific 

Comment

In all Alternatives there are extremely limited 

trails in the Hell Canyon District (Southern Hills). 

This deprives that region of revenue, and deprives 

enthusiasts of recreational opportunities and need 

to be remedied. Camp 5 access off trail 171.

Additional routes were reviewed and considered, and 

those chosen will be documented in the Record of 

Decision. It is possible that, in the future, additional 

routes will be designated as the need arises.

397/11.

1686 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Our limited partnership owns private land in the 

area of the old town known as Welcome, 

Wyoming which is at the base of Mineral Hill. In 

The "Other Public Roads" classification was used to 

identify roads outside the jurisdiction of the Forest 

Service such as Federal, State, and County Roads or 

398/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

394

reviewing the plan, I looked at the map of the 

area and it appears that you have designated the 

private roads on our private land as either “Other 

Public Roads” or “Seasonal Designation.” The 

roads on our private land are not public roads and 

the Forest Service has adequate roads on their 

own land. I most strenuously object to any claims 

or assertions that our private roads are public 

roads. I find this to be a materially misleading, if 

not fraudulent representation. If our roads are 

mislabeled, how am I to trust that other roads on 

your maps are correctly identified? Without 

having a truthful basis, how can anyone make an 

informed comment? I believe that accurate and 

truthful maps should first be presented and then 

to allow comments. Any action taken upon the 

basis of false, misleading or fraudulent maps 

should be invalid and subject to being vacated by 

a court of competent jurisdiction. I would urge 

that this process be continued until after complete 

and accurate mapping is provided to the public, 

which will then be able to make meaningful 

comments.

roads that are historically known to be open to public 

travel. The Forest Service does not promote any type of 

motorized traffic on these routes. Routes listed with 

"Seasonal Designation" are Forest Service roads or the 

Forest Service has easements for those routes. The 

question of jurisdiction is continually being reviewed for 

more accurate information. 

1687 Route 

Specific 

Comment

285.1A immediately borders our homesteads for 

more than a mile. From a personal perspective, 

designating this route as an ATV trail is severely 

incompatible with historic private land use. We 

are also very concerned that there are a 

considerable number of roads and trails that dead 

end at private property boundaries, i.e. 285.1H, 

477.2C, 298.1E. These will invite violations of the 

Management Plan. Damage to private property 

will increase, as has already been an issue in our 

location. Some riders will not want to return on 

the same route and cross private property instead, 

leaving gates open which manage livestock and 

increasing danger of fire during times of tall grass 

and drought.

I appreciate your comments and concerns related to 

private property and specifically Forest Service Roads 

285.1A, 285.1H, 477.2C and 298.1E. To be clear, none 

of the Alternatives analyzed have designated any of 

these routes as trails. The three routes you have 

identified as dead ends to private property (285.1H, 

477.2C, and 298.1E) are included in all Alternatives. 

However, in Alternative D, FSR 285.1A is not included 

as an open road. The Decision Maker will consider your 

concerns and make a decision based on the analysis of 

effects within all Alternatives.

399/4.

1688 Route 

Specific 

Remove CZ-4910 from any final plan: If 

designated, it would be the only designated trailCZ-4910 was analyzed in Alternatives B and D and removed from Alternatives D and E. Any decision 

400/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

395

Comment type route in a polygon of land embraced by 

Merritt-Estes Road, Nemo Road, Norris Peak 

Road, and Bogus Jim Road. We walked this 

proposed route May 3, 2009 and found that the 

portion south of Merritt-Estes Road is extremely 

steep and erosion would certainly become an 

issue.

about selected routes will be documented in the Record 

of Decision. 

1689 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Remove CZ-4910 from any final plan: CZ-4910 is 

not an established route - it does not actually 

exist. It has had a dirt bike or two on it, most 

likely when it was GPSed for purposes of 

proposing it as a trail. It is not established north 

of Merritt-Estes Road either. The intent of the 

2005 Final Travel Management Rule was not to 

have people go out and „find‟ new routes in 

excess of those that were already established.CZ4910 was „created‟ illegally, is poorly located, and 

would cause unacceptable environmental impacts 

if adopted as part of the designated trail system.

CZ-4910 was analyzed in Alternatives B and D and 

removed from Alternatives D and E. Any decision 

about selected routes will be documented in the Record 

of Decision. 

400/2.

1690 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Remove CZ-4910 from any final plan: Since it 

would take motorcycles away from the main 

focus of the trail system north of Merritt-Estes 

Road and law enforcement efforts there, we feel 

that the area south of the road would be at risk of 

abuse (renegade trails). We feel that we could very 

well be the only ones interested in whether or not 

renegade routes were being established in the area 

and really do not want to shoulder that burden. 

We do a lot of volunteer work for the Forest 

Service as it is.

CZ-4910 was analyzed in Alternatives B and D and 

removed from Alternatives D and E. Any decision 

about selected routes will be documented in the Record 

of Decision. 

400/3.

1691 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Remove CZ-4910 from any final plan: With a trail 

there, the area would be subject to the 

accompanying problem of invasive weeds (a 

major threat to forest health), something that 

currently seems to be plaguing the forest. At this 

point, that land is free of invasives and is well 

supplied with native plant species. We would like 

to see it stay this way.

CZ-4910 was analyzed in Alternatives B and D and 

removed from Alternatives D and E. Any decision 

about selected routes will be documented in the Record 

of Decision.

400/4.

1692 Route 

Specific 

After the 2005 Travel Rule was announced, a 

broad area in this vicinity [Merritt-Estes Road, 

CZ-4835 was analyzed in Alternatives B and C and 

removed from Alternatives D and E. Any decision 

400/5.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

396

Comment Nemo Road, Norris Peak Road, Bogus Jim Road] 

was subjected to a frenzy of methodical ferreting 

for new trails. We are aware of motorcycle and 

rock crawler routes that were illegally created in 

this manner. This was not the intent of the travel 

rule. Undoubtedly, there are other such trails that 

we are not aware of, but this trail that most 

certainly falls into that category and should be 

removed from any final travel plan: CZ-4835.

about selected routes will be documented in the Record 

of Decision. 

1693 Route 

Specific 

Comment

After the 2005 Travel Rule was announced, a 

broad area in this vicinity [Merritt-Estes Road, 

Nemo Road, Norris Peak Road, Bogus Jim Road] 

was subjected to a frenzy of methodical ferreting 

for new trails. We are aware of motorcycle and 

rock crawler routes that were illegally created in 

this manner. This was not the intent of the travel 

rule. Undoubtedly, there are other such trails that 

we are not aware of, but this trail that most 

certainly falls into that category and should be 

removed from any final travel panics-4880, also, 

much too close to a delicate intermittent stream

that has been known to have beavers in the past. 

It is in the WIZ [Water Influence Zone].

CZ-4880 was analyzed in Alternatives B and C and 

removed from Alternatives D and E. Any decision 

about selected routes will be documented in the Record 

of Decision. Trails are not completely excluded from 

the WIZ. Design criteria specifically for trails in the 

WIZ will be applied to minimize the impacts on the 

water resource.

400/6.

1694 Route 

Specific 

Comment

After the 2005 Travel Rule was announced, a 

broad area in this vicinity [Merritt-Estes Road, 

Nemo Road, Norris Peak Road, Bogus Jim Road] 

was subjected to a frenzy of methodical ferreting 

for new trails. We are aware of motorcycle and 

rock crawler routes that were illegally created in 

this manner. This was not the intent of the travel 

rule. Undoubtedly, there are other such trails that 

we are not aware of, but this trail that most 

certainly falls into that category and should be 

removed from any final travel plan: CZ-4870.

CZ-4870 was analyzed in Alternatives B and C and 

removed from Alternatives D and E. Any decision 

about selected routes will be documented in the Record 

of Decision. 

400/7.

1695 Route 

Specific 

Comment

After the 2005 Travel Rule was announced, a 

broad area in this vicinity [Merritt-Estes Road,

Nemo Road, Norris Peak Road, Bogus Jim Road] 

was subjected to a frenzy of methodical ferreting 

for new trails. We are aware of motorcycle and 

rock crawler routes that were illegally created in 

MY51 was included in Alternative C as a special 

designation route, but was eliminated from Alternatives 

D and E.

400/8.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

397

this manner. This was not the intent of the travel 

rule. Undoubtedly, there are other such trails that 

we are not aware of, but this trail that most 

certainly falls into that category and should be 

removed from any final travel plan: MY51, 

delicate, unspoiled ecosystem, newly pioneered 

for trail system. This route did not actually exist 

when we photographed it May 2006 - it had only 

been (apparently accidently) marked on a OHV 

enthusiast‟s map that went public. Additional 

areas were marked on these maps that were 

apparently similarly viewed (as potential trails for 

illegal development). 

1696 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Pilot Knob Trailhead currently has some 

problems that affect the Water Influence Zone of 

Jim Creek. Part of the trailhead is in the WIZ 

(inconsistent with the Design Criteria stated in the 

DEIS). What appears to be a „sediment basin‟ is 

apparently inadequate during times when the 

ground is saturated, the basin is full, and it rains 

even just a little. Consequently, sediment is 

running off the steep, wide, and long stretch of 

motorized trail heading up from the trailhead. We 

have witnessed times when Jim Creek is very clear 

before the trailhead, and then very, very murky 

after the trailhead.

Pilot Knob is an existing trailhead on the motorized 

portion of the Centennial trail. It was analyzed in 

Alternatives B, C and E and removed from Alt D. The 

design criterion to keep trailheads out of the WIZ is for 

new trailheads and expansions of existing ones. If the 

trailhead is impacting the stream, then mitigations will 

need to be applied to minimize the impacts.

400/9.

1697 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Somewhat related is the fact that immediately east 

of the Pilot Knob Trailhead, FSR 208 (the 

Merritt-Estes Road) looks like it is actually 

missing 2 culverts or bridges and the creek has 

been displaced out of its natural course.

Thank you for your comment and notification. This 

information has been passed along to our 

engineering/road maintenance department.

400/10.

1698 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Unrelated to the Designated Trail System, but 

relevant to Travel Management are spurs related 

to FSR 706.1, the route we use to access our 

place. Our concerns are with 706.1A and 706.1B 

which should remain closed year-round. The 

current, on the ground status, is what we prefer, 

and as far as we can tell, this also works very well 

for both the Forest Service and the Public. 

Currently, a gate is locked year-round, keeping 

FSR706.1A and 706.1B are both currently listed as open 

system roads. They were analyzed in Alternatives B, C 

and E as a road open to highway legal vehicles and 

removed from Alternative D. 

400/11.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

398

vehicles off 706.1A and 706.1B. These routes are 

now well-vegetated and erosion-free. The gate has 

been very good for protecting Jim Creek, which 

would have to be forded to access both 706.1A 

and 706.1B.

1699 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Unrelated to the Designated Trail System, but 

relevant to Travel Management are spurs related 

to FSR 706.1, the route we use to access our 

place. Our concerns are with 706.1A and 706.1B 

which should remain closed year-round. After the 

first crossing, 706.1A actually crosses the [Jim] 

Creek multiple more times and is certainly not a 

good place to encourage vehicular traffic any time 

of the year. Our understanding years and years 

ago was that these rocked crossings were going to 

be restored after the logging projects of the day 

were completed. For the benefit of the creek and 

its associated plant and animal life, this would still 

be a good thing to do.

Comments on restoration of rock crossings on 706.1A 

are beyond the scope of this document.

400/12.

1700 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Unrelated to the Designated Trail System, but 

relevant to Travel Management are spurs related 

to FSR 706.1, the route we use to access our 

place. Our concerns are with 706.1A and 706.1B 

which should remain closed year-round. 

Alternatives A, B, C, and E in the Travel 

Management DEIS have these roads marked as 

Seasonal Designation, which we understand to 

mean that they would be open some of the time -

this is not a good option. Having these routes 

closed year-round seems to allow for plenty of 

hunting, hiking, Christmas tree cutting, etc. for 

the public and yet keeps things like toilet paper, 

car and yard waste, and appliance dumping to a 

manageable minimum. Alternatively, they could 

be handled as in Alternative D, which has these 

roads as not even part of the system (nonexistent), which may be the best description of 

them - they could always be reinstated as needed 

in the future for management projects. We 

encourage you to keep the status quo situation 

FSR706.1A and 706.1B are both currently listed as open 

system roads. They were analyzed in Alternatives B, C 

and E as a road open to highway legal vehicles and 

removed from Alternative D. 

400/13.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

399

with these roads gated year long, as it is working 

well or, better yet, do what is in Alternative D and 

decommission them.

1701 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I feel even Alternative D doesn‟t go far enough, 

because, to my understanding, it still allows ATVs 

on Centennial Trail. I love Centennial Trail, and 

have been enjoying it for 20 years. I was at the 

opening ceremony near the Rapid Creek 

Trailhead, below Pactola Dam. At the ceremony, 

and on the sign at every trailhead, it says

Centennial is a lasting legacy for future 

generations. As Centennial Trail turns 20 this 

year, I have to wonder. The sections the ATVs 

have been allowed on haven‟t been treated very 

well. Not even one generation later, some ATVs 

sections are abused so badly, they make another 

trail alongside. This braided trail, disposable trail 

philosophy, lacks respect for the Hills, and the 

others who use it. Centennial, 76, Dugout, Big 

Hill, and other areas all have excellent hiking trails 

that should not be compromised. I don‟t like the 

noise, I don‟t like the trail damage, and I don‟t 

like the invasion of ATVs on hiking trails. More 

walk-in and wilderness areas should be set aside 

while it‟s still possible.

The Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob is

currently open to motorized traffic. It was analyzed to 

be open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed from 

Alternative D. Any decision about selected routes will 

be documented in the Record of Decision.

401/2.

1702 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I‟m disturbed by the number and locations of 

some of the proposed ATV trailheads. Big Hill, 

Sundance, Pilot Knob, Samelius, and others are 

all too close to existing hiking trailheads. And 

what about camping? The traffic and noise that 

goes with ATVs will take away parts of the appeal 

people go to these places in the first place.

Various numbers of trailheads were proposed in all of 

the Alternatives. Big Hill and Pilot Knob are existing 

trailheads and were included in all Alternatives. Any 

decision about selected trailheads will be documented in 

the Record of Decision.

401/3.

1703 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I favor Alternative D, would like to see ATVs 

kept off of Centennial Trail, and more walk-in 

and wilderness areas.

The Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob is

currently open to motorized traffic. It was analyzed to 

be open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed from 

Alternative D. Any decision about selected routes will 

be documented in the Record of Decision.

401/4.

1704 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The Shank‟s Quarry area is of particular concern 

in Plan [Alternative] C. Shank‟s Quarry has served 

as a biking venue for the last 15 years, and is in 

Many of the routes in the Shank's Quarry area were 

eliminated from Alternatives D and E.

402/3.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

400

close proximity to Buzzards Roost which is 

currently being developed as a non-motorized 

recreation area. The trails on the Rim that parallel 

Highway 44 west as well as a majority of trails 

shown to be motorized were developed by 

mountain bikers, and the previous 15 years of 

permitting for events will show this. I do feel the 

current numbered official FS roads off of 

Schroeder Road and Shank‟s Quarry would work 

as a gateway trail to the specific motorized 

venues. The BHMBA [Black Hills Mountain Bike 

Association] does not support shared use with 

motorized or equestrians on purpose built bike 

trails. The cost and time to construct the trails is 

immense. Bicycles are not fun or easy to ride 

when conditions are wet, therefore biking is 

avoided during wet conditions. Based upon the 

ruts and holes on trails throughout the Black 

Hills, the same is not true for horses or motorized 

vehicles in wet conditions.

1705 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I feel very strongly that no motorized vehicles 

should be allowed on the Centennial Trail. I have 

hiked the entire trail from end to end, and was 

nearly run over by young men driving motocross 

vehicles near the Alkali Creek Trailhead. I have 

been passed by ATVs too many times to count 

while on the Centennial trail, but the incident I 

refer to was genuinely life threatening.

The Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob is 

currently open to motorized traffic. It was analyzed to 

be open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed from 

Alternative D. The remainder of the Centennial Trail 

was not analyzed for motorized traffic. Any decision 

about selected routes will be documented in the Record 

of Decision.

406/3.

1706 Route 

Specific 

Comment

An item that has me very concerned is the 

concept of the Top 50 ATV park proposed for 

Piedmont. The concept would be a boon to 

manufacturers of these ATVs and the 

entrepreneur seeking to create the park and rally 

event. I simply cannot imagine how any police or 

Forest Service personnel will be able to contain 

the damage done to the hills should the annual 

rally become established and “flourish.

The Top 50 Trailhead location is not within FS 

jurisdiction and therefore outside of the scope of this 

DEIS. 

406/4.

1707 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I‟m writing in regard to the proposal of making 

the Peaceful Pines access in Black Hawk SD a

major trailhead. This is a residential area and we 

The Peaceful Pines trailhead was not included in 

Alternatives D or E. Comment has been evaluated and 

will be considered in the Record of Decision.

409/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

401

have been experiencing some issues and safety 

problems that could be made even worse with 

this location becoming a major entry spot. I have 

small kids that do play in our yard and on the 

weekends and summer evenings there is an 

increase in traffic and many of the dirt bikes and 

off road vehicles moving past our home are 

driven by youth and at a high rates of speed. The 

posted speed is 15 mph and they are traveling at 

an estimated 35 mph. We live in a non 

incorporated area and the only law enforcement is 

the sheriff and so the speed limit is not enforced. 

I do enjoy accessing this are with my Jeep, and 

hiking the area with my kids, the balance between 

motorized access and hiking needs some sort of 

balance. If this becomes a major motorized access 

and with the convenient access to Rapid City and 

I 90 I have concern for my kids safety, and future 

hiking in the area would become unrealistic.

1708 Route 

Specific 

Comment

OHV use in the Southern Hills on Pilger Mt. will 

be very difficult to monitor. Because of the lack 

of rain, any off-road excursions create lasting 

damage to the plant life. Fire danger will also 

increase with more ATV use. It is sparsely 

populated and OHV users already feel quite free 

to access forest lands using private trails without 

permission.

Thank you for your comments and concern regarding

the Black Hills National Forest Travel Management 

Plan. Under the current proposed Alternatives in the 

Draft EIS, there are no specific trails identified for ATV 

use. However, under Alternatives B, C and D, Forest 

Service Road #645 is not on the map as a proposed 

route of any kind. In Alternatives A and E, this road is 

identified as "open to highway legal only". Concerns 

with private land trespass should be less if the Decision 

Maker selects from Alternatives B, C or D. 

Additionally, if these routes are not open to motorized 

use or only to highway legal vehicles, parking OHV 

trailers should not be an issue. 

413/1.

1709 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I have concerns about access to the Forest lands 

east of Red Canyon. Road #645 in Red Canyon 

starts on private land. Where do OHV users plan 

to park their trailers?

Thank you for your comments and concern regarding 

the Black Hills National Forest Travel Management 

Plan. Under the current proposed Alternatives in the 

Draft EIS, there are no specific trails identified for ATV 

use. However, under Alternatives B, C and D, Forest 

Service Road #645 is not on the map as a proposed 

route of any kind. In Alternatives A and E, this road is 

identified as "open to highway legal only". Concerns 

413/2.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

402

with private land trespass should be less if the Decision 

Maker selects from Alternatives B, C or D. 

Additionally, if these routes are not open to motorized 

use or only to highway legal vehicles, parking OHV 

trailers should not be an issue. 

1710 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I think the Centennial Trail should be nonmotorized. The Pilot Knob area where OHVs 

have been traveling shows considerable damage 

already. Was this trail created with OHV in mind? 

Let‟s check the historic integrity.

The Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob is 

currently open to motorized traffic. It was analyzed to 

be open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed from 

Alternative D. This portion on the Centennial trail has 

been open to motorized traffic since 1989 when it was 

first opened. The remainder of the Centennial Trail was 

not analyzed for motorized traffic. Any decision about 

selected routes will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

413/3.

1711 Route 

Specific 

Comment

In Table 9 [ATT 1] is a list of areas that are 

impacted by wildlife issues and for which we are 

asking that trails be removed (see Appendix B 

[ATT 6] for more information).

Many of the routes in the areas listed in Table 9 were 

removed from Alternatives. D and E, or are open to 

highway legal vehicles only. Jim Creek area/Gingrass 

Draw/ Vanocker Canyon, Lost Soldier Spring and 

Camp 5 routes were analyzed in varying capacities as 

road or trails open to all and were removed in 

alternatives D. In alternative E the existing system 

roads were analyzed to be left open to highway legal 

vehicles. There are no designated trails in the Pleasant 

Valley Walk-in Area. Any decision about routes chosen 

will be documented in the Record of Decision.

414/12.

1712 Route 

Specific 

Comment

For all Alternatives, the areas in Table [10] [ATT 

2] should have trails removed to conserve and 

protect USFS sensitive species and Black Hills NF 

plant species of local concern. See Appendix B 

[ATT 6] for more information.

For Table 10 of this comment; Dugout Gulch, Cement 

Ridge, and Bearlodge/Beaver Creek apply to the 

Bearlodge RD. Recommendations for removal of 

routes was considered under Alternative D of the DEIS 

and FEIS with the exception of FS 802.2A as it accesses 

private property. Road 879.1 is listed as "Other 

Jurisdiction" under all Alternatives since it accesses State 

property. Buskala Creek FSR 259.2A was analyzed in 

alt B and E as highway open for highway legal vehicles, 

in alt C as a road open to all and in alt D it was 

removed. FSR 259 was analyzed in Alternatives B, D 

and E as open to highway legal vehicles and in alt C as a 

road open to all. Vanocker Canyon is an existing 

paved Highway and not Forest Service jurisdiction and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. 

414/17.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

403

The Camp 5 area--FSR 306 was analyzed in Alternatives 

B and C and removed from Alternatives D and E. 

FSR 172.1A was analyzed in Alternatives B, C, D as trail 

open to all and in Alt. E as road open to highway legal 

vehicles. FSR 172.1A was analyzed as seasonal road 

open to highway legal vehicles in alt B and E, and 

seasonal road open to all in Alternatives C and D. FSR 

172.1C was analyzed in alt B, C, D as trail open to all 

and in Alt E as open to highway legal vehicles. FSR 

172.1H was analyzed in all alternatives as a seasonal 

road open to all. U030046 was analyzed in Alternatives 

B and C as a road open to all and removed in alt D. It 

was analyzed as road open to highway legal in alt E. 

FSR 170.5I and 170.4D were analyzed in Alternatives B, 

C and D as a trail open to all and in Alt E as road open 

to highway legal. CZ0216 was analyzed in alt B and C 

as a special designation trail and removed in alt D and 

E. U080045 was analyzed as a trail less then 50 inches 

in alt B, C and D and removed from alt E. FSR 567.1F 

was analyzed in Alternatives B, C and D as a seasonal 

trail less the 50 inches and in alt E as a road open to 

highway legal. In the Big Hill area U010071, U0010072, 

FSR134.2L and CZ 0148 were analyzed in Alternatives. 

B and C as trails open to vehicles less then 50 inches 

and removed in Alternatives D and E. Ft. Meade 

Watershed area--U040034 was analyzed in Alternatives 

B and C as a road open to all and in alt D as a road open 

to highway legal vehicles and removed in alt E. 

U008156 was analyzed as a special designation trail in 

Alternatives B and C and removed from Alternatives D 

and E. FSRs 139.1 and 139.1A were analyzed as 

seasonal roads open to all in Alternatives B and C and 

removed from alt D. In Alternatives E they were 

analyzed as road open to highway legal vehicles. 

FSR139.1C was analyzed in alt B and E as a road open 

to highway legal vehicles and in alt C as a road open to 

all. It was removed in alt D. FSR 168.1A was analyzed 

in alt B and E as seasonal road open to highway legal 

vehicles, in alt D it was removed an in alt C as a 

seasonal road open to all. FSR168.1B was analyzed in 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

404

Alternatives B, D and E as open to highway legal 

vehicles and in alt C as a road open to all. FSR 168.2A 

and 168.2B, 168.2C, were analyzed as a seasonal road 

open to all and was removed in alt. D. FSR 168.3A 

and 168.3B, 169.1 were analyzed in Alternatives B, D 

and E as open to highway legal vehicles and in alt C as a 

road open to all. FSR 168.1 . FSR 169.1B was analyzed 

in alt B and C as a seasonal road open to all and in 

Alternatives. D and E as seasonal road open to highway 

legal vehicles. FSR169.1A was analyzed as a seasonal 

road open to all in alt B and C, removed from alt D and 

road open to highway legal vehicles in alt E. FSR 

169.1C was analyzed as a seasonal road open to all and 

removed in alt. D and analyzed as a seasonal road open

to highway legal in Alt. E. FSR169.1D was analyzed in 

alt B and C as a seasonal road open to all and in 

Alternatives D and E as seasonal road open to highway 

legal vehicles. FSR 169.1G was analyzed in alt B and C 

as a seasonal road open to all, in alt D it was removed 

and in alt E as a road open to highway legal vehicles. 

FSR 169.1F was analyzed in alt B and C as seasonal road 

open to all and removed from alt D. In alt E it was 

analyzed as seasonal open to highway legal vehicles. 

FSR 169.1H was analyzed in alt B and E as seasonal 

road open to highway legal, in alt C as seasonal road 

open to all and removed from Alt D. FSR 169.1L was 

analyzed in alt B and C as seasonal road open to all 

removed in alt D and highway legal in alt E. FSR 

169.2A and 169.2B, 169.2C were analyzed in alt B and 

E as a seasonal road open to highway legal, in alt C as 

seasonal road open to all and it was removed from alt 

D. Many of the motorized routes included in Alt. C in 

the Silver City and Canyon City areas were eliminated 

from Alternatives D and E. Any decision about routes 

selected will be documented in the ROD. 

1713 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Many of the routes suggested for the various 

Alternatives appear to conflict with Forest Plan 

Direction, especially with regard to Standards 

1203, 1212, 1301, 1302 and 1304. In Table 8 

[ATT 3] is a list of areas that are impacted by 

Many of the routes in the areas listed in Table 8 were 

removed from Alternatives D and E, or are open to 

highway legal vehicles only. Design criteria applied to 

the routes is designed to minimize impacts and meet 

Forest Plan Direction.

414/38.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

405

hydrology issues and for which we [Biodiversity 

Conservation Alliance] are asking that trails be 

removed (see Appendix B [ATT 6] for more 

information).

1714 Route 

Specific 

Comment

It is requested that the Forest Service withdraw 

any motorized routes in these areas [from 

Alternative D] to protect sensitive natural 

resources. Roads in conflict with Montane 

Grassland: Cement Ridge, west of Black Buttes, 

Hardy, and Ditch Creek.

Motorized routes in montane grassland in the Ditch 

Creek area and FSR 107 and 180 are existing system 

roads in Alternatives D and E. Alternative D of the 

DEIS and FEIS proposed motorized routes on FS 805.1 

because it is a historical access route to the Cement 

Ridge fire tower. FS 878, 872, and 872.1A are not 

associated with known montane grasslands. Various 

routes were analyzed in the Hardy area on alt. B and C 

and were removed in alt D. Any decision about routes 

selected will be documented in the Record of Decision.

414/60.

1715 Route 

Specific 

Comment

It is requested that the Forest Service withdraw 

any motorized routes in these areas [from 

Alternative D] to protect sensitive natural 

resources. Roads in conflict with Weed Infested 

Areas: west of Hardy, southwest Jewel Cave, and 

north of Clayton Quarry.

In Alternative D west of Hardy the NH District did not 

propose any new routes. Open existing routes were all 

that were considered. In the Clayton Quarry area one 

route was considered in Alt D but was dropped in Alt 

E. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. Management of 

weed infestations will not change under any of the 

alternatives.

414/61.

1716 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Red Lake Area - This area is in the Northern Hills 

approximately 10 miles south of Spearfish 

adjacent to FSR 134. The following roads are 

included in this area: 225.1, 225.1A, 225.1D, 

225.1E, 134.2S, U050002, U050006, CZ 1403, 

U060015. These roads are currently closed and 

provide an excellent quiet area for the nonmotorized enthusiast. With Alternatives A, B, and 

C these roads will be opened. How does opening 

these roads affect wildlife? Was this analyzed in 

the EIS? How does opening the roads affect the 

non-motorized community? Was that analyzed [in 

the] EIS? Why is no consideration given to 

existing non-motorized areas? These areas and 

roads were closed for a reason. Why were they 

closed in the first place? The EIS should give a 

reason and show effects of opening these roads 

and areas. The EIS should list every road that is 

These closed system routes were analyzed to be opened 

in Alternatives B and C. And, they were analyzed to be 

left closed in Alternatives D and E. Effects to wildlife 

were analyzed in pages 143-229 in the draft EIS. 

Recreation was analyzed in pages 46-61 of the DEIS. 

Any decision on routes selected will be documented in 

the Record of Decision.

414/63.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

406

currently closed that will be opened so that the 

public knows what is going on and what affect 

this has on all resources.

1717 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Limestone Plateau - This area is in the Northern 

Hills approximately 20 miles south of Spearfish 

adjacent to FSR 134. The following roads are 

included in this area: 733.2B, 733.2C, 733.3A, 

733.3B, 733.3C, 733.3D, U050089. This currently 

closed area will be opened with Alternatives A, B, 

and C. How does opening these roads affect 

wildlife? Was this analyzed in the EIS? How does 

opening the roads affect the non-motorized 

community? Was that analyzed [in the] EIS? Why 

is no consideration given to existing nonmotorized areas? These areas and roads were 

closed for a reason. Why were they closed in the 

first place? The EIS should give a reason and 

show effects of opening these roads and areas. 

The EIS should list every road that is currently 

closed that will be opened so that the public 

knows what is going on and what affect this has 

on all resources.

These closed system routes were analyzed to be opened 

in Alternatives B and C. And, they were analyzed to be 

left closed in Alternatives D and E. Effects to wildlife 

were analyzed in pages 143-229 in the draft EIS. 

Recreation was analyzed in pages 46-61 of the DEIS. 

Any decision on routes selected will be documented in 

the Record of Decision.

414/64.

1718 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Roads off FSR 134 - 134.2B, 134.2L, 214.1D, 

U010071, 134.3A, U010072, U010060, 134.2U, 

U710095. These roads were closed by a previous 

ranger and now they will be opened [under 

Alternatives A, B, and C]. How does opening 

these roads affect wildlife? Was this analyzed in 

the EIS? How does opening the roads affect the 

non-motorized community? Was that analyzed [in 

the] EIS? Why is no consideration given to 

existing non-motorized areas? These areas and 

roads were closed for a reason. Why were they 

closed in the first place? The EIS should give a 

reason and show effects of opening these roads 

and areas. The EIS should list every road that is 

currently closed that will be opened so that the 

public knows what is going on and what affect 

this has on all resources.

These closed system routes were analyzed to be opened 

in Alternatives B and C. And, they were analyzed to be 

left closed in Alternatives D and E. Effects to wildlife 

were analyzed in pages 143-229 in the draft EIS. 

Recreation was analyzed in pages 46-61 of the DEIS. 

Any decision on routes selected will be documented in 

the Record of Decision.

414/65.

1719 Route 639.1 - In the Northern Hills, this road connects Concerns for effects of the alternatives on wildlife 414/66.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

407

Specific 

Comment

Higgins Gulch to Beaver Ridge. Currently closed 

to motorized use and provides a good purpose 

being close. This road will be opened [under 

Alternatives A, B, and C] and provide access to 

the area behind Crow Peak. The roads go directly 

through a quiet area and more than likely the 

ATV will venture off the road and the whole 

Crow Peak area will be compromised. Was there 

any consideration given to not allowing ATV 

access to the non-motorized areas? Also this is a 

known elk calving area. Was any consideration 

given to wildlife in the EIS for this planned to be 

opened area? Why is no consideration given to 

existing non-motorized areas? These areas and 

roads were closed for a reason. Why were they 

closed in the first place? The EIS should give a 

reason and show effects of opening these roads 

and areas. The EIS should list every road that is 

currently closed that will be opened so that the 

public knows what is going on and what affect 

this has on all resources.

habitat are reflected in Issue 1, and concerns for 

conflicts with non-motorized recreation opportunities 

are reflected in Issue 2. The alternatives vary as to how 

they address each of these issues. FSR 639.1 was 

analyzed to stay closed in Alternatives D and E. Any 

decision on routes selected will be documented in the 

Record of Decision. Once a decision is made individual 

users will be expected to stay on the designated route. 

ATV trails were not proposed in non-motorized areas. 

Wildlife was analyzed in pages 143-229 of the DEIS.

1720 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Area south of Hanna Campground: Roads 211.1I, 

211.1H, 211.1J, 211.1G, 209.2B all closed roads 

will be opened [under Alternatives A and B]. Was 

any consideration given for a non-motorized 

buffer around our [the forest‟s] existing nonmotorized trail system? In many cases the 

motorized trail either parallels, dead ends, or is on 

an existing hiking trail. This pretty much ruins the 

non-motorized users‟ experience.

The closed routes south of Hanna Campground were 

analyzed to be opened in Alternative B and removed 

from Alternatives C, D and E. There are no system 

hiking trails near any of the routes mentioned.

414/67.

1721 Route 

Specific 

Comment

CZ1403 - This trail ends at the border of the 

Spearfish Canyon Roadless area. It makes no 

sense to expect ATV users to turn around. How 

will you close the end of this road? Was any 

consideration given for a non-motorized buffer 

around our [the forest‟s] existing non-motorized 

trail system? In many cases the motorized trail 

either parallels, dead ends, or is on an existing 

hiking trail. This pretty much ruins the nonmotorized users‟ experience.

You are correct. In Alternative B, CZ 1403 travels 

through the Spearfish Canyon management area where 

no off road traffic is allowed. This was an error and it 

was removed from Alternatives C, D and E. 

414/68.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

408

1722 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Will the ATV and motorcycle trails be designed to 

a Forest Service Standard? Will the current trail 

locations be reviewed by an Engineer and 

Hydrologist before they are opened? For example 

road 134.2B has a 35% grade for 300‟, road 

U010077 goes through a spring and has 3‟ deep 

ruts, and road 134.3D crosses live water of the 

headwaters of Little Spearfish Creek. These have 

been listed as examples of many more problem 

areas. Was any consideration given for a nonmotorized buffer around our [the forest‟s] 

existing non-motorized trail system? In many 

cases the motorized trail either parallels, dead 

ends, or is on an existing hiking trail. This pretty 

much ruins the non-motorized users‟ experience.

OHV routes would be required to meet Forest Service 

standards for trails. Some routes may be easy and some 

very difficult. Routes that traverse a steep slope would 

be engineered with climbing turns and water crossings 

would be upgraded or built to standard where necessary. 

Not all routes would be available to use the first year 

after the decision is made and would be opened up after 

mitigations are completed. The current Forest 

motorized trail system in South Dakota consists of only 

12 miles. Much motorized use currently takes place on 

trails not designated for such use, which can result in 

conflicts with other users. The selection of any of the 

action alternatives described in the EIS would alleviate 

this situation by designating routes for certain uses. 

414/69.

1723 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Dugout Gulch Botanical Trail - Located on the 

Bearlodge District in the area of Sand Creek. A 

portion of this trail - miles of the total trail length 

of - miles [distances not provided] will be 

converted into an ATV trail [under Alternatives 

A, B, and C]. This trail is in a semi-primitive nonmotorized management area, within a botanical 

area and eight years ago the Forest Service spent 

$112,000 on developing this trail for nonmotorized users. The entire trail will be affected 

because the noise of ATVs on the upper loop will 

ruin the quiet area on the lower section. Was any 

consideration given for a non-motorized buffer 

around our [the forest‟s] existing non-motorized 

trail system? In many cases the motorized trail 

either parallels, dead ends, or is on an existing 

hiking trail. This pretty much ruins the nonmotorized users‟ experience.

Alternative A represents the existing condition for 

motorized opportunities on the Black Hills NF which 

does not include motorized opportunities on the 

Dugout Trail. The portion of Dugout trail considered 

under Alternatives B and C for motorized opportunities 

is an existing road that doubles as a trail for nonmotorized activities and motorized administrative 

activities. No funding was spent on this road for 

development of the trail. For trails that are not defined 

roads, motorized opportunities were restricted.

414/70.

1724 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Eagle Cliff Hiking Trails - ATV trails (733.1A, 

733.1K) will go right into the middle of the Eagle 

Cliff Trail System [under Alternatives A, B, and 

C]. Noise is an issue. Some ATV users will get 

lost and start following the hiking trails. Was any 

consideration given for a non-motorized buffer 

around our [the forest‟s] existing non-motorized 

FSR 733.1A and & 733.1K are currently open system 

roads. They were analyzed to be left open in 

Alternatives B, C and E, and analyzed to be closed in 

Alternative D. Any decision about selected routes will 

be documented in the Record of Decision. Motorized 

traffic will be expected to stay on the open motorized 

routes. Common to all alternatives noise level will be 

414/71.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

409

trail system? In many cases the motorized trail 

either parallels, dead ends, or is on an existing 

hiking trail. This pretty much ruins the nonmotorized users‟ experience.

set at 96 decibels for OHV's. 

1725 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Little Spearfish Trail - All alternatives have a road 

734.1 which dead ends at the trail. This will 

encourage ATVs to follow the Little Spearfish 

Trail. Was any consideration given for a nonmotorized buffer around our [the forest‟s] 

existing non-motorized trail system? In many 

cases the motorized trail either parallels, dead 

ends, or is on an existing hiking trail. This pretty 

much ruins the non-motorized users‟ experience.

FSR 734.1 is a currently open system. It was analyzed to 

be left open in all alternatives. Motorized traffic will be 

expected to stay on the open motorized routes. 

414/72.

1726 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Rimrock Trail - ATV trail U050002 goes right up 

against the Rimrock Trail. Just when you think 

you get away an ATV comes past you. 

Encourages use [by ATV users] of Rimrock Trail. 

Was any consideration given for a non-motorized 

buffer around our [the forest‟s] existing nonmotorized trail system? In many cases the 

motorized trail either parallels, dead ends, or is on 

an existing hiking trail. This pretty much ruins the 

non-motorized users‟ experience.

U050002 was analyzed to be opened in Alternatives B 

and C and was removed from Alternatives D and E. 

Any decision about selected routes will be documented 

in the Record of Decision. Motorized traffic will be 

expected to stay on the open motorized routes. 

414/73.

1727 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Centennial Trail - Remove the motorized section 

of Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot 

Knob. This trail section is in horrible condition 

due to overuse. Most non-motorized users know 

to never go on this section of trail due to the 

heavy ATV use. Roads 137.1B, 137.1C, 137.D 

and 137.1E [are] currently closed roads. By 

opening them [under Alternatives A, B, and C] 

access is provided to a secluded part of 

Centennial Trail. Roads 703.1C and 703.1D are 

planned to be opened and are within mere feet of 

Centennial Trail. Roads 224.1D and 224.1E dead 

end at Centennial Trail. By opening these roads it 

will be near impossible to keep ATVs off 

Centennial Trail. Was any consideration given for 

a non-motorized buffer around our [the forest‟s] 

existing non-motorized trail system? In many 

The Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob 

are currently open to motorized traffic. It was analyzed

to be open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed 

from Alternative D. Any decision about selected routes 

will be documented in the Record of Decision. Roads 

137.1B, 137.1C and 137.1E were analyzed to be open in 

Alternatives B and C and removed from Alternatives D 

and E. 703.1C and 703.1D are currently seasonally 

opened roads. They were analyzed to be left open in all 

Alternatives. FSR 224.1D and 224.1E are currently 

seasonally opened system roads. They were analyzed to 

be open in Alternatives B, C and E and closed in 

Alternative D. Any decision about selected routes will 

be documented in the Record of Decision. Motorized 

traffic will be expected to stay on the open motorized 

routes. 

414/74.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

410

cases the motorized trail either parallels, dead 

ends, or is on an existing hiking trail. This pretty 

much ruins the non-motorized users‟ experience.

1728 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Deerfield Trail and Beaver Creek Trails - Many 

sections are motorized. Was any consideration 

given for a non-motorized buffer around our [the 

forest‟s] existing non-motorized trail system? Was 

any consideration given for a non-motorized 

buffer around our [the forest‟s] existing nonmotorized trail system? In many cases the 

motorized trail either parallels, dead ends, or is on 

an existing hiking trail. This pretty much ruins the 

non-motorized users‟ experience.

Portions of the Deerfield Trail are co-located on existing 

Forest System Roads. Non-motorized trails are outside 

the scope of the DEIS analysis.

414/75.

1729 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Tinton Trail - Although the Tinton Trail is not a 

system trail it is probably the most popular 

mountain bike trail in the Northern Hills. In fact, 

Mountain Bike Magazine picked the Tinton Trail 

as the best trail in South Dakota. No 

consideration for this trail was given whatsoever. 

ATV trails cross it and follow it in many 

locations. Was any consideration given for a nonmotorized buffer around our [the forest‟s] 

existing non-motorized trail system? In many 

cases the motorized trail either parallels, dead 

ends, or is on an existing hiking trail. This pretty 

much ruins the non-motorized users‟ experience. 

The EIS should list how many motorized trails 

are within a quarter mile of a hiking trail and how 

many motorized trails actually take over the 

hiking trail.

In Alternative D and E many motorized routes that 

cross this non system trail were removed. This EIS deals 

with motorized travel only and therefore the request for 

designating this trail as part of the non-motorized 

system is beyond the scope of this project.

414/76.

1730 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Who is going to enforce the closures? The FS at 

the present time does not have the means to 

enforce what few regulations there are. The FS 

cannot even enforce the snowmobile closures on 

the Eagle Cliffs Cross Country Ski Area. I have a 

concern with this major closure and no feasible 

way to enforce the closure.

Forest Service law enforcement personnel play a critical 

role in ensuring compliance with laws and regulations, 

protecting public safety, and protecting National Forest 

resources. The Forest Service also maintains 

cooperative relationships with many State and local law 

enforcement agencies that provide mutual support 

across jurisdictional boundaries. Education and 

cooperative relationships with users support 

enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance. (16)

419/2.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

411

1731 Route 

Specific 

Comment

How do you proposed to enforce the closures in 

the addition areas west of Sundance? One of the 

reasons for the closures was for environmental 

damage caused by erosion.

The Forest Service is at the mercy of the private 

landowners surrounding these National Forest 

properties west of Sundance, Wyoming. No public 

access is available to these parcels and no administrative 

access has been obtained from the landowners. No 

enforcement would be conducted due to lack of access.

419/7.

1732 Route 

Specific 

Comment

There is a small road that has been made by off 

roaders that goes easterly off 201.2. It is between 

the junctions of 201.2j and the 

Lawrence/Pennington county line where there is 

a FS gate and a road to 679.1A. The area where 

this unmarked dead-end informal road goes is to a 

meadow for wildlife and an abandoned mine that 

is home to bats. Please block off this road and 

restrict bicycle, motorcycle, 4x4 travel.

No routes were analyzed in the area you describe for 

inclusion in the motorized travel routes. The only 

motorized routes in this area are Forest System Roads 

open to highway legal vehicles only in all alternatives.

420/2.

1733 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Alternative D is as close as miles away from what 

seems acceptable to me only because it has the 

lesser miles of impact as compared to the other 

alternatives. But, Alternative D allows for rock 

crawlers very near forest access provided by 

Sturgis city and Meade county entities that seek a 

no holds barred style of economic development. 

It is fully plausible that the residents and visitors 

in the Galena and Vanocker areas could 

experience an adult concert Buffalo Chip play 

ground type of venue featuring motorized rock 

crawlers that would literally devastate heritage 

areas and the quietude human beings seek in the 

He Sapa.

Speculation about possible future events such as rock 

crawling events is beyond the scope of this document.

422/2.

1734 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The next issue is the dust and fumes created by 

OHV and dirt bike users down roads located near 

private landowners. For instance, on F.S. road 

248 you can continuously witness OHV groups of 

4-6 and even 15 using various articles of clothing 

to cover their faces because of the dust. The dust 

is something they themselves don‟t even wish to 

breathe, yet, my family and I are subjected to the 

dust and fumes, which is a health hazard. They 

are told to head down our road only for the vast 

majority of them to reach the end and come back 

FSR 248 was analyzed as a highway legal road in 

Alternatives B, C and E and as a road open to all in 

Alternative C. Closure of this road is not an option as 

it provides access to private land owners. Any decision 

on routes selected will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

423/3.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

412

down because the road leads to nowhere. A road 

that runs parallel to 248 is 247, which the owners 

of the B&B express the desire to have these 

OHVs run past their property and this road leads 

to other trails unlike 248, where I live. I cannot 

see any positives coming from the use of F.S. 248, 

which dead ends and consists of mostly private 

property. Many of these property owners do not want the OHV and dirt bike travel down this 

road. Closure of our road is the best solution for 

the problem.

1735 Route 

Specific 

Comment

When I was younger I was dismayed by the 

number of tourists using the [Black] Hills for their 

entertainment. I understand, I‟ve been a tourist 

too, and I‟ll make allowances for their urges and 

ignorance. But when I just couldn‟t take it 

anymore, around 20 years back, I got hold of your 

wonderful map of the [Black] Hills and began to 

explore away from the pavement. And I was 

blown away. The [Black] Hills were peaceful and 

beautiful away from the tourist enclaves, and 

there seemed to be a lot of them. So for 20 years I 

have hiked part or all of the Centennial Trail. I 

have been doing it less and less often, or sticking 

to the short stretches where it is in relatively well 

preserved states. An incident with dirt bikes at 

Dalton Lake about six years back convinced me I 

had to let the Centennial [Trail] go too. The 

shortcutting on switchbacks, the noise, and the 

floury dust were not what I wanted from a trail. 

Then a couple summers back I did a three-day 

walk through the Alkali section and was 

impressed by the rerouting away from roads, even 

though I really missed Camp 4 Spring. So I 

convinced a couple of my friends who had tried 

Wind Cave out on my urging that the Centennial 

[Trail] could be almost that good. So last fall I 

took them into the Box Elder Fork area and set 

out for the Alkali trailhead. Big mistake. The 

damage to Box Elder trails was shocking. Then I 

Thank you for your comment. 424/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

413

got to the Nemo to Dalton Lake segment and 

spent the day apologizing to my buddies. At one 

point we saw nearly 40 - 40! -ATVs go by in one 

caravan - several families, each with his or her 

own individual ATV, even the 8 and 10-year-olds 

and grannies. They were not only rude for no 

reason, but they trashed the trail, damaged turns, 

cut corners, widened ruts, and raised a continual 

ruckus and dust cloud. After resting an hour at 

Little Elk Creek by Dalton Lake, with continual 

traffic going by (60 ATVs in less than 2 hours), 

two of my friends elected to bail.

1736 Route 

Specific 

Comment

(cont from comment no. 1) I told them the best 

section was just to come - and it was better - but 

they were not willing to try it. They still ridicule 

me when I‟m visiting them in their home states. 

And I couldn‟t really deny their point. I am 

embarrassed by what has been done, first to the 

campgrounds at Dalton and Box Elder, and then 

to the trail and (natural?) surroundings. I do not 

feel right about going back to Centennial [Trail] 

since. I don‟t know if I will walk it ever again. It is 

just heartbreaking to see people who do not care 

a whit about a place I love, and in a personal way. 

That‟s all right. When I first saw the OHVs doing 

their dance on my favorite trail, I thought, there‟s 

lots more [Black] Hills out there. I‟ll just work out 

my own routes. And that‟s what I‟ve been doing 

for the last eight years as I‟ve weaned myself from 

Centennial [Trail]. Using topographical maps and 

four wheel excursions and day hikes, and by trial 

and error backpacks for up to two weeks, I have 

finagled several beautiful routes in the [Black] 

Hills north of Deerfield and Pactola, all the way 

to my porch in Spearfish, and have dreamt of 

extending my routes farther south... But now I‟m 

not so sure that‟s going to work either. There‟s 

been more timbering, so I‟ve rerouted to avoid it. 

I am used to cows pasturing, and have either 

made my peace with their company or routed 

Thank you for your comment. 424/2.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

414

around them. And the number of No Trespassing 

signs has increased every year - but I‟ve worked 

that out too, by rerouting. But more and more I 

come across ATVers running on roads that are 

posted and blocked off at their access points. 

More and more I see major damage done, like 

what has been happening to the north end of 

Johnston Gulch near my home in Spearfish. And 

I don‟t mean the huge hole dug by the five 4-

wheelers in spring of „08 - I mean the trails 

through the bottoms where the creek runs in the 

ATV ruts because the ruts are deeper than the 

streambed.

1737 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Why do you despise us walkers, bikers, horseback 

riders, birdwatchers, and other fans of the wild? 

Not only is Dalton Lake being made even more 

into a sacrifice area, but the trail is being opened 

to them all the way past Pilot Knob and on to 

Pactola. Is it because they‟ve done such a fine job 

taking care of the trail to Pilot Knob? Running 

ATVs on a designated light use trail like the 

Centennial [Trail] is not just foolish, it is evil. 

Maybe if I could be more abusive to my 

surroundings, I could get such a reward! But then, 

I am not organized and bankrolled as well as 

OHV enthusiasts. I can see why you guys are 

intimidated. You‟re just our representatives of the 

government, and our caretakers of the National 

Forest. Why should you stick your chin out?

Thank you for your comment. 424/5.

1738 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Places I have been hiking the last eight years are 

being sacrificed too. I can‟t get away from them! 

Black Fox CG and environs - turned over for 

thorough destruction to the OHV people. Eagle 

Cliffs, currently well barricaded and one of the 

better preserved areas - to be open for destruction 

and noise and dust. Limestone Plateau! One of 

my favorite spots for peace and quiet, for clean 

camping with good views - to be sacrificed to the 

heathens who don‟t love it at all. Little Spearfish 

Creek, a honey of a valley, even with the 

Thank you for your comment. 424/6.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

415

timbering that‟s been loosed on it in recent years -

lost to noisemakers who will widen the mud 

holes, deepen the track, scare off the mountain 

lions, and probably trash the wild irises and 

clumps of mushrooms that pop up along the side 

of the road. Cement Ridge, already pretty much 

hammered by tourism and off-roading, but to be 

opened up for more hammering. For God‟s sake, 

it used to be a peaceful night with a campfire up 

there - now you‟ve got fool kids trashing the fire 

tower, ATVs cutting 2 to 3 new trails every year -

last weekend I just saw a couple new ones 

through where the flowers up there should have 

been blossoming this next week. And so it goes. 

Where you haven‟t opened the roads up to them, 

you are allowing the ATVs to cross or come up to 

a roadblock - as if that will stop them! Let‟s just 

tease and tempt them onto new trails they didn‟t 

know yet could be trashed.

1739 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Regarding the proposed plans which were 

presented at the public meetings, I have concerns 

about plan [Alternative]‟C‟. The area around 

Shank‟s Quarry includes a number of established 

hiking, running, and cycling routes. This area is 

also very close to the non-motorized trail system 

currently being built at Buzzard‟s Roost.

Many of the routes in the Shank's Quarry area were 

eliminated from Alternatives D and E.

428/2.

1740 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The short trail from High Meadows Development 

to the trail between Woodland Hills and 

Piedmont Fire trail (that will be open all year) 

should also be open all year as well to give 

communities access to the open trails.

FSR 148 is closed seasonally in Alternatives B, C, and D. 

This comment has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

430/12.

1741 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Regarding the proposed plans which were 

presented at the public meetings, I have concerns 

about plan [Alternative]‟C‟. The area around 

Shank‟s Quarry includes a number of established 

hiking, running, and cycling routes. This area is 

also very close to the non-motorized trail system 

currently being built at Buzzard‟s Roost.

Many of the routes in the Shank's Quarry area were 

eliminated from Alternatives D and E.

433/2.

1742 Route 

Specific 

The area immediately adjacent to Rapid City (a 

kidney shaped lobe from Hayward, to Rockerville, 

Many of the routes in this area were eliminated from 

Alternatives D and E.

434/3.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

416

Comment to Victoria Lake, to Buzzard‟s Roost, to 

Schroeder Road, to Nemo Road) is a vital need to 

non motorized uses. This area should be highly 

limited in use to motorized activity. This helps the 

community thrive and protect and respect the 

public land that buffers Rapid City to the west.

1743 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I support the removal of this trailhead/trails from 

the DEIS because I want to see these areas 

survive and thrive in their natural state for the 

generations to follow. Removal of trail CZ-1790 

because of its close proximity to sensitive 

botanical areas and the water supply for 

surrounding communities.

CZ 1790 was analyzed in Alternatives B, C and D as a 

special designation route. It was removed from 

Alternative E. Any decision on routes selected will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

436/4.

1744 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I support the removal of this trailhead/trails from 

the DEIS because I want to see these areas 

survive and thrive in their natural state for the 

generations to follow. Removal of the proposed 

trailhead at NH9 in Piedmont because it is 

redundant

There is no proposed trailhead on NFS lands in the 

vicinity of NH9.

436/5.

1745 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I support the removal of this trailhead/trails from 

the DEIS because I want to see these areas 

survive and thrive in their natural state for the 

generations to follow. Removal of trails 777.1C 

and 149.5B as reflected in Alternative D to 

protect wildlife, watersheds and communities in 

that area from damage, noise and pollution. As 

well as the removal of the proposed trailhead at 

Forest Service Road 126 and trails U150012 and 

CZ1758.

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in 

the Record of Decision.

436/6.

1746 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I support the removal of this trailhead/trails from 

the DEIS because I want to see these areas 

survive and thrive in their natural state for the 

generations to follow. Removal of Dutch Creek 

and Victoria trailheads and all trails in the Victoria 

Lake area that is north of Sheridan Lake Road. It 

is an area that is already severely damaged by 

vehicle travel, garbage, illegal dumping and illegal 

firearm discharging.

Dutch Creek Trailhead was not included in Alternatives 

D or E. Parking areas provide a point of contact for

better enforcement, education, and management. There 

are no trails in the Victoria Lake area in Alternative E.

436/7.

1747 Route 

Specific 

I support the removal of this trailhead/trails from 

the DEIS because I want to see these areas 

Samelius Trailhead is not included in Alternatives D or 

E. Many of the routes in this area were either removed 

436/8.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

417

Comment survive and thrive in their natural state for the 

generations to follow. Removal of Samelius 

trailhead and the trails in the surrounding area on 

either side of US Hwy 16 between Keystone and 

Three Forks, extending to the Black Elk 

Wilderness area.

from Alternatives D and E, or are open to highway legal 

vehicles only.

1748 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I support the removal of this trailhead/trails from 

the DEIS because I want to see these areas 

survive and thrive in their natural state for the 

generations to follow. Removal of all trails at and 

near Rockerville near Storm Mountain and Silver 

Mountain Road and all trails extending north to 

Sheridan Lake Road.

Motorized routes in the Rockerville area north of 

Highway 16 to Sheridan Lake Road are open to highway 

legal vehicles only in Alternatives D and E.

436/9.

1749 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I support the removal of this trailhead/trails from 

the DEIS because I want to see these areas 

survive and thrive in their natural state for the 

generations to follow. Removal of all trails from 

Piedmont that lead to Dalton Lake, and all trails 

surrounding Dalton Lake.

Thank you for your comment. 436/10.

1750 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I support the removal of this trailhead/trails from 

the DEIS because I want to see these areas 

survive and thrive in their natural state for the 

generations to follow. Removal of all trails 

marked 722.1 in the Hisega area out US Hwy 44.

Most of the routes in this area are not included in 

Alternatives D or E.

436/11.

1751 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I support the removal of this trailhead/trails from 

the DEIS because I want to see these areas 

survive and thrive in their natural state for the 

generations to follow. Removal of all trails off 

Forest Service Road 166 (U200069, U200255, 

166.1J, 721.1A, CZ-4884) and all trails extending 

from Forest Service Road 166 to US Hwy 385 

north of Hwy 44.

Many of these routes were eliminated from Alternatives 

D and E.

436/12.

1752 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I support the removal of this trailhead/trails from 

the DEIS because I want to see these areas 

survive and thrive in their natural state for the 

generations to follow. Removal of the 

Nemo/South Box Elder trailhead (CZ-1151) and 

all trails in that area.

Thank you for your comment. 436/13.

1753 Route 

Specific 

I have lived here for 7 years and the number of 

ATVs/dirt bikes has grown by leaps and bounds. 

This is a county road, state traffic law applies. 437/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

418

Comment The problem that I am seeing is that at least half 

of these vehicles do not have licenses and the 

driver‟s are underage. The vehicles are going up 

and down our road to get to their trails. The road 

that they are using is a Dead End Road that ends 

at Bear Butte Creek. In order to get to their trails 

they have to cross the creek, which is illegal. What 

I would like to see is signage: at the beginning of 

Galena Road, and at the intersection of Spring 

Run and the Galena Road. The signage would 

inform the riders of the laws for their vehicles 

(age and license).

1754 Route 

Specific 

Comment

This is a connection to proposed trails and roads 

that the Off-Road Riders Association has been 

permitted and used in recent years for poker runs 

and is a necessary connection to a continuous 

route between Rochford and the Custer Crossing 

Campground area. Continue 513.1B to FH 17 

using U120166. This will get riders to FH 17 so 

riders can then go into Rochford. By including 

the trail it will create a continuous route and help 

keep off-road vehicles off of gravel roads thus 

increasing safety of the riders.

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

439/7.

1755 Route 

Specific 

Comment

This is a connection to proposed trails and roads 

that the Off-Road Riders Association has been 

permitted and used in recent years for poker runs 

and is a necessary connection to a continuous 

route between Rochford and the Custer Crossing 

Campground area. Connect 217.1A to 203.1F 

with CZ-0591. By including the trail above it will 

create a continuous route and help keep off-road 

vehicles off of gravel roads thus increasing safety 

of the riders.

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

439/8.

1756 Route 

Specific 

Comment

This is a connection to proposed trails and roads 

that the Off-Road Riders Association has been 

permitted and used in recent years for poker runs 

and is a necessary connection to a continuous 

route between Rochford and the Custer Crossing 

Campground area. Include U120153 to connect 

204.2G to U120153. By including the trail above 

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative due to 

resource issues and therefore is outside the scope of this 

document. Routes not included in this decision may be 

considered in the future on individual District projects.

439/9.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

419

it will create a continuous route and help keep 

off-road vehicles off of gravel roads thus 

increasing safety of the riders.

1757 Route 

Specific 

Comment

This is a connection to proposed trails and roads 

that the Off-Road Riders Association has been 

permitted and used in recent years for poker runs 

and is a necessary connection to a continuous 

route between Rochford and the Custer Crossing 

Campground area. Include U120077 to get 

motorcycles and ATVs off of 204.2 for safety. By 

including the trail above it will create a continuous 

route and help keep off-road vehicles off of 

gravel roads thus increasing safety of the riders.

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

439/10.

1758 Route 

Specific 

Comment

This is a connection to proposed trails and roads 

that the Off-Road Riders Association has been 

permitted and used in recent years for poker runs 

and is a necessary connection to a continuous 

route between Rochford and the Custer Crossing 

Campground area. Include CZ-2644, CZ-0635, 

U120091 and U120135 for a continuous route. By 

including the trail above it will create a continuous 

route and help keep off-road vehicles off of 

gravel roads thus increasing safety of the riders.

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the

future on individual District projects.

439/11.

1759 Route 

Specific 

Comment

This is a connection to proposed trails and roads 

that the Off-Road Riders Association has been 

permitted and used in recent years for poker runs 

and is a necessary connection to a continuous 

route between Rochford and the Custer Crossing 

Campground area. Include CZ-4840 between 

204.1 and 204.1B. By including the trail above it 

will create a continuous route and help keep offroad vehicles off of gravel roads thus increasing 

safety of the riders.

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

439/12.

1760 Route 

Specific 

Comment

This is a connection to proposed trails and roads 

that the Off-Road Riders Association has been 

permitted and used in recent years for poker runs 

and is a necessary connection to a continuous 

route between Rochford and the Custer Crossing 

Campground area. Continue 513.1 to 231.2 for 

access to Rochford. By including the trail above it 

This route CZ-0594 was analyzed in Alternative B and 

removed from Alternative C, D and E due to resource 

concerns. Any decision on routes selected will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

439/13.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

420

will create a continuous route and help keep offroad vehicles off of gravel roads thus increasing 

safety of the riders.

1761 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Have a trailhead at the intersection of 231.2 and 

231.2A. This is a flat area that has been used as a 

parking area for years and has easy access. 

Connect 231.2A with the proposed system to the 

north.

FSR 231.2A was analyzed in Alternative E and removed 

from Alternative B, C and D due to resource concerns. 

Any decision on routes selected will be documented in 

the Record of Decision. No trailhead location was 

evaluated at this location and is therefore outside the 

scope of this document.

439/14.

1762 Route 

Specific 

Comment

A single tract motorcycle trail that many riders 

have requested of us (ORA [Off-Road Riders 

Association]) to be kept open is CZ-4912 and 

CZ-48.14 to the east and south of Nemo. Skilled 

dirt-bikers enjoy this trail. There are places of 

steep grade but we feel by rerouting the trail in a 

few places any problems can be mitigated.

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

439/15.

1763 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Many off-roaders leave Sturgis by 171.1 through 

the SD SDGFP [South Dakota Department of 

Game, Fish and Parks] land and head for the 

Camp 5 area. A trail linking 171.1B with the 

Camp 5 area needs to be included.

Due to resource concerns no routes were analyzed 

between 171 and the camp 5 area and therefore are 

outside the scope of this document. Any consideration 

to future trails will be handled by the individual District.

439/16.

1764 Route 

Specific 

Comment

To get to Camp 5 as shown on Alternative C a 

rider would have to go down to gravel road 

170.1C then west to 170.4C. By routing the riders 

onto a gravel road we believe it is placing their 

safety in jeopardy.

Thank you for your comment. No routes were analyzed 

between 171 and the camp 5 area and therefore are

outside the scope of this document. Any consideration 

to future trails will be handled by the individual District.

439/17.

1765 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Trails CZ-1825 and CZ-1090 parallel road 144.1 

on the northwest side, between U140124 and 

226.1. These trails should be open so trail vehicles 

can get off of the road as soon as possible. This 

will reduce different vehicle type conflicts on road 

144.1 and be a safer route for trail type machines.

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

439/19.

1766 Route 

Specific 

Comment

There is a trail that leaves from the Piedmont 

Trailhead area that starts where 144.1 starts to go 

uphill. It is in the southwest corner of section 9, 

T103N, R6E and goes into section 8 and finally 

intersects 144.2C. This should be included as [it] 

will allow trail vehicles to get off of road 144.1 as 

soon as possible and be safer for trail riders. The 

trail will help in making a more complete “Trail” 

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

439/20.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

421

between Piedmont and Nemo where there is a 

lack of trail, and help keep ATVs and dirt bikes 

off of the roads and make a more enjoyable ride 

for off-roaders.

1767 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Trail CZ-1121 is an important trail to have. It 

follows an old railroad grade for much of its 

length. It is a good sightseeing trail with the way 

the railroad bed was cut into the side of the valley. 

The trail will help in making a more complete 

“Trail” between Piedmont and Nemo where there 

is a lack of trail, and help keep ATVs and dirt 

bikes off of the roads and make a more enjoyable 

ride for off-roaders.

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

439/21.

1768 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Trails CZ-4917 and CZ-4916 between CZ-1121 

and 546.1A should also be considered for 

inclusion in the system. This will make a complete 

loop from 546.1A instead of dead ending and is 

also a scenic route.

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

439/22.

1769 Route 

Specific 

Comment

CZ-4837 and CZ-2659 in the Northern Hills 

District are very good trails that need to be 

included to help complete a motorcycle trail that 

matches CZ-4856 in the Mystic district.

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

439/23.

1770 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I especially enjoyed the town of Spearfish. I can 

envision retiring in there. I understand that there 

are few meaningful connections of the trail 

system to gateway communities such as 

Deadwood-Lead, Sturgis, Hill City, and even 

Spearfish. I would like to suggest that trails in and 

out of these town would be economically 

beneficial as people need food, lodging, gas, etc.

Alternative B and C connect communities to the extent 

possible but opportunities are limited due to private 

property, paved highways, and other jurisdictions.

444/3.

1771 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Motorized and non motorized use of the forest 

both has a huge impact on the social and 

economic impact of the Black Hills area. Your 

DEIS states that the impact is minimal and this is 

simply not true. Ask the Sugar Shack on Hwy 385 

if a clear example is needed.

A comprehensive economic impact analysis was 

conducted. The results are described in Chapter 3 of the 

DEIS.

445/8.

1772 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Forest Service road 150/1E needs to remain open 

to allow climbing opportunities in Victoria 

Canyon to continue. If this road is closed, the 

area becomes landlocked by private property and 

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

445/11.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

422

no longer accessible to the roped rock climbing 

that has existed there since the mid 1980‟s.

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a userrequested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

1773 Route 

Specific 

Comment

[There] should be a trail open to all vehicles 

[within the Northern Hills District]. It is not 

challenging enough to designate [it] as a specialty 

rock crawling trail, although it is definitely a high 

clearance vehicle trail on which 4WD would be 

required. Maps attached [ATT 3 and ATT 4].

Thank you for your comment. It will be considered in 

the final EIS.

453/8.

1774 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Specialty rock crawler trails are missing. Trails 

identified by users are drawn in on the attached 

map [ATT 3] were turned in by Dakota Territory 

Cruisers and SDOHVC [South Dakota Off 

Highway Vehicle Coalition] during scoping. This 

area should not be seasonal. Both of these trails 

are rock crawling trails that are popular for added 

challenge to the adjacent trails. Map attached 

[ATT 3].

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects. CZ5319 was not 

included because it is in a goshawk territory. Routes in 

this area were closed by previous management decisions 

because they lead into the Ft. Meade Watershed that is 

closed to off road traffic. CZ5322 was not included and 

I do not know why and could possible be included in a 

future District decision. All routes in this area are in 

management area 5.4 Big Game winter range emphasis 

and should be seasonal.

453/9.

1775 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Trail referred to by the community as 3.9 is 

missing. This trail starts from an established 

trailhead and ends at a popular road open to all 

vehicles seasonally. It is easily accessed and does 

not encroach upon sensitive areas. Map attached 

[ATT 5].

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

453/10

1776 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Trail [in Ricco Fire area, adjacent to 1442G] 

drawn in on attached map is missing. It was 

submitted during scoping. This established trail is 

very popular with hard core rock crawlers. At one 

time it was a designated 4WD trail on earlier 

BHFS maps. It offers easy access and is also 

connected by an open to all vehicles FS road and 

an all vehicle trail. Inclusion of this trail will help 

enhance the multi-use opportunities in this area.

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

453/11.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

423

1777 Route 

Specific 

Comment

A 4WD trail exists in this area [indicated on ATT 

4, adjacent to FH 26], and should be considered 

for designation as a special use permit only trail. 

This trail is a historic 4 WD trail that offers a 

challenge in an easily accessible area. This trail 

was historically permitted for many of the 4WD 

events that are held each year by the Black Hills 4 

wheelers, Dakota Territory Cruisers and the Black 

Hills Jeeps. It has been a destination that has been 

passed over several times due to the fickleness of 

the creek that runs over this hard rock bed. The 

water completely disappears for years on end. 

This trail has only been run during those dry 

spells, dictating when this very fun and unique 

trail can be run. A favorite of local and tourists 

alike. Map attached [ATT 4].

Due to resource concerns this route was not analyzed in 

any Alternative and therefore is outside the scope of this 

document. Routes not included in this decision may be 

considered in the future on individual District projects.

453/12.

1778 Route 

Specific 

Comment

This trail [adjacent to trail CZ-1111 and U140062] 

is mislabeled on the map, it is listed as open to 

vehicles 50" or less but this trail should be 

designated as open to all vehicles. Restricting this 

trail to 50" or less creates two dead ends. It would 

make for a better trail experience to keep the trail 

consistent in its designation for its full length. 

There is also a trail that runs adjacent to this that 

should be designated as open to vehicles 50" or 

less as well. The two trails run parallel where one 

should be 50" or less with the other a trail open to 

all. Map attached [ATT 5].

FSR 144.1A was analyzed as a trail open to all in 

Alternatives B, C, and D and as open to highway legal 

in Alternative E U140062 was analyzed as a trail open 

to 50 inch or less in Alternative B and C and dropped in 

D and E. Your comment that the route should be all 

one designation will be considered. Any decision on 

routes selected will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

453/13.

1779 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Rock crawling trail goes through a draw next to 

FS road 529. The trail runs on the north side of 

the road. The road is marked as a trail yet the trail 

runs adjacent to the actual road. The road is 

needed for access to the trail. Map attached [ATT 

6].

According to our information, the requested route was 

not previously submitted, therefore it is outside the 

scope and cannot be considered at this time.

453/14.

1780 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Two rock crawl trails in this area are important, 

please consider for future development. Map 

attached [ATT 6].

A portion of the rock crawl route requested is a singletrack route in Alternative C. According to our 

information, the remainder of the requested route was 

not previously submitted, therefore it is outside the 

scope and cannot be considered at this time.

453/15.

1781 Route Trail is designated as 50" or less but should be Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in 453/16.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

424

Specific 

Comment

designated as open to all vehicles. This trail 

[201.1I] is the access road for part of the rock 

crawl trail that is designated in this area. Full size 

vehicles need to be able to get to the beginning of 

the rock crawl trail in order to run it. The trail in 

question is indicated as 201.1I. We recommend it 

be changed to a trail open to all. Map attached 

[ATT 6].

the Record of Decision.

1782 Route 

Specific 

Comment

A rock crawl trail needs to go all the way through 

to road as it does now [in Spearfish Peak area, 

adjacent to 220.1C and 220.1D, marked 

NHNEW_SD]. Dead end trail makes the routes 

difficult for more than one vehicle. Turning 

around and going back against trail traffic is very 

difficult and creates large turnarounds, off trail 

excursions and widens the trail as vehicles try to 

pass alongside each other. Map attached [ATT 7].

This route was analyzed in Alt C. This is a small area 

rather then a dead end trail. If this route is selected the 

District will engineer the route to ensure it is safe for 

vehicles to pass alongside each other. Any decision on 

routes selected will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

453/17.

1783 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Rock crawl trail exists in this area [In Pilot Knob 

area, adjacent to 201.2D]. It was submitted during 

scoping but is not on the map. Map attached 

[ATT 8].

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

453/18.

1784 Route 

Specific 

Comment

[The trail in Pilot Knob area, adjacent to 202.2C 

and U130236] should be designated as a trail open 

to all vehicles. Map attached [ATT 8].

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in 

the Record of Decision.

453/19.

1785 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Road from Castle Peak campground over divide 

road should be a trail open to all vehicles similar 

to Alternative B, but with the added ATV trails 

from Alternative C. Map attached [ATT 9].

At this time, there is not an easement for FSR 238 

across private property to connect Castle Peak 

Campground to the Divide Road. Nor is there an 

easement for FSR181 across private property. FSR 

238.1K and 1L are open to highway legal vehicles in 

Alternatives C, D, and E. The Mystic Road is not 

Forest Service jurisdiction. The remaining routes are 

open to highway legal vehicles only in Alternatives C, D, 

and E.

453/20.

1786 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Add loop and connection as indicated. Map 

attached [ATT 10].

This route was analyzed in Alternative C for vehicles 

less the 50 inches. Any decision on routes selected will 

be documented in the Record of Decision.

453/21.

1787 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Add trails from Alternative B to Alternative C to 

enhance experience. Map attached [ATT 11].

The routes in the Stageyard area were analyzed in 

Alternative B. Some of those routes were not analyzed 

in Alternative C to meet the public need of more loops 

and less dead-end routes. Any decision on routes 

453/22.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

425

selected will be documented in the Record of Decision.

1788 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Road 264.1A has been a historical 4WD trail on 

many maps printed by the BHNF. This road 

should be included in the trails map as it was one 

of the only trails marked on previously published 

maps of the BHNF as a 4WD trail in the Black 

Hills. It currently is a border road to a sensitive 

study area but does not ever encroach on the 

study area. This trail should be designated as a 

trail open to all vehicles. It creates a very 

enjoyable experience climbing up the spine of a 

wild west type hill. It ends at Summit Peak and 

the return ride back down road 264 Boles Canyon 

makes for an enjoyable off road experience. Map 

attached [ATT 12].

Forest Service Road 264.1A is available for high 

clearance vehicles. This road is currently very rough and 

therefore not very suitable for anything other than 4-

wheel drive vehicles. Designation of this route as a trail 

may be considered sometime in the future. 

453/23.

1789 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Gillette Canyon is one of the only 4WD trails 

marked on previously published maps by the 

BHNF. Currently the trail is impassable due to 

leftover Jasper fire debris. We would like it put 

into inventory as a possible Rock crawl trail in the 

future. The local 4WD clubs would be happy to 

volunteer in a cleanup effort to see this as a 4WD 

trail in the future. Map attached [ATT 13].

Gillette Canyon Road is a main route for both Forest 

visitors and for landowners who require access to their 

private property. This road, as well as others across the 

Forest, may at times have debris across it due to wind 

events or wildlife activity. For those routes, such as the 

Gillette Canyon Road, where public access is necessary 

on a daily basis, debris is cleared as quickly as possible. 

Designation of this road as a trail would not be in the 

best interest of the many who require this road as a 

main access route. 

453/24.

1790 Route 

Specific 

Comment

On map #18 [ATT 13] there is a small draw that 

the only thing it would need to be a premier rock 

crawling experience is the permission to drive up 

the draw. There are no trees and only the fast 

growing after fire vegetation in the way. It begins 

at the bottom on road 281 and climbs up the 

draw to road 281.1W and both of these roads are 

currently roads open to all vehicles. Map attached 

[ATT 13].

This route is not proposed under any Alternative. If it 

does not cross private land, then it may be possible to 

consider this as a rock crawler (special designation) trail 

in the future. However, if it crosses private land, then 

the Forest Service does not have the authority to 

designate a trail of any kind on private land.

453/25.

1791 Route 

Specific 

Comment

There are several popular rock crawling trails in 

this area [in Craven Canyon, multiple trails on 

ATT 14]. The local 4WD enthusiasts have been in 

contact with the new ranger of the Hell Canyon 

districts and they have gone out and toured these 

trails with FS personnel when they were 

Several of these routes have been reviewed further by 

the District staff and may be considered as a special 

designation trail for Rock Crawling. The Decision 

Maker will consider this in his decision for the Black 

Hills Travel Management Plan.

453/26.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

426

discovered to have been left off any of the 

proposed alternatives. The new Ranger expressed 

no concerns at that time to designating these as 

4WD trails. The state of South Dakota has 

deemed this area as unremarkable in its attributes. 

We believe that the past Ranger for this district 

did not want any trails in his area and therefore 

just left them off the map. Map attached [ATT 

14].

1792 Route 

Specific 

Comment

There is a rock quarry at the end of 135.2m that is 

a perfect place for the multiuse OHV area. This 

area is accessible and a completely existing man 

made area. Map attached [ATT 4].

This rock quarry was not analyzed in any Alternative as 

it is an active quarry. Therefore it is outside the scope of 

this document.

453/27.

1793 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Road number 186.2 at Maurice needs to be added 

as a trail open to all vehicles. Map attached [not 

attached].

FSR 186.2 was not analyzed since there is no ROW 

through the private property. It therefore outside the 

scope of this project.

453/28.

1794 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Road closure in Thomson Canyon. Road #816 

Section # 33: This is a good gravel road in the 

bottom of Thomson Canyon that we have been 

using for 50 years. The Canyon is landlocked and 

recently the landowner on the west side had 

denied access. BHNF seems to have no interest in 

gaining access for the public. I am going through 

the state to try and gain access by prescriptive 

right. There is still access from the east through 

BLM land. So I don‟t think this road should be 

closed. The road is in the bottom of a steep 

canyon, therefore there is little resource damage 

that could be done. If this road is closed the 

whole canyon will become the “private” backyard 

of the west landowner, as he will have the right to 

control access to this land. He already claims it as 

his and this will make it impossible.

Thompson Canyon access. Although Forest Service 

road # 816 provides access into Thompson Canyon, it 

must cross other ownership, and therefore cannot be 

designated as a trail. The Forest Service does not have 

the authority to designate a trail that crosses or enters 

other private ownership. 

454/1.

1795 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Closing of Road #726 in section #8: This is a 

nice road that we have been using for years. It is 

mostly graveled and goes into a beautiful valley. I 

do not see any reason to close this road to motor 

vehicles.

Portions of this road are designated as a trail open to 

vehicles 65" or less in Alternatives B and C on the South 

Dakota side. On the Wyoming side, Stots Canyon lies 

on private land. 

454/2.

1796 Route 

Specific 

Closing of Road 818.1A, 818.1B, 818.1F, and 

818.1R on Elk Mountain, Section #10, and the 

Portions of this road cross onto private land. The 

Forest Service does not have the authority to designate 

454/3.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

427

Comment main road to Elk Mountain Lookout Tower: 

These roads are well graveled roads and provide 

good access to an area that is great for hunting. I 

have been using then for years and do not see any 

reason to deny motor vehicle access to this area.

any travel routes onto or through private land. 

1797 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Closing of Road #189.4B in section #: This is a 

major graveled road that provides access to the 

old Crooks Lookout Tower. This road is in 

between 2 roads that are open and it provides a 

more direct access to the area. I do not see any 

reason to close this road.

This road was closed in order to protect wildlife security 

and habitat needs in this area. This decision was made 

in a previous NEPA analysis and decision.

454/4.

1798 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Closing of Road #117.5C in section #32: This is a 

good gravel road that is on flat ground and in 

good condition. I do not understand any reason 

for closing this road.

This road is designated as open to highway legal vehicles 

in all alternatives.

454/5.

1799 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Centennial Trail: Page 40 of the DEIS states 

“Non-motorized trail opportunity across the 

Forest is currently 311 miles on 35 trails, with 

another 12 miles of the Centennial Trail shared 

with motorized users. This opportunity would 

remain the same under all alternatives.” This is 

not a true statement. It would appear from the 

maps for Alternatives B and C that most, if not 

all, of the Centennial Trail from the Pilot Knob 

Trailhead south to the Deer Creek Trailhead is to 

be open to motorized trail. Hence, this additional 

section of the Centennial Trail would be “shared” 

with motorized users as well. On page 35 of the 

DEIS the USFS emphatically stated, “designation 

of non-motorized routes is not the focus of this 

project." However, it is apparent that designating 

of non-motorized routes as motorized routes is 

part of the project. It is very disturbing that 

changing the part of the Centennial trail to a 

motorized status was done with no 

acknowledgement of the deplorable action in the 

DEIS.

The Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob 

are currently open to motorized traffic. It was analyzed 

to be open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed 

from Alternative D. FSR 613, 746, 746.1B, 1D, and 1F 

in the area of Deer Creek Trailhead were inadvertently 

included in Alternatives B and C as motorized routes, 

but were removed from Alternative D. Your comment 

has been evaluated. Any decision about selected routes 

will be documented in the Record of Decision.

456/21.

1800 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Appendix B [ATT 14] has a list of routes that the 

Norbeck Society is recommending closure under 

the various alternatives. In Table 4 [ATT 4] is a 

Many of the routes listed in Appendix B have been 

eliminated from Alternatives D and E. A range of 

alternatives for motorized opportunities was considered 

456/22.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

428

list of areas that are impacted by recreational 

issues and for which we are requiring that trails be 

removed (see Appendix B [ATT 4] for more 

information).

in the DEIS and FEIS. Recommendations in the 

comment for the Bearlodge RD are included under 

Alternative D. Two specific routes mentioned for 

removal were not considered; FS 802.2A accesses 

private property and FS 839.1 accesses a trailhead. 

Route 879.1 is listed as a "Other Jurisdiction" road 

under all alternatives since it accesses State property. 

1801 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Trailheads and access points are proposed in 

some areas where either (1) there are no adjacent 

trails for access, or (2) trailheads are sited within 

close proximity of another, or (3) trailheads and 

access points are in/near communities who 

oppose them, or (4) there is coincidence with 

existing hiking trailheads or other non-motorized 

activity with consequent potential for social 

conflicts. The DEIS offers little in the way of 

specifications for trailheads. On page 106 of the 

DEIS it states, “The designation of trailhead 

facilities (estimated at up to five acres in size for 

this analysis) would further implement that design 

criteria.” Up to 5 acres is potentially a very large 

area for parking. Also even the DEIS warns on 

page 41 “Increased costs of vandalism could be 

expected with higher numbers of trailheads.” We 

recommend that the minimum number of 

trailheads and access points be maintained in 

order to achieve economic and environmental 

sustainability. We are recommending the 

following motorized trailheads for removal (See 

Appendix C [ATT 15] for more 

information):Beretta Trailhead, Big Hill Trailhead, 

Bloody Gulch Trailhead, China Trailhead, Clayton 

Quarry Trailhead, Custer Peak Trailhead, Dalton 

Lake Trailhead, High Meadows Access Point, 

Mystic Trailhead, Peaceful Pines Trailhead, Pilot 

Knob Trailhead, Red Fern Trailhead, Rolling Hills 

Trailhead, Samelius Trailhead, Schroeder 

Trailhead, Shanks Quarry Trailhead, South Box 

Elder Trailhead, Stageyard Trailhead, Sundance 

Trailhead, and Victoria Dam Trailhead.

Some of the trailheads listed in Appendix C were

removed in Alternative D, and Alternative E does not 

include any trailheads. Moving the Sundance Trailhead 

(known as the Reuter Trailhead) to sections 29/20 of 

T52N R63W would be in conflict with private property 

and inefficient for snowmobile and cross-country trail 

access in the winter. The trailhead was designed to 

provide access to all users of the National Forest. 

Various numbers of trailheads were analyzed in 

Alternatives B through E with Alternative E showing 

only currently existing trailheads including Big Hill. Any 

decision on trailheads selected will be documented in 

the Record of Decision.

456/24.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

429

1802 Route 

Specific 

Comment

[In the Stagebarn-Piedmont area, trails located on 

erodible Opeche shale should be removed] (See

Appendix B [# 15][ATT 14] for more 

information).

While routes were evaluated for inclusion into the 

designated system, there may be sections of a designated 

transportation system under the decision that may be 

located on a geologic formation where the 

transportation facility will likely require more trail 

design, maintenance, application of surfacing materials 

to maintain the system for use without resulting in 

impacts to adjacent resources located immediately 

adjacent to the designated transportation facility. Please 

see the decision for transportation facility designation 

and Appendix B of the FEIS for the transportation 

design criteria common to all alternatives for protection 

of the transportation infrastructure and other resources.

456/34.

1803 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The Norbeck Society notes that several routes in 

Alternatives B and C have public safety issues 

where, for example, FSR 201.1 and 202.2 

provides multiple connections onto the 

designated trail system including at least two 

(CZ4870 and CZ 4835) that utilize a blind corner 

on 201.2 as part of a loop. Similar issues arise on 

FSR 141 (CZ4852) and FSR 208.1 (CZ 4910). 

These instances are of particular concern partly 

because they are trails for dirt bikes, OHVs that 

are more often than not unlicensed, and operated 

by unlicensed, uninsured, under-aged drivers. 

These alternatives essentially dump these 

operators onto roads open to licensed vehicles 

only, a practice that could only be described as 

„poor‟ in concept and design and thus pose a 

threat not only to users of the designated trail 

system, but also to those who use the regular 

roads in their daily lives.

Routes selected as part of the motorized travel system 

would include measures to ensure the safety of the 

users. Adjustments to the system can be made as a 

result of monitoring of use. Routes may be temporarily 

closed by special order as needed to protect resources or 

for safety reasons. 

456/39.

1804 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The Pilot Knob - Nemo section of the Centennial 

Trail and the area around Dalton Lake have been 

significantly degraded by OHV incursions that 

have resulted in a significant amount of resource 

damage. These areas were historically designated 

as being areas of non-motorized recreation. 

However, in the DEIS, these areas, and the 

Centennial Trail from Pilot Knob to Pactola, have 

The Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob is 

currently open to motorized traffic. It was analyzed to 

be open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed from 

Alternative D. Any decision about selected routes will 

be documented in the Record of Decision.

456/62.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

430

been re-designated as motorized recreation areas. 

The Norbeck Society views this re-designation of 

traditionally non-motorized trails as dominating 

multiple uses of the forest. The following two 

photos [ATT 7 and 8] are examples of the 

currently designated motorized trails on the Pilot 

Knob - Nemo section of the Centennial Trail. 

[These photos] [ATT 7 and 8] reflect the heavy 

damage that has been caused in the past and still 

exists today. In order to redress the domination 

of multiple uses of the forest by the OHV 

community, the Norbeck Society requests that the 

USFS re-designate all sections and trailheads of 

the Centennial Trail as non-motorized, place 

priority on rehabilitation of “user-created” trails 

within a 1-mile buffer of Dalton Lake.

1805 Route 

Specific 

Comment

In Table 7 [ATT 9] is a list of areas that are 

impacted for socio-economic reasons and for 

which we [the Norbeck Society] are asking that 

trails be removed (see Appendix B [ATT 14] for 

more information).

Many of the routes listed in Table 7 are not included in 

Alternative D, or are open to highway legal vehicles only 

in Alternative E.

456/77.

1806 Route 

Specific 

Comment

We [the Norbeck Society] want to emphasize the 

Botany Canyon area and High Meadows 

residential area. The rock crawler area including 

the routes U140092 and CZ1790 that are 

hazardous, unstable, and on a steep canyon wall. 

The motorized group is requesting access through 

High Meadows residential area so they can access 

the above mentioned user-created routes. We 

insist on the removal of MYJ148, CZ1790 and 

U140092.

Routes were analyzed to be included in Alternatives B, 

C and D and were left off of Alternative E. The portion 

of U140092 that is in Botany Canyon is not included as 

a motorized route in any of the alternatives. CZ-1790 is 

not included as a motorized route in Alternative E. FSR 

148 is open to highway legal vehicles only in 

Alternatives C, D, and E. Any decision about selected 

routes will be documented in the Record of Decision.

456/79.

1807 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Many of the routes suggested for the various 

alternatives appear to conflict with Forest Plan 

Direction, especially with regard to Standards 

1203, 1212, 1301, 1302 and 1304. In Table 8 

[ATT 10] is a list of areas that are impacted by 

hydrology issues and for which we [the Norbeck 

Society] are asking that trails be removed (see 

Appendix B [ATT 14] for more information).

Many of the routes in the areas listed in Table 8 attached 

to the comment were removed from Alternatives D and 

E, or are open to highway legal vehicles only. In the 

table, Cement Ridge applies to the Bearlodge Ranger 

District. The recommendation to remove routes was 

considered in Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS with 

the exception of FS 802.2A which accesses private 

property. Design criteria applied to the routes would 

minimize impacts and meet Forest Plan direction under 

456/86.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

431

all alternatives. 

1808 Route 

Specific 

Comment

In Table 9 [ATT 11] is a list of areas that are 

impacted by wildlife issues and for which we are 

asking that trails be removed (see Appendix B 

[ATT 14] for more information).

Many of the routes in the areas listed in Table 9 were 

removed from Alternatives D and E, or are open to 

highway legal vehicles only.

456/102.

1809 Route 

Specific 

Comment

For all alternatives, the areas in the Table 

[10][ATT 12] should have trails removed to 

conserve and protect USFS sensitive species and 

Black Hills NF plant species of local concern 

(SOLC). See Appendix B [ATT 14] for more 

information.

Many of the routes in the areas listed in Table 10 were 

removed from Alternatives D and E, or are open to 

highway legal vehicles only, to conserve and protect 

USFS sensitive species and Black Hills NF plant species 

of local concern (SOLC). See Appendix B [ATT 14] for 

more information.. In the table referenced, Dugout 

Gulch, Cement Ridge, and Bearlodge/Beaver Creek 

apply to the Bearlodge RD. The recommendation to 

remove routes was considered under Alternative D of 

the DEIS and FEIS with the exception of FS 802.2A as 

it accesses private property. Road 879.1 is listed as 

"Other Jurisdiction" under all alternatives since it 

accesses State property. 

456/107.

1810 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The Norbeck Society recommends modifications 

to the USFS DEIS alternatives. In order for the 

new Travel Management Plan to be sustainable, 

while at the same time preserving the forest and 

its wildlife and botanical populations to meet the 

needs of all user groups, the Norbeck Society has 

recommended: Elimination of routes listed on the 

Norbeck Society spreadsheet (See Appendix B 

[ATT 14]: Routes to be eliminated). Column 

“Changes Proposed” lists the proposed route 

changes, and Column “Justification” provides a 

brief justification for the specific action.

A range of alternatives for motorized opportunities was 

considered in the DEIS and FEIS. Many of the routes 

listed in Appendix B to the comment letter have been 

eliminated from Alternatives D and E. 

Recommendations in the comment for the Bearlodge 

RD are included under Alternative D. Two specific 

routes mentioned for removal were not considered; FS 

802.2A accesses private property and FS 839.1 accesses 

a trailhead. Route 879.1 is listed as an "Other 

Jurisdiction" road under all alternatives since it accesses 

State property. 

456/139.

1811 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The Norbeck Society recommends modifications 

to the USFS DEIS alternatives. In order for the 

new Travel Management Plan to be sustainable, 

while at the same time preserving the forest and 

its wildlife and botanical populations to meet the 

needs of all user groups, the Norbeck Society has 

recommended: Elimination or moving of 

trailheads listed on the Norbeck Society 

spreadsheet (See Appendix C [ATT 15]: 

Trailheads to be changed).

Some of the trailheads listed in Appendix C to the 

comment letter were removed in Alternative D, and 

Alternative E does not include any new trailheads. 

Moving the Sundance Trailhead (known as the Reuter 

Trailhead) to sections 29/20 of T52N R63W would be 

in conflict with private property and inefficient for 

snowmobile and cross-country trail access in the winter. 

The trailhead was designed to provide access to all users 

of the National Forest.

456/140.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

432

1812 Route 

Specific 

Comment

As a supporter of the Top 50 Trailhead project, I 

understand and agree that the development of 

this trailhead will create a “gateway community” 

for the Piedmont area. This gateway community 

will create an infrastructure that combines 

government agencies, communities and a local 

social entrepreneur working together to achieve 

one common goal... create a low expense, easy 

access gateway to our new recreational Black Hills 

trail system. This generates large positive impacts 

on the regions, economy, ecology, safety, and 

education.

Thank you for your comment. 457/1.

1813 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The location of the Top 50 Trailhead at exit at 

exit 46 off I-90 is ideal for local and out of state 

visitors enjoying motorized and non-motorized 

outdoor recreational activities. This easy access 

convenient location provides a maintained 2 acre 

location for loading, unloading, short term and 

long term parking at no charge as visitors enjoy 

the Black Hills.

The Top 50 trailhead is not within FS jurisdiction and 

therefore outside the scope of this project.

457/2.

1814 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The private development of this particular 

trailhead [Top 50 Trailhead] eliminates costly 

construction, renovation, and any necessary 

maintaining by local or state and governmental 

agencies.

The Top 50 trailhead is not within FS jurisdiction and 

therefore outside the scope of this project.

457/3.

1815 Route 

Specific 

Comment

This convenient trailhead [Top 50 Trailhead] also 

provides year round access for the following uses: 

USFS Maintenance, Patrolling, and Training. 

Community Education activities, training and 

programs. Emergency Services and Rescues.

The Top 50 trailhead is not within FS jurisdiction and 

therefore outside the scope of this project.

457/4.

1816 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The development of this easily accessible trailhead 

[Top 50 Trailhead] affects the economy of the 

entire Black Hills and directly affects surrounding 

communities and counties. Multiple users, local 

and out of state, motorized and non-motorized, 

can benefit from and enjoy an extended tourism 

season. Trails give visitors access to many small 

communities. Allowing multiple local businesses 

the ability to sell a wide range of goods and 

services. National publicity provided by Top 50 

The Top 50 trailhead is not within FS jurisdiction and 

therefore outside the scope of this project.

457/5.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

433

Trailhead and its events encourages tourism 

utilizing the Black Hills trail system as a top

destination for recreational use.

1817 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Centralized access to the trail system eliminates 

the need to create new trailheads, trails and OHV 

ditch usage thereby eliminating unnecessary soil 

erosion and dust pollution. Top 50 Trailhead 

offers a mud bog area designed to allow 

motorized vehicle enthusiasts to enjoy the activity 

without destroying the designated trail system or 

public land.

The Top 50 trailhead is not within FS jurisdiction and 

therefore outside the scope of this project.

457/6.

1818 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Top 50 Trailhead leads visitors on a maintained 

trail under the highway and directly to the trail 

system. This eliminates injuries and deaths caused 

by blacktop pack OHV usage, highway and 

private driveway crossings, and OHV ditch usage. 

The trailhead will also provide well lit loading and 

unloading areas to both single and multi-day 

visitors both motorized and non-motorized. 

Sewer and freshwater will be available on the 

property as well.

The Top 50 trailhead is not within FS jurisdiction and 

therefore outside the scope of this project.

457/7.

1819 Route 

Specific 

Comment

With over 2 acres of private land for public access 

and use, the Top 50 Trailhead serves as an 

education and training location for the National 

Guard, USFS, and other safety and safety 

equipment. Elementary through college students 

have a way to access and learn about the Black 

Hills first hand. Information on the Black Hills 

trail system, ecology, geography, and botany will 

be posted on site. Information on training 

courses, state and area attraction and South 

Dakota Department of Tourism maps will be 

available on site.

The Top 50 trailhead is not within FS jurisdiction and 

therefore outside the scope of this project.

457/8.

1820 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I feel the development of the Top 50 Trailhead 

will benefit the Black Hills area in numerous ways 

and fully support its further development.

The Top 50 trailhead is not within FS jurisdiction and 

therefore outside the scope of this project.

457/9.

1821 Route 

Specific 

Comment

In Table 5 [described below] is a list of areas that 

are impacted by soils issues and for which we are 

requiring that trails be removed (see Appendix B 

[not attached] for more information) [Table 5 

While routes were evaluated for inclusion as part of the 

future designated system, there may be portions or 

sections of any designated transportation system under 

the decision that may be located on a geologic 

458/28.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

434

shows that in the Stagebarn-Piedmont area, trails 

are located on erodible Opeche shale.].

formation where the transportation facility can require 

more extensive trail design, maintenance, application of 

aggregate or other surfacing materials to limit erosion of 

the trail surface and maintain the system for use without 

resulting in impacts to adjacent resources located 

immediately adjacent to the designated transportation 

facility. Please see the decision for transportation facility 

designation and Appendix B of the FEIS for the 

transportation design criteria common to all alternatives 

for protection of the transportation infrastructure and 

other resources.

1822 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The Pilot Knob - Nemo section of the Centennial 

Trail and the area around Dalton Lake have been 

significantly degraded by OHV incursions that 

have resulted in a significant amount of resource 

damage. These areas were historically designated 

as being areas of non-motorized recreation. 

However, in the DEIS, these areas, and the 

Centennial Trail from Pilot Knob to Pactola, have 

been re-designated as motorized recreation areas. 

The Norbeck Society views this re-designation of 

traditionally non-motorized trails as dominating 

multiple uses of the forest. The following two 

photos [not included] are examples of the 

currently designated motorized trails on the Pilot 

Knob - Nemo section of the Centennial Trail and 

reflect the heavy damage that been caused in the 

past and still exists today. We [Black Hills Group 

- Sierra Club] join with the Norbeck Society in 

requesting the BHNF re-designate all sections and 

trailheads on the Centennial Trail as nonmotorized, and place a priority on the 

rehabilitation of ORV “user-created” trails within 

a 1-mile radius of Dalton Lake.

The Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob is 

currently open to motorized traffic. It was analyzed to 

be open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed from 

Alternative D. Any decision about selected routes will 

be documented in the Record of Decision.

458/57.

1823 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Many of the routes suggested for the various 

alternatives appear to conflict with Forest Plan 

Direction, especially with regard to Standards 

1203, 1212, 1301, 1302 and 1304. In Table 8 

[ATT 6] is a list of areas that are impacted by 

hydrology issues and for which we are asking that 

Many of the routes in the areas listed in Table 8 of the 

comment letter were removed from Alternatives D and 

E, or are open to highway legal vehicles only. In Table 

8, Cement Ridge applies to the Bearlodge RD. The 

recommendation to remove routes was considered 

under Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS with the 

458/64.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

435

trails be removed (see Appendix B [not attached] 

for more information).

exception of FS 802.2A which accesses private property. 

Design criteria listed in Appendix B of the EIS are to be 

applied to any selected trail system in order to meet the 

Forest Plan direction mentioned here.

1824 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The second table on page 308 [of the DEIS] lists 

routes and streams for which resource damage is 

a concern, [[Absent any mitigation measures,]] 

none of the routes associated with or planned for 

these stream should be adopted unless steps are 

taken to minimize resource damage by application 

of the design options given.

Design criteria listed in Appendix B of the EIS will be 

applied to the crossings listed in table that is referred to. 

458/67.

1825 Route 

Specific 

Comment

In Table 9 [ATT 7] is a list of areas that are 

impacted by wildlife issues and for which we are 

asking that trails [[and motorized uses]] be 

removed (see Appendix B [not attached] for more 

information).

Many of the routes in the areas listed in Table 9 were 

removed from Alternatives D and E, or are open to 

highway legal vehicles only.

458/78.

1826 Route 

Specific 

Comment

For all alternatives, the areas in Table [10] [ATT 

8] should have trails removed to conserve and 

protect USFS sensitive species and Black Hills NF 

plant species of local concern (SOLC). See 

Appendix B [not attached] for more information.

Many of the routes in the areas listed in Table 10 of the 

comment letter were removed from Alternatives D and 

E, or are open to highway legal vehicles only. In Table 

10, Dugout Gulch, Cement Ridge, and 

Bearlodge/Beaver Creek apply to the Bearlodge RD. 

The recommendation to remove routes was considered 

under Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS with the 

exception of FS 802.2A as it accesses private property. 

Road 879.1 is listed as "Other Jurisdiction" under all 

alternatives since it accesses State property.

458/83.

1827 Route 

Specific 

Comment

There is a lack of access to services in all 

alternatives. Trails need to connect to towns or 

businesses that will provide services to trail users 

such as food, fuel, repairs, camping and motels. 

Trailheads are not well placed, and do not 

contribute to access to these services. Special 

attention should be given to businesses that rely 

heavily on OHV traffic. Some of these businesses 

include: Moonshine Gulch Saloon, Rochford, SD; 

Sugar Shack on Highway 385; Nemo Guest 

Ranch, Nemo, SD; Covered Wagon Resort, 

Piedmont, SD; Wild Bill‟s Campground, Highway 

385 near Deadwood, SD; Custer Crossing 

Campground on Highway 385 near Deadwood, 

This DEIS addresses only areas under FS jurisdiction. 

The businesses you listed are on private property and 

therefore outside the scope of this project. 

460/7.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

436

SD; Deerfield Lake Resort, Deerfield, SD; and 

Mad Mountain Adventures, Deadwood, SD.

1828 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The 4x4 rock crawling trails known as the 

Buzzworms [Upper and Lower] have challenged 

the 4x4 community for many years, and have 

offered world class trail experience for people 

from all over the United States at events held in 

the Black Hills. This area has proven that limited 

use in the right conditions can be managed as 

sustainable for 4x4 enthusiasts and minimize 

interaction with the locals.

The Buzzworms trails were not analyzed under any 

Alternative and are therefore outside the scope of this 

project. Any consideration for future trail locations will 

be dealt with as individual projects by Districts.

460/17.

1829 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The Camp 5 area is perhaps becoming one of the 

most used 4x4 trail connectors in the Black Hills. 

At this time, the area doesn‟t see so much use that 

it is difficult to find a place enjoy the particular 

kind of activity you enjoy, but I could see this area 

becoming more and more popular in the near 

future, especially as trail systems become 

identified, and people has less places to go. This 

area is primarily used by larger Jeep and pickups 

modified for extreme terrain, however, it‟s 

increasingly becoming popular with the ATV and 

single track use for connectors for the area (map 

below)[ see ATT 2].

Thank you for your comment. 460/18.

1830 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The access to Boulder Canyon makes this an 

excellent Trailhead for base camps for both 

weekend getaways and daily outings. It‟s close 

proximity to Deadwood and Sturgis also add 

food, fuel, and lodging at a short distance away 

from this area (map below)[ATT 3].

Thank you for your comment. 460/20.

1831 Route 

Specific 

Comment

There are a couple of trails [near Camp 5. see 

ATT 4] that are not currently being utilized in this 

area that could be utilized for extreme rock 

crawling activities.

CZ 5322, CA 0228 and CZ 0026 were not analyzed in 

any alternatives and therefore are beyond the scope of 

this project. Any consideration for future trail locations 

will be dealt with as individual projects by Districts.

460/22.

1832 Route 

Specific 

Comment

There is a dry creek bed along CZ-0216, known 

as Calamity Canyon that is a runoff rock bed that 

runs into the dry creek bed in the Camp 5 area. 

There are 2 other runoff areas that form a natural 

rock terrain that is similar to Camp 5 that connect 

to the dry creek and road in Camp 5. These trails 

Due to resource concerns none of the route shown on 

your map were analyzed in any Alternative and therefore 

are outside the scope of this document.

460/24.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

437

are identified on my included map Camp 5-5, trail 

NS190RC and NS189RC (map below)[see ATT 

5].

1833 Route 

Specific 

Comment

A former rock crawling trail shown on included 

Camp 5-4, trail NS788RC, should be designated 

as a trail, even though this trail may need some 

stricter guidelines than others in this area. This 

trail has since been closed because of a small 

stream of water coming out of the rocks on the 

upper part of the trail that runs down part way, 

and returns underground. This trail had been run 

for years without water running down the trail 

and it wasn‟t until several wet spring seasons that 

the water opened up and drained down the trail. 

This would lead me to believe in a dryer year, the 

water would no longer emerge and the trail could 

be reopened. It has a defined exit at the top of the 

draw as well (map below).

Due to resource concerns none of the route shown on 

your map were analyzed in any Alternative and therefore 

are outside the scope of this document.

460/26.

1834 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I would like to show a correction of a proposed 

ATV connector trail to FS567.1C and FS567.1E, 

which would be better suited to a multiuse trail, as 

there is no width restrictions for vehicles, and the 

connector would lead to scenic opportunities for 

all. This route can be seen on my included map 

Camp 5-6, route NS225MU. There is another 

connector as well that is a main road that would 

be a natural connector to FS172.1 (map 

below)[see ATT 7].

The connector you speak of U070030 was not analyzed 

in any Alternative and therefore is outside the scope of 

this project. The other route passes through non-Forest 

Service jurisdiction with no ROW and was not analyzed 

in any Alternative and therefore is outside the scope of 

this document. Any consideration for future trail 

locations will be dealt with as individual projects by 

Districts.

460/28.

1835 Route 

Specific 

Comment

A trail named Full Size was not included in the 

proposal as a 4x4 designated Rock Crawling Trail 

[see ATT 8]. This trail had the entrance 

obliterated, mistakenly from my understanding, 

and was to be reopened last summer. As far as I 

know it has not yet been reopened. This trail 

provided lesser modified 4x4‟s a short run 

through rocks to challenge lesser modified 

vehicles and/or skill levels. This trail has been 

permitted for 4 X 4 events for years, and I have 

not seen any changes in condition of trail, proving 

it is sustainable.

The trail known as Full Size was analyzed in Alternatives 

B, C and D as a trail open to all and removed from 

Alternative E. The trail being mistakenly closed is 

beyond the scope of this document. Any decision about 

selected routes will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

460/30.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

438

1836 Route 

Specific 

Comment

A loop trail that would add to the Raspberry 

Ridge permitted 4x4 trail would be the small easy, 

rocky section of trail that loops to the South of 

the current Raspberry Ridge Trail shown on the 

Raspberry Ridge Trail map, NS231MU and return 

to Raspberry Ridge to the North on an existing 

FS 202.2C. Most of the trail would be considered 

multiuser trail, so changes would be minimal. The 

trail has existing fences for cattle grazing (I 

believe), and is a road that is currently being used 

by recreationists in the area.

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in 

the Record of Decision.

460/32.

1837 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Elbow Canyon Trail, Southern Black Hills, South 

Dakota: The trail starts approximately at 

43°26‟45.31N / 103°50‟13.85W, and ends at 

43°27‟04.77N /103°51‟24.38W. There is an 

alternate route that may make another sustainable 

route through the area south of the main trail. 

The rock crawling trails in the Southern Hills are 

essential for the trail system because to have a 

diversified trail system that is manageable, usable, 

and enforceable, it must be able to deal with 

issues of overcrowding, over-use, and 

encroachment of houses near forest property. 

Lack of trails in the Southern Hills is a major 

concern of the 4x4 community, as this may 

provide a year round opportunity for recreation as 

the area does not usually see as much snowfall as 

in the Northern part of the Hills. The proximity 

to small communities will benefit from having the 

recreation as this would offer an economic boost 

in the form of lodging, food, and fuel to the local 

communities. The area has been home to local 

organized mud bogs on private land, and the 

community has welcomed the recreation and 

opportunity. This is one of many trails that have 

been submitted during scoping via Jon Wermers 

with SDOHVC, at the public input meetings in 

Custer and Rapid City, and hand-delivered to the 

Hell Canyon acting district ranger. It has also 

been hiked with numerous officials. Elbow 

Thank you for your comments and concern regarding 

the Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

and the Hell Canyon Ranger District. Under 

Alternatives B and C in the Draft EIS, there are trails 

designated for ATV motorized use. Although the 

number of miles designated are less than in other areas 

of the Forest, it is possible that additional trail 

designation could be considered in the future. Thank 

you for your comments regarding the Southern Black 

Hills and specifically the Elbow Canyon Trail. On April 

18, 2009 both the Hell Canyon District Ranger, Lynn 

Kolund and the District Archeologist, Anthony King 

hiked this trail to become familiar with the interest and 

concerns with this trail. This trail was requested as a 

rock crawling trail route. The Decision Maker will 

consider this request. If this trail is not designated 

during this planning process it is possible that in the 

future additional trails could be designated in the 

Southern Hills. However, this would need to be 

considered in detail in a separate environmental analysis.

460/40.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

439

Canyon was hiked on April 18, 2009 with 

SDOHVC [South Dakota Off Highway Vehicle 

Coalition] , Black Hills Jeeps, and Black Hills 4X4 

representatives, U.S. Forest Service ArcheologistTony King, and Hell Canyon District RangerLynn Kolund. The trails in the Southern Hills 

seem to have been ignored in the system by the 

previous District Ranger. Please see the map 

included named Elbow Canyon Trail [ATT 14 

and 15]. Included is a copy of the map in both 

large scale [ATT 14] and close up scale [ATT 15], 

in jpg and pdf, and gpx file of the area.

1838 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The following are connection to proposed trails 

and roads that the Off-Road Riders Association 

has been permitted and used in recent years for 

poker runs and are necessary connections to a 

continuous route between Rochford and the 

Custer Crossing Campground area. Continue 

513.1B to FH 17 using U120166. This will get 

riders to FH 17 so riders can then go into 

Rochford (map below)[ATT 16].

This route U120166 was not analyzed in any Alternative 

and therefore is outside the scope of this document. 

Routes not included in this decision may be considered 

in the future on individual District projects.

460/43.

1839 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The following are connections to proposed trails 

and roads that the Off-Road Riders Association 

has been permitted and used in recent years for 

poker runs and are necessary connections to a 

continuous route between Rochford and the 

Custer Crossing Campground area. Connect 

217.1A to 203.1F with CZ-0591.

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

460/45.

1840 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The following are connections to proposed trails 

and roads that the Off-Road Riders Association 

has been permitted and used in recent years for 

poker runs and are necessary connections to a 

continuous route between Rochford and the 

Custer Crossing Campground area. Include 

U120153 to connect 204.2G to U120153.

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

460/47.

1841 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The following are connections to proposed trails 

and roads that the Off-Road Riders Association 

has been permitted and used in recent years for 

poker runs and are necessary connections to a 

continuous route between Rochford and the 

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

460/49.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

440

Custer Crossing Campground area. Include 

U120077 to get motorcycles and ATVs off of 

204.2 for safety.

1842 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The following are connections to proposed trails 

and roads that the Off-Road Riders Association 

has been permitted and used in recent years for 

poker runs and are necessary connections to a 

continuous route between Rochford and the 

Custer Crossing Campground area. Include 

U120091 for a continuous route.

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

460/51.

1843 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The following are connections to proposed trails 

and roads that the Off-Road Riders Association 

has been permitted and used in recent years for 

poker runs and are necessary connections to a 

continuous route between Rochford and the 

Custer Crossing Campground area. Include CZ2644 and CZ-0635 for a continuous route.

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

460/53.

1844 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The following are connections to proposed trails 

and roads that the Off-Road Riders Association 

has been permitted and used in recent years for 

poker runs and are necessary connections to a 

continuous route between Rochford and the 

Custer Crossing Campground area. Include 

U120135, U120134, and CZ-4222 for a 

continuous route.

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

460/55.

1845 Route

Specific 

Comment

The following are connections to proposed trails 

and roads that the Off-Road Riders Association 

has been permitted and used in recent years for 

poker runs and are necessary connections to a 

continuous route between Rochford and the 

Custer Crossing Campground area. Include CZ4840 between 204.1 and 204.1B.

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

460/57.

1846 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The following are connections to proposed trails 

and roads that the Off-Road Riders Association 

has been permitted and used in recent years for 

poker runs and are necessary connections to a 

continuous route between Rochford and the 

Custer Crossing Campground area. Continue 

513.1 to 231.2 using CZ3588 for access to 

Rochford. By including the trails above it will 

The route CZ 3588 was not analyzed in any Alternative 

and therefore is outside the scope of this document. 

Routes not included in this decision may be considered 

in the future on individual District projects.

460/59.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

441

create a continuous route and help keep off-road 

vehicles off of gravel roads thus increasing safety 

of the riders.

1847 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Have a Trailhead at the intersection of 231.2 and 

231.2A. This is a flat area that has been used as a 

parking area for years and has easy access. 

Connect 231.2A with the proposed system to the 

north using U120162.

FSR 231.2A was analyzed in Alternative E and removed 

from Alternative B, C and D due to resource concerns. 

Any decision on routes selected will be documented in 

the Record of Decision. No trailhead location was 

evaluated at this location and is therefore outside the 

scope of this document.

460/61.

1848 Route 

Specific 

Comment

A single track motorcycle trail that many riders 

have requested of us (ORA) to be kept open is 

CZ-4912 and CZ-48.14 to the east and south of 

Nemo. Skilled dirt-bikers enjoy this trail. There 

are places of steep grade but we feel by rerouting 

the trail in a few places any problems can be 

mitigated.

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

460/62.

1849 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Many off-roaders leave Sturgis by 171.1 through 

the SD GF&P land and head for the Camp 5 area. 

A trial linking 171.1B with the Camp 5 area needs 

to be included. To get to Camp 5 as shown on 

Alternative C a rider would have to go down to 

gravel road 170.1C then west to 170.4C. By 

routing the riders onto a gravel road, we believe it 

is placing their safety in jeopardy.

Thank you for your comment. No routes were analyzed 

between 171 and the camp 5 area and therefore are 

outside the scope of this document. Any consideration 

to future trails will be handled by the individual District.

460/63.

1850 Route 

Specific 

Comment

There is no way for trail vehicles to access the 

west side of Vanocker Canyon Road once they 

come to the west end of 139.1. A trail needs to be 

established using 135.2G and 135.2E to connect 

to 541.1 so access to the trails to the west can be 

maintained.

FSR 135.2G and 135.2E are closed system roads. They 

were not included in any Alternative and therefore are 

outside the scope of this document. Routes not included 

in this decision may be considered in the future on 

individual District project.

439/18. 460/65.

1851 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Trails CZ-1825 and CZ-1090 parallel road 144.1 

on the northwest side, between U140124 and 

226.1. These trails should be open so trail vehicles 

can get off of the road as soon as possible. This 

will reduce different vehicle type conflicts on road 

144.1 and be a safer route for trail type machines.

This route was not analyzed in any Alternative and 

therefore is outside the scope of this document. Routes 

not included in this decision may be considered in the 

future on individual District projects.

460/67.

1852 Route 

Specific 

Comment

There is a trail (U140113) that leaves from the 

Piedmont Trailhead area that starts where 144.1 

starts to go up hill. It is in the southwest corner of 

section 9, T103N, R6E and goes into section 8 

Route U140113, CZ4907, CA1092 and CZ4857 are 

within an existing area closure due to fire. They were 

not considered in any Alternative and are therefore 

outside the scope of this document.

460/69.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

442

and finally intersects 144.2C. This should be 

included as it will allow trail vehicles to get off of 

road 144.1 as soon as possible and be safer for 

trail riders. Needed trails would include CZ4907, 

CZ1092 and CZ4857.

1853 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Trail CZ-1121 is an important trail to have. It 

follows an old railroad grade for much of its 

length. It is a good sightseeing trail with the way 

the railroad bed was cut into the side of the valley. 

The above two trails will also help in making a 

more complete “Trail” between Piedmont and 

Nemo where there is a lack of trail, and help keep 

ATVs and dirt bikes off of the roads and make a 

more enjoyable ride for off-roaders.

Route CZ1141 is within an existing area closure due to 

fire. They were not considered in any Alternative and 

are therefore outside the scope of this document.

460/70.

1854 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Trails CZ-4917 and CZ-4916 between CZ-1121 

and 546.1A should also be considered for 

inclusion in the system. This will make a complete 

loop from 546.1A instead of dead ending and is a 

scenic route.

Route CZ4917 and CZ4916 are within an existing area 

closure due to fire. They were not considered in any 

Alternative and are therefore outside the scope of this 

document.

460/71.

1855 Route 

Specific 

Comment

CZ-4837 and CZ-2659 in the Northern Hills 

District are very good trails that need to be 

included to help complete a motorcycle trail that 

matches CZ-4856 in the Mystic District.

Due to resource issues CZ 4837 and CZ 2659 were not 

included on any Alternative and are therefore outside 

the scope of this document. 

460/72.

1856 Route 

Specific 

Comment

There are many good trails that need to connect 

in the Southern Hills. Some examples are CZ2787, which leads to an awesome overlook, with 

picturesque views. Another overlook opportunity 

is at the end of 680.1A, and at North Pole Road 

in the vicinity of Dandy Park between CZ-2835 

and 287.1B. Yet another opportunity is a 

connection to Bear Mountain Lookout from 285. 

There are hundreds of trails that were not 

included in any Alternative in the Southern Hills, 

and we [Off-Road Riders Association need to 

know why. The district completely ignored our 

requests for trails, submitted during scoping and 

following the proposed action. We are asking for 

them once again, as part of this DEIS.

These routes were considered by the Hell Canyon 

District staff and specialists. However, at this time these 

routes were not considered because of resource 

concerns. Although these routes are not considered in 

any of the alternatives for this project, it is possible that 

in the foreseeable future they could be considered in a 

separate environmental analysis.

460/74.

1857 Route 

Specific 

There should be a trailhead at Comanche Park, 

south of Hwy 16 near 402. This area attracts a lot 

A trailhead was considered at Comanche Park, but was 

not analyzed as part of this project. It may be 

460/75.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

443

Comment of riders and is in a perfect location for parking 

and information. Another opportunity for a great 

trailhead is at the Red Bank campground near 

294.2A. Trailheads on this system are vitally 

important for its success, because we can no 

longer pull off the trail into a meadow and 

unload. The policy proposed allowing us only one 

vehicle length from a designated trail for parking 

is not enough, and could be a safety issue, 

depending on the traffic there. You need more 

room to maneuver. Trailheads are a much better 

solution, however in order to work they need to 

make sense and be plentiful enough so they aren‟t 

congested.

considered as part of a foreseeable future trailhead 

designation. This would have to be considered in a 

separate environmental analysis at some point in the 

future. 

1858 Route 

Specific 

Comment

In the area near CZ-0773, there is a very good 

trail that should be included, however, a bridge, 

culvert, or other type of stream crossing needs to 

be constructed before designating. We [Off-Road 

Riders Association] understand that many of 

these routes have risks or other reasons for not 

including in the alternatives. Specifically, what are 

they? If we knew, we could offer mitigation to 

alleviate the risk associated with that particular 

route. Please provide the data for each route so 

we can develop a plan.

This route lies just on the Mystic Ranger District and 

connects to both the Power line Trail and other trails in 

that area. It is already proposed in Alternatives B and C. 

CZ-0773 is a trail open to vehicles <50” in Alternatives 

B, C, and D.

460/76.

1859 Route 

Specific 

Comment

A good opportunity for a trail is at U220012, 

which is on private property. However, the 

landowner has authorized access in the past, and 

would consider granting an easement, I believe. 

These opportunities must be pursued. With so 

much private property and in holdings in the 

Black Hills, these areas need to be considered for 

access to the trail system where appropriate. Not 

everybody wants to keep OHV out of their 

property, and many landowners welcome the 

opportunity to be right on the trail system. Much 

like the snowmobile trail, this new system will 

bring many economic opportunities for 

entrepreneurs catering to OHV riders. In the 

south project area, 60 miles of roads were closed. 

This route lies just east of Moon and is almost entirely 

on private land. It does connect to Forest Service lands 

on the south end. Designation of this route as a trail 

was not considered because it does cross private land 

and we do not have the authority to designate trails on 

private land.

460/77.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

444

Why can‟t they be designated as “Trails Open to 

All”? Since they won‟t be available in the

inventory anyway, why not include them in the 

trail system for all users?

1860 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Near the Wyoming/SD border south of CZ0772 

there is a natural archway that should be on the 

trail system. These types of wonders are a great 

destination for riders and should not be excluded 

from their experience. Another destination is 

Stotts Canyon, just across the border into 

Wyoming to the West. Please keep these 

destinations open for me and my family to enjoy 

on our ATVs. See highlighted maps of the 

Southern Hills [not attached]-These all have very 

high recreational value and each one should be 

considered on its merits. Also see the dataset 

billdeem_addon.shp for an idea on the available 

trails in this area, an image of which is below [see 

ATT 28].

Route CZ0772 lies within Stots Canyon on the South 

Dakota side of the state line with Wyoming. This route 

was not considered because it is within a riparian 

drainage and any designated trail would need to be 

constructed outside of this drainage. ATV use across 

the state line into Wyoming would be under the 

jurisdiction of either BLM or the State of Wyoming.

460/78.

1861 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Should be a trail open to all vehicles; it is not 

challenging enough to designate as a specialty 

rock crawling trail, although it is definitely a high 

clearance vehicle trail on which 4WD would be 

required [see ATT 29, on trails CZ-4591 and 

U080109].

CZ4591 was analyzed in Alternatives B, C, and D as a 

special designation route. Your comment will be 

considered. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

460/80.

1862 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Trail referred to by the community as 3.9 is 

missing. This trail starts from an established 

trailhead and ends at a popular road open to all 

vehicles seasonally. It is easily accessed and does 

not encroach upon sensitive areas. Map below 

[see ATT 30].

Trail 3.9 is partially within an existing closure area due to 

a fire and was not analyzed in any Alternative and is 

therefore considered outside the scope of this 

document.

460/82.

1863 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Trail drawn in on attached map [ATT 31] is 

mission that was submitted during scoping is 

missing. This established trail [near Ricco Fire] is 

very popular with hard core rock crawlers. At one 

time it was a designated 4WD trail on earlier 

BHFS maps. It offers easy access and is also 

connected by an open to all vehicles FS road and 

an all vehicle trail. Inclusion of this trail will help 

enhance the multiuse opportunities in this area.

The route on your map is within an existing area 

closure due to fire. It was not considered in any 

Alternative and are therefore outside the scope of this 

document.

460/84.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

445

1864 Route 

Specific 

Comment

A 4WD trail exists in this area [of Northern Hills 

Ranger District, see ATT 32], and should be 

considered for designation as a special use permit 

only trail. This trail is a historic 4WD trail that 

offers a challenge in an easily accessible area. This 

trail was historically permitted for many of the 

4WD events that are held each year by the Black 

Hills 4 Wheelers, Dakota Territory Cruisers and 

the Black Hills Jeeps, It has been a destination 

that has been passed over several times due to the 

fickleness of the creek that runs over this hard 

rock bed, The water completely disappears for 

years on end, This trail has only been run during 

those dry spells, dictating when this very fun and 

unique trail can be run. A favorite of local and 

tourists alike.

Due to resource issues U08147 (Buzzworms) was not 

included on any Alternative and are therefore outside 

the scope of this document. 

460/86.

1865 Route 

Specific 

Comment

This trail [adjacent to U140063] is mislabeled on 

the map [see ATT 33], it is listed as open to 

vehicles 50" or less but this trail should be 

designated as open to all vehicles. Restricting this 

trail to 50" or less creates two dead ends. It would 

make for a better trail experience to keep the trail 

consistent in its designation for its full length. 

There is also a trail that runs adjacent to this that 

should be designated as open to vehicles 50" or 

less as well. 

U140063 was analyzed in Alternatives B. C as a trail less 

then 50 inches. It was removed from Alternatives D 

and E. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

460/88.

1866 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Rock crawling trail goes through a draw next to 

FS road 529 [see ATT 34]. The trail runs on the 

north side of the road. The road is marked as a 

trail yet the trail runs adjacent to the actual road. 

The road is needed for access to the trail.

According to our information, the requested route was 

not been previously submitted, therefore it is outside the 

scope and cannot be considered at this time.

460/90.

1867 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Two rock crawl trails in this area [of Mystic 

District, see ATT 30] (shown in green) are 

important [to add to the trail system], please 

consider for future development.

A portion of the rock crawl route requested is a singletrack route in Alternative C. According to our 

information, the remainder of the requested route was 

not previously submitted, therefore it is outside the 

scope and cannot be considered at this time.

460/92.

1868 Route 

Specific 

Comment

This trail [in the Mystic District adjacent to trail 

U200008 and 201.1F, see ATT 36] is designated 

as 50" or less but should be designated as open to 

all vehicles. This trail is the access road for part of 

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in 

the Record of Decision.

460/94.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

446

the rock crawl trail that is designated in this area. 

Full size vehicles need to be able to get to the 

beginning of the rock crawl trail in order to run it.

1869 Route 

Specific 

Comment

[A] rock crawl trail needs to go all the way 

through to road as it does now [See ATT 37, a 

map of unknown area of Black Hills]. Dead end 

trail makes the routes difficult for more than one 

vehicle. Turning around and going back against 

trail traffic is very difficult and creates large 

turnarounds, off trail excursions and widens the 

trail as vehicles try to pass alongside each other.

This proposed rock crawling area was analyzed in 

Alternative C. No routes were analyzed to continue all 

the way to another road so are outside the scope of this 

DEIS. Possible routes may be analyzed in future 

projects. Any decision to include this route will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

460/96.

1870 Route 

Specific 

Comment

[A] rock crawl trail exists in this area [of the 

Mystic District, adjacent to trail 201.2D and 

201.2E, see ATT 38] (shown in green). It was 

submitted during scoping but is not on the map.

FSR 201.2D is open to all vehicles in Alternative C. 

According to our records the remainder of the 

requested route was not previously submitted, and 

therefore is outside the scope and cannot be considered 

at this time.

460/98.

1871 Route 

Specific 

Comment

[This trail in Mystic District] [unknown trail] 

Should be designated as a trail open to all 

vehicles.

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in 

the Record of Decision.

460/100.

1872 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The road from Castle Peak campground over 

divide road should be a trail open to all vehicles 

similar to Alternative B, but with the added ATV 

trails from Alternative C (shown below in red [see 

ATT 34]).

At this time, there is not an easement for FSR 238 

across private property to connect Castle Peak 

Campground to the Divide Road. Nor is there an 

easement for FSR181 across private property. FSR 

238.1K and 1L are open to highway legal vehicles in 

Alternatives C, D, and E. The Mystic Road is not 

Forest Service jurisdiction. The remaining routes are 

open to highway legal vehicles only in Alternatives C, D, 

and E.

460/102.

1873 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Add loop and connection [to trail in Northern 

Hills adjacent to 209.3B, see ATT 41] as Trail 

Open to Vehicles 50" or Less in Width.

This route was analyzed in Alternative B and not in 

Alternatives C, D, and E. Any decision about selected 

routes will be documented in the Record of Decision.

460/104.

1874 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Road 264.1A has been a historical 4WD trail on 

many maps printed by the BHNF. This road 

should be included in the trails map as it was one 

of the only trails marked on previously published 

maps of the BHNF as a 4WD trail in the Black 

Hills. It currently is a border road to a sensitive 

study area but does not ever encroach on the 

study area. This trail should be designated as a 

trail open to all vehicles. It creates a very 

Forest Road 264.1A is located in an area that is 

designated as a wildlife protection area, and is closed to 

motorized use.

460/108.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

447

enjoyable experience climbing up the spine of a 

wild west type hill. It ends at Summit peak and 

the return ride back down road 264 Boles Canyon 

makes for an enjoyable off road experience. Map 

below [See ATT 43].

1875 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Gillette Canyon is one of the only 4WD trails 

marked on previously published maps by the 

BHNF. Currently the trail is impassable due to 

leftover Jasper fire debris. We [Off-Road Riders 

Association] would like it put into inventory as a 

possible Rock crawl trail in the future. The local 

4WD clubs would be happy to volunteer in a 

cleanup effort to see this as a 4WD trail in the 

future. Map below [See ATT 44].

We appreciate your willingness to assist the Forest with 

needed improvements and seek opportunities to 

develop partnerships and volunteer agreements to 

accomplish a variety of tasks.

460/110.

1876 Route 

Specific 

Comment

On map # 18 [see ATT 45] there is a small draw 

that the only thing it would need to be a premier 

rock crawling experience is the permission to 

drive up the draw (shown in green below). There 

are no trees and only the fast growing after fire 

vegetation in the way. It begins at the bottom on 

road 281 and climbs up the draw to road 281.1W 

and both of these roads are currently roads open 

to all vehicles.

This route was not considered as a designated trail 

because it does follow a riparian area that could be easily 

damaged when wet. This area could be considered in 

the future, however the route would need to be relocated out of the drainage.

460/112.

1877 Route 

Specific 

Comment

There are several popular rock crawling trails 

(shown in green) in this area [near Craven 

Canyon, See ATT 46]. The local 4WD enthusiasts 

have been in contact with the new ranger of the 

Hell Canyon district and they have gone out and 

toured these trails with FS personnel when they 

were discovered to have been left off any of the 

proposed alternatives. The new Ranger expressed 

no concerns at that time to designating these as 

4WD trails. The state of South Dakota has 

deemed this area as unremarkable in its attributes. 

We believe that the past Ranger for this district 

did not want any trails in his area and therefore 

just left them off the map.

Thank you for your comments and concern regarding 

the Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

and the Hell Canyon Ranger District. Under 

Alternatives B and C in the Draft EIS, there are trails 

designated for ATV motorized use. Although the 

number of miles designated are less than in other areas 

of the Forest, it is possible that additional trail 

designation could be considered in the future. Thank 

you for your comments regarding the Southern Black 

Hills and specifically the Elbow Canyon Trail. On April 

18, 2009 both the Hell Canyon District Ranger, Lynn 

Kolund and the District Archeologist, Anthony King 

hiked this trail to become familiar with the interest and 

concerns with this trail. This trail was requested as a 

rock crawling trail route. The Decision Maker will 

consider this request. If this trail is not designated 

during this planning process it is possible that in the 

460/114.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

448

future additional trails could be designated in the 

Southern Hills. However, this would need to be 

considered in detail in a separate environmental analysis.

1878 Route 

Specific 

Comment

There is a rock quarry at the end of 135.2m that is 

a perfect place for the multi- use OHV area [See 

ATT 47]. This area is accessible and a completely 

existing man made area.

This rock quarry is currently actively being used and 

would not be a safe location for an OHV area. It was 

not analyzed in any Alternative and is there fore outside 

the scope of this document.

460/116.

1879 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Road number 186.2 at Maurice needs to be added 

as a trail open to all vehicles [See ATT 42].

FSR 186.2 was not analyzed since there is no ROW 

through the private property. It therefore outside the 

scope of this project.

460/118.

1880 Route 

Specific 

Comment

In Table 9 [ATT 1] is a list of areas that are 

impacted by wildlife issues and for which we are 

asking that trails to be removed (see Appendix B 

[ATT 9] for more information).

Many of the routes in the areas listed in Table 9 were 

removed from Alternatives D and E, or are open to 

highway legal vehicles only.

462/13.

1881 Route 

Specific 

Comment

For all alternatives, the areas in Table [10] [ATT 

2] should have trails removed to conserve and 

protect USFS sensitive species and Black Hills NF 

plant species of local concern. See Appendix B 

[ATT 9] for more information.

Buskala Creek FSR 259.2A was analyzed in alt B and E 

as highway open for highway legal vehicles, in alt C as a 

road open to all and in alt D it was removed. FSR 259 

was analyzed in Alternatives B, D and E as open to 

highway legal vehicles and in alt C as a road open to all. 

Vanocker Canyon is an existing paved Highway and not 

Forest Service jurisdiction and therefore is outside the 

scope of this document. The Camp 5 area--FSR 306 was 

analyzed in Alternatives B and C and removed from 

Alternatives D and E. FSR 172.1A was analyzed in 

Alternatives B, C, and D as trail open to all and in Alt. E 

as road open to highway legal vehicles. FSR 172.1A was 

analyzed as seasonal road open to highway legal vehicles 

in alt B and E, and seasonal road open to all in 

Alternatives C and D. FSR 172.1C was analyzed in alt B, 

C, D as trail open to all and in Alt E as open to highway 

legal vehicles. FSR 172.1H was analyzed in all 

alternatives as a seasonal road open to all. U030046 was

analyzed in Alternatives B and C as a road open to all 

and removed in alt D. It was analyzed as road open to 

highway legal in alt E. FSR 170.5I and 170.4D were 

analyzed in Alternatives B, C and D as a trail open to all 

and in Alt E as road open to highway legal. CZ0216 was 

analyzed in alt B and C as a special designation trail and 

removed in alt D and E. U080045 was analyzed as a trail 

less then 50 inches in alt B, C and D and removed from 

462/18.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

449

alt E. FSR 567.1F was analyzed in Alternatives B, C 

and D as a seasonal trail less the 50 inches and in alt E 

as a road open to highway legal. In the Big Hill area 

U010071, U0010072, FSR134.2L and CZ 0148 were 

analyzed in Alternatives B and C as trails open to 

vehicles less then 50 inches and removed in Alternatives 

D and E. Ft. Meade Watershed area--U040034 was 

analyzed in Alternatives B and C as a road open to all 

and in alt D as a road open to highway legal vehicles and 

removed in alt E. U008156 was analyzed as a special 

designation trail in Alternatives B and C and removed 

from Alternatives D and E. FSRs 139.1 and 139.1A 

were analyzed as seasonal roads open to all in 

Alternatives B and C and removed from alt D. In 

Alternatives E they were analyzed as road open to 

highway legal vehicles. FSR139.1C was analyzed in alt B 

and E as a road open to highway legal vehicles and in alt 

C as a road open to all. It was removed in alt D. FSR 

168.1A was analyzed in alt B and E as seasonal road 

open to highway legal vehicles, in alt D it was removed 

an in alt C as a seasonal road open to all. FSR168.1B 

was analyzed in Alternatives B, D and E as open to 

highway legal vehicles and in alt C as a road open to all. 

FSR 168.2A and 168.2B, 168.2C, were analyzed as a 

seasonal road open to all and was removed in alt. D. 

FSR 168.3A and 168.3B, 169.1 were analyzed in 

Alternatives B, D and E as open to highway legal 

vehicles and in alt C as a road open to all. FSR 168.1 . 

FSR 169.1B was analyzed in alt B and C as a seasonal 

road open to all and in alternatives. D and E as seasonal 

road open to highway legal vehicles. FSR169.1A was 

analyzed as a seasonal road open to all in alt B and C, 

removed from alt D and road open to highway legal 

vehicles in alt E. FSR 169.1C was analyzed as a seasonal 

road open to all and removed in alt. D and analyzed as a 

seasonal road open to highway legal in Alt. E. 

FSR169.1D was analyzed in alt B and C as a seasonal 

road open to all and in Alternatives D and E as seasonal 

road open to highway legal vehicles. R 169.1G was 

analyzed in alt B and C as a seasonal road open to all, in 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

450

alt D it was removed and in alt E as a road open to 

highway legal vehicles. FSR 169.1F was analyzed in alt 

B and C as seasonal road open to all and removed from 

alt D. In alt E it was analyzed as seasonal open to 

highway legal vehicles. FSR 169.1H was analyzed in alt 

B and E as seasonal road open to highway legal, in alt C 

as seasonal road open to all and removed from Alt D. 

FSR 169.1L was analyzed in alt B and C as seasonal road 

open to all removed in alt D and highway legal in alt E. 

FSR 169.2A and 169.2B, 169.2C were analyzed in alt B 

and E as a seasonal road open to highway legal, in alt C 

as seasonal road open to all and it was removed from alt 

D. Any decision about routes selected will be 

documented in the ROD.

1882 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The Pilot Knob - Nemo section of the Centennial 

Trail and the area around Dalton Lake have been 

significantly degraded by OHV incursions that 

have resulted in a significant amount of resource 

damage. These areas were historically designated 

as being areas of non-motorized recreation. 

However, in the DEIS, these areas, and the 

Centennial Trail from Pilot Knob to Pactola, have 

been re-designated as motorized recreation areas. 

BCA [Biodiversity Conservation Alliance] views 

this re-designation of traditionally non-motorized 

trails as dominating multiple uses of the forest. 

The following two photos [ATT 4 and 5] are 

examples of the currently designated motorized 

trails on the Pilot Knob - Nemo section of the 

Centennial Trail. [These photos] [ATT 4 and 5] 

reflect the heavy damage that has been caused in 

the past and still exists today. In order to redress 

the domination of multiple uses of the forest by 

the OHV community, the Norbeck Society 

requests that the USFS re-designate all sections 

and trailheads of the Centennial Trail as nonmotorized, place priority on rehabilitation of 

“user-created” trails within a 1-mile buffer of 

Dalton Lake.

The Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob is 

currently open to motorized traffic. It was analyzed to 

be open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed from 

Alternative D. Any decision about selected routes will 

be documented in the Record of Decision.

462/45.

1883 Route Many of the routes suggested for the various Many of the routes in the areas listed in Table 8 were 462/55.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

451

Specific 

Comment

alternatives appear to conflict with Forest Plan 

Direction, especially with regard to Standards 

1203, 1212, 1301, 1302 and 1304. In Table 8 

[ATT 6] is a list of areas that are impacted by 

hydrology issues and for which we [Biodiversity 

Conservation Alliance] are asking that trails be 

removed (see Appendix B [ATT 9] for more 

information).

removed from Alternatives D and E, or are open to 

highway legal vehicles only. In the Cement Ridge area, 

recommendations for removal of routes were 

considered under Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS 

with the exception of FS 802.2A which accesses private 

property. 

1884 Route 

Specific 

Comment

It is requested that the Forest Service withdraw 

any motorized routes in these areas [from 

Alternative D] to protect sensitive natural 

resources. Areas with high riparian risk: - Big Hill 

- Road 626. - Spearfish Canyon - location 5N 2E.

The proposed routes in the Big Hill and FSR 626 areas 

were analyzed in Alternatives B and C. Other then open 

existing system roads they were removed from 

Alternatives D and E. The only route proposed in T5N 

R2E Spearfish Canyon is the paved highway that is 

currently there and under other jurisdiction. Any 

decision about selected routes will be documented in 

the Record of Decision.

462/75.

1885 Route 

Specific 

Comment

It is requested that the Forest Service withdraw 

any motorized routes in these areas [from 

Alternative D] to protect sensitive natural 

resources. Roads in conflict with Botanical 

Management Areas: - Higgins Gulch - location 

6N 1E. - Upper Sand Creek - 51N 60W. -

Northwest of Custer Peak - Roads 228 and 205.

Upper Sand Creek was not proposed for any motorized 

opportunities under any Alternative in the DEIS and 

FEIS.

462/76.

1886 Route 

Specific 

Comment

It is requested that the Forest Service withdraw 

any motorized routes in these areas [from 

Alternative D] to protect sensitive natural 

resources. Roads in conflict with Montane 

Grassland:- Cement Ridge - 50N 60W.- West of 

Black Buttes - Roads 878, 872, and 1A.- Hardy -

Roads 107, 108, 183.- Ditch Creek - location 1S 

2E.

Motorized routes in montane grassland in the Ditch 

Creek area and FSR 107 and 180 are existing system 

roads in Alternatives D and E. Alternative D of the 

DEIS and FEIS proposed motorized routes on FS 805.1 

because it is a historical access route to the Cement 

Ridge fire tower. FS 878, 872, and 872.1A are not 

associated with known montane grasslands.

462/77.

1887 Route 

Specific 

Comment

It is requested that the Forest Service withdraw 

any motorized routes in these areas [from 

Alternative D] to protect sensitive natural 

resources. Roads in conflict with Weed Infested 

Areas:- West of Hardy - Roads 107, 108.- South 

West Jewel Cave - Roads 1A, 1B.- North of 

Clayton Quarry - Roads 209, 210, and 232.

Motorized routes in the FSR 107 , 108 209, 210 and 232 

are existing system roads, with no changes proposed, in 

all alternatives. They were analyzed in Alt B, D and E as 

hwy legal roads and in Alt C as roads open to all. Any 

decision about routes selected will be documented in the 

Record of Decision. Management of weed infestations 

will not change under any of the alternatives.

462/78.

1888 Route 

Specific 

It is requested that the Forest Service withdraw 

any motorized routes in these areas [from 

For Dugout Gulch - the DEIS and FEIS under 

Alternative D eliminated all opportunities for motorized 

462/79.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

452

Comment Alternative D] to protect sensitive natural 

resources. Roads prohibited within Management 

Areas: - Between Dugout Gulch and Crow Peak -

6N 1E. - South of Crook Mountain - Roads 1D, 

542.

access, except for administrative purposes.

1889 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Red Lake Area - This area is in the Northern Hills 

approximately 10 miles south of Spearfish 

adjacent to FSR 134. The following roads are 

included in this area: 225.1, 225.1A, 225.1D, 

225.1E, 134.2S, U050002, U050006, CZ 1403, 

U060015. These roads are currently closed and 

provide an excellent quiet area for the nonmotorized enthusiast. With Alternatives A, B, and 

C these roads will be opened. How does opening 

these roads affect wildlife? Was this analyzed in 

the EIS? How does opening the roads affect the 

non-motorized community? Was that analyzed [in 

the] EIS? Why is no consideration given to 

existing non-motorized areas? These areas and 

roads were closed for a reason. Why were they 

closed in the first place? The EIS should give a 

reason and show effects of opening these roads 

and areas. The EIS should list every road that is 

currently closed that will be opened so that the 

public knows what is going on and what affect 

this has on all resources.

These closed system routes were analyzed to be opened 

in Alternatives B and C. And, they were analyzed to be 

left closed in Alternatives D and E. Effects to wildlife 

were analyzed in pages 143-229 in the draft EIS. 

Recreation was analyzed in pages 46-61 of the DEIS. 

Any decision on routes selected will be documented in 

the Record of Decision.

462/80.

1890 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Limestone Plateau - This area is in the Northern 

Hills approximately 20 miles south of Spearfish 

adjacent to FSR 134. The following roads are 

included in this area: 733.2B, 733.2C, 733.3A, 

733.3B, 733.3C, 733.3D, U050089. This currently 

closed area will be opened with Alternatives A, B, 

and C. How does opening these roads affect 

wildlife? Was this analyzed in the EIS? How does 

opening the roads affect the non-motorized 

community? Was that analyzed [in the] EIS? Why 

is no consideration given to existing nonmotorized areas? These areas and roads were 

closed for a reason. Why were they closed in the 

first place? The EIS should give a reason and 

These closed system routes were analyzed to be opened 

in Alternatives B and C. And, they were analyzed to be 

left closed in Alternatives D and E. Effects to wildlife 

were analyzed in pages 143-229 in the draft EIS. 

Recreation was analyzed in pages 46-61 of the DEIS. 

Any decision on routes selected will be documented in 

the Record of Decision.

462/81.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

453

show effects of opening these roads and areas. 

The EIS should list every road that is currently 

closed that will be opened so that the public 

knows what is going on and what affect this has 

on all resources.

1891 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Roads off FSR 134 - 134.2B, 134.2L, 214.1D, 

U010071, 134.3A, U010072, U010060, 134.2U, 

U710095. These roads were closed by a previous 

ranger and now they will be opened [under 

Alternatives A, B, and C]. How does opening 

these roads affect wildlife? Was this analyzed in 

the EIS? How does opening the roads affect the 

non-motorized community? Was that analyzed [in 

the] EIS? Why is no consideration given to 

existing non-motorized areas? These areas and 

roads were closed for a reason. Why were they 

closed in the first place? The EIS should give a 

reason and show effects of opening these roads 

and areas. The EIS should list every road that is 

currently closed that will be opened so that the 

public knows what is going on and what affect 

this has on all resources.

These closed system routes were analyzed to be opened 

in Alternatives B and C. And, they were analyzed to be 

left closed in Alternatives D and E. Effects to wildlife 

were analyzed in pages 143-229 in the draft EIS. 

Recreation was analyzed in pages 46-61 of the DEIS. 

Any decision on routes selected will be documented in 

the Record of Decision.

462/82.

1892 Route 

Specific 

Comment

639.1 - In the Northern Hills, this road connects 

Higgins Gulch to Beaver Ridge. Currently closed 

to motorized use and provides a good purpose 

being close. This road will be opened [under 

Alternatives A, B, and C] and provide access to 

the area behind Crow Peak. The roads go directly 

through a quiet area and more than likely the 

ATV will venture off the road and the whole 

Crow Peak area will be compromised. Was there 

any consideration given to not allowing ATV 

access to the non-motorized areas? Also this is a 

known elk calving area. Was any consideration 

given to wildlife in the EIS for this planned to be 

opened area? Why is no consideration given to 

existing non-motorized areas? These areas and 

roads were closed for a reason. Why were they 

closed in the first place? The EIS should give a 

reason and show effects of opening these roads 

Concerns for effects of the alternatives on wildlife 

habitat are reflected in Issue 1, and concerns for 

conflicts with non-motorized recreation opportunities 

are reflected in Issue 2. The alternatives vary as to how 

they address each of these issues. FSR 639.1 was 

analyzed to stay closed in Alternatives D and E. Any 

decision on routes selected will be documented in the 

Record of Decision. Once a decision is made individual 

users will be expected to stay on the designated route. 

ATV trails were not proposed in non-motorized areas. 

Wildlife was analyzed in pages 143-229 of the DEIS.

462/83.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

454

and areas. The EIS should list every road that is 

currently closed that will be opened so that the 

public knows what is going on and what affect

this has on all resources.

1893 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Area south of Hanna Campground: Roads 211.1I, 

211.1H, 211.1J, 211.1G, 209.2B all closed roads 

will be opened [under Alternatives A and B]. Was 

any consideration given for a non-motorized 

buffer around our [the forest‟s] existing nonmotorized trail system? In many cases the 

motorized trail either parallels, dead ends, or is on 

an existing hiking trail. This pretty much ruins the 

non-motorized users‟ experience.

The closed routes south of Hanna Campground were 

analyzed to be opened in Alternative B and removed 

from Alternatives C, D and E. There are no system 

hiking trails near any of the routes mentioned.

462/84.

1894 Route 

Specific 

Comment

CZ1403 - This trail ends at the border of the 

Spearfish Canyon Roadless area. It makes no 

sense to expect ATV users to turn around. How 

will you close the end of this road? Was any 

consideration given for a non-motorized buffer

around our [the forest‟s] existing non-motorized 

trail system? In many cases the motorized trail 

either parallels, dead ends, or is on an existing 

hiking trail. This pretty much ruins the nonmotorized users‟ experience.

You are correct in Alternative B, CZ 1403 travels 

through the Spearfish Canyon management area where 

no off road traffic is allowed. This was an error and it 

was removed from Alternatives C, D and E. 

462/85.

1895 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Will the ATV and motorcycle trails be designed to 

a Forest Service Standard? Will the current trail 

locations be reviewed by an Engineer and 

Hydrologist before they are opened? For example 

road 134.2B has a 35% grade for 300‟, road 

U010077 goes through a spring and has 3‟ deep 

ruts, and road 134.3D crosses live water of the 

headwaters of Little Spearfish Creek. These have 

been listed as examples of many more problem 

areas. Was any consideration given for a nonmotorized buffer around our [the forest‟s] 

existing non-motorized trail system? In many 

cases the motorized trail either parallels, dead 

ends, or is on an existing hiking trail. This pretty 

much ruins the non-motorized users‟ experience.

OHV routes will meet FS standards for trails. Some 

routes may be easy and some very difficult. Routes that 

traverse a steep slope will be engineered with climbing 

turns and appropriate water crossings will be built where 

necessary. Not all routes will be available to use the first 

year after the decision is made and will be opened up 

after mitigations are done.

462/86.

1896 Route 

Specific 

Dugout Gulch Botanical Trail - Located on the 

Bearlodge District in the area of Sand Creek. A 

Alternative A represents the existing condition for 

motorized opportunities on the Black Hills NF which 

462/87.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

455

Comment portion of this trail - miles of the total trail length 

of - miles [distances not provided] will be 

converted into an ATV trail [under Alternatives 

A, B, and C]. This trail is in a semi-primitive non-

motorized management area, within a botanical 

area and eight years ago the Forest Service spent 

$112,000 on developing this trail for non-

motorized users. The entire trail will be affected 

because the noise of ATVs on the upper loop will 

ruin the quiet area on the lower section. Was any 

consideration given for a non-motorized buffer 

around our [the forest‟s] existing non-motorized 

trail system? In many cases the motorized trail 

either parallels, dead ends, or is on an existing 

hiking trail. This pretty much ruins the non-

motorized users‟ experience.

does not include motorized opportunities on the 

Dugout Trail. The portion of Dugout trail considered 

under Alternatives B and C for motorized opportunities 

is an existing road that doubles as a trail for non-

motorized activities and motorized administrative 

activities. No funding was spent on this road for 

development of the trail. For trails that are not defined 

roads, motorized opportunities were restricted.

1897 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Eagle Cliff Hiking Trails - ATV trails (733.1A, 

733.1K) will go right into the middle of the Eagle

Cliff Trail System [under Alternatives A, B, and 

C]. Noise is an issue. Some ATV users will get 

lost and start following the hiking trails. Was any 

consideration given for a non-motorized buffer 

around our [the forest‟s] existing non-motorized 

trail system? In many cases the motorized trail 

either parallels, dead ends, or is on an existing 

hiking trail. This pretty much ruins the non-

motorized users‟ experience.

FSR 733.1A and & 733.1K are currently open system 

roads. They were analyzed to be left open in 

Alternatives B, C and E, and analyzed to be closed in 

Alternative D. Any decision about selected routes will 

be documented in the Record of Decision. Motorized 

traffic will be expected to stay on the open motorized 

routes. Common to all alternatives noise level will be 

will be set at 96 decibels for OHV's. 

462/88.

1898 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Little Spearfish Trail - All alternatives have a road 

734.1 which dead ends at the trail. This will 

encourage ATVs to follow the Little Spearfish 

Trail. Was any consideration given for a non-

motorized buffer around our [the forest‟s] 

existing non-motorized trail system? In many 

cases the motorized trail either parallels, dead 

ends, or is on an existing hiking trail. This pretty 

much ruins the non-motorized users‟ experience.

FSR 734.1 is a currently open system. It was analyzed to 

be left open in all alternatives. Motorized traffic will be 

expected to stay on the open motorized routes. 

462/89.

1899 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Rimrock Trail - ATV trail U050002 goes right up 

against the Rimrock Trail. Just when you think 

you get away an ATV comes past you. 

Encourages ATV use of Rimrock Trail. Was any 

U050002 was analyzed to be opened in Alternatives B 

and C and was removed from Alternatives D and E. 

Any decision about selected routes will be documented 

in the Record of Decision. Motorized traffic will be 

462/90.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

456

consideration given for a non-motorized buffer 

around our [the forest‟s] existing non-motorized 

trail system? In many cases the motorized trail 

either parallels, dead ends, or is on an existing 

hiking trail. This pretty much ruins the nonmotorized users‟ experience.

expected to stay on the open motorized routes. 

1900 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Centennial Trail - Remove the motorized section 

of Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot 

Knob. This trail section is in horrible condition 

due to overuse. Most non-motorized users know 

to never go on this section of trail due to the 

heavy ATV use. Roads 137.1B, 137.1C, 137.D 

and 137.1E [are] currently closed roads. By 

opening them [under Alternatives A, B, and C] 

access is provided to a secluded part of 

Centennial Trail. Roads 703.1C and 703.1D are 

planned to be opened and are within mere feet of 

Centennial Trail. Roads 224.1D and 224.1E dead 

end at Centennial Trail. By opening these roads it 

will be near impossible to keep ATVs of 

Centennial Trail. Was any consideration given for 

a non-motorized buffer around our [the forest‟s] 

existing non-motorized trail system? In many 

cases the motorized trail either parallels, dead 

ends, or is on an existing hiking trail. This pretty 

much ruins the non-motorized users‟ experience.

The Centennial Trail from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob is 

currently open to motorized traffic. It was analyzed to 

be open in Alternatives B, C and E and removed from 

Alternative D. Any decision about selected routes will 

be documented in the Record of Decision. Roads 

137.1B, 137.1C and 137.1E were analyzed to be open in 

Alternatives B and C and removed from Alternatives D 

and E. 703.1C and 703.1D are currently seasonally 

opened roads. They were analyzed to be left open in all 

Alternatives. FSR 224.1D and 224.1E are currently 

seasonally opened system roads. They were analyzed to 

be open in Alternatives B, C and E and closed in 

Alternative D. Any decision about selected routes will 

be documented in the Record of Decision. Motorized 

traffic will be expected to stay on the open motorized 

routes. 

462/91.

1901 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Deerfield Trail and Beaver Creek Trails - Many 

sections are motorized. Was any consideration 

given for a non-motorized buffer around our [the 

forest‟s] existing non-motorized trail system? Was 

any consideration given for a non-motorized 

buffer around our [the forest‟s] existing nonmotorized trail system? In many cases the 

motorized trail either parallels, dead ends, or is on 

an existing hiking trail. This pretty much ruins the 

non-motorized users‟ experience.

Portions of the Deerfield Trail are co-located on existing 

Forest System Roads. Non-motorized trails are outside 

the scope of the DEIS analysis.

462/92.

1902 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Tinton Trail - Although the Tinton Trail is not a 

system trail it is probably the most popular 

mountain bike trail in the Northern Hills. In fact, 

Mountain Bike Magazine picked the Tinton Trail 

In Alternative D and E many motorized routes that 

cross this non system trail were removed. This EIS deals 

with motorized travel only and therefore the request for 

designating this trail as part of the non-motorized 

462/93.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

457

as the best trail in South Dakota. No 

consideration for this trail was given whatsoever. 

ATV trails cross it and follow it in many 

locations. Was any consideration given for a nonmotorized buffer around our [the forest‟s] 

existing non-motorized trail system? In many 

cases the motorized trail either parallels, dead 

ends, or is on an existing hiking trail. This pretty 

much ruins the non-motorized users‟ experience.

system is beyond the scope of this project.

1903 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Of the DEIS options, [Alternatives] A, C, and E 

are the ones that would allow continued access to 

forest trails from Palmer Gulch. Without trail 

access from an out-of-state visitor 

accommodation, such as Palmer Gulch, many 

enthusiasts would have to trailer their ATVs 

behind their RVs and find a place to park and 

unload them at a trailhead. Not only would that 

be a burden at the trailheads, many visitors would 

find that too burdensome and go to other 

destination areas rather than the Black Hills. This 

could seriously impair our [Recreation Adventure 

Co.] current and future economic opportunities 

and impact the other visitor service businesses in 

the Black Hills as well.

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in 

the Record of Decision.

463/2.

1904 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I find that Option [Alternative] C strikes a good 

balance between resource protection and 

recreation opportunity. It has a road/trail that 

would allow motorized recreation enthusiasts the 

ability to leave their campsite at Palmer Gulch 

and access trails between us and Hill City and to 

make connection to the larger Black Hills trail 

system, as proposed. This vital connection 

enables us to maintain our current guests and to 

meet the demand for forest recreation as 

motorized recreation continues to develop. It also 

provides economic opportunity in the area, 

particularly in Hill City which would gain a 

connection to all of the Palmer Gulch guests.

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in 

the Record of Decision.

463/3.

1905 Route 

Specific 

For Option [Alternative] C, I have a couple of 

suggestions to improve the proposal. The first 

The route going north out of the KOA is not Forest 

Service jurisdiction.

463/5.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

458

Comment one is that Road 357 serving as the trail connector 

just north of our location, be designated a Trail 

For All Vehicles rather than a Road. Because we 

[Recreation Adventure Co.] deal mainly with outof-state guests, many of whom come from states 

without a licensing option for ATVs, our guests 

would not have licensed ATVs to travel on the 

portion designated “Road”, whereas they could 

legally traverse a “Trail”. The classification 

correction would only involve about a half a mile 

of “Road” in order to provide access to miles of 

trails otherwise unreachable by unlicensed 

vehicles from Palmer Gulch.

1906 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The trail [FS Road 357] we [Recreation Adventure 

Co.] are discussing passes adjacent to my house. I 

would respectfully request consideration of “No 

Dust Zone” signage on the trail that would alert 

users to slow down past any residences on any 

part of the motorized recreation system at the 

request of the residence owner.

The route going north out of the KOA is not Forest 

Service jurisdiction.

463/6.

1907 Route 

Specific 

Comment

It is disturbing to us [Spearfish Creek Owners 

Association] to see on the proposed maps for 

Alternatives B (preferred option of USFS) and C, 

areas designated for “ Dispersed Camping (100 

feet) and Game Retrieval (300 feet)” on either 

side of Forest Road 196 from just south of USFS 

Hanna Campground all the way to and through 

Hanna to the south. We do not believe that 

OHVs should be allowed to depart the roadway 

anyplace between Cheyenne Crossing and Forest 

Road 209 south of Hanna at minimum, and 

better, further south ~0.8 miles to the bottom of 

“Cyclone Hill”. They can use Hanna Campground 

and the one USFS- designated picnic area just 

south (~0.4 miles) of the Hanna campground. 

USFS directive and guidelines (see Attachment 2) 

[ATT 2] recommend against disturbing perennial 

streams and riparian areas. There should not be 

any access endangering the riparian areas 

bordering Spearfish Creek or any of its tributaries, 

Dispersed camping and game retrieval were analyzed 

along FSR 196 in Alternatives B and C and removed in 

Alternatives D and E. Any decision on routes selected 

will be documented in the Record of Decision.

464/2.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

459

including Hanna Creek in this. Hanna Creek, for a 

large part of the distance from the USFS 

Campground to Hanna and south to it, and its 

riparian areas should not be subject to any wheeled motorized travel (snowmobile trails only 

begin at Road 209 and are to present in the 

Canyon bottom north of 209). A USFS 

designated picnic area has existed (0.4 miles south 

of the Campground) between the Campground 

and Hanna for some years and we would suggest 

there not be increased travel into this area.

1908 Route 

Specific 

Comment

It is disturbing to us [Spearfish Creek Owners 

Association] to see on the proposed maps for 

Alternatives B (preferred option of USFS) and C, 

areas designated for “ Dispersed Camping (100 

feet) and Game Retrieval (300 feet)” on either 

side of Forest Road 196 from just south of USFS 

Hanna Campground all the way to and through 

Hanna to the south. We do not believe that 

OHVs should be allowed to depart the roadway 

anyplace between Cheyenne Crossing and Forest 

Road 209 south of Hanna at minimum, and 

better, further south 0.8 miles to the bottom of 

“Cyclone Hill”. They can use Hanna Campground 

and the one USFS- designated picnic area just 

south (0.4 miles) of the Hanna campground. The 

Hanna Creek headwaters in this area, specifically 

at Hanna and just to the south of Hanna include 

parts of the Lead-Deadwood water system with 

DENR [Department of Environment and 

Natural Resources] designated water rights (Peake 

Ditch, Spearfish Ditch, Ward Draw, etc.

Dispersed camping and game retrieval were analyzed 

along FSR 196 in Alternatives B and C and removed in 

Alternatives D and E. Any decision on routes selected 

will be documented in the Record of Decision.

464/3.

1909 Route 

Specific 

Comment

It is disturbing to us [Spearfish Creek Owners 

Association] to see on the proposed maps for 

Alternatives B (preferred option of USFS) and C, 

areas designated for “ Dispersed Camping (100 

feet) and Game Retrieval (300 feet)” on either 

side of Forest Road 196 from just south of USFS 

Hanna Campground all the way to and through 

Hanna to the south. We do not believe that 

Dispersed camping and game retrieval were analyzed 

along FSR 196 in Alternatives B and C and removed in 

Alternatives D and E. Common to all alternatives the 

sound levels for OHV traffic will be set at 96 decibels/

464/4.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

460

OHVs should be allowed to depart the roadway 

anyplace between Cheyenne Crossing and Forest 

Road 209 south of Hanna at minimum, and 

better, further south 0.8 miles to the bottom of “Cyclone Hill”. They can use Hanna Campground 

and the one USFS- designated picnic area just 

south (0.4 miles) of the Hanna campground. The 

private properties in the Hanna area and Hanna 

itself could be subjected to increased traffic and 

increased noise, dust, etc., by the encouragement 

of off-road activities to the north and south of 

Hanna. Attachment 3 [ATT 3] provides some 

comments as to the feasibility of enforcing a 

96dB(A) noise level for OHVs.

1910 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The Annie Creek Road, which is open to OHVs 

has been used for OHV travel up that road, but 

repeatedly over the past few years, some 

operators have illegally departed that road and 

traveled off-road through the forest down the 

north side of Annie Creek Canyon to Hwy 14A 

north of the Annie Creek (One can see the 

resultant tire trails departing Hwy 14A north of 

the Annie Creek passage under the highway, just 

north of Woodchuck Lane). These illegal 

operations have been a continuing problem for 

USFS and SCOA [Spearfish Creek Owners 

Association] in trying to curtail them, since they 

are illegal and have done damage to the forest on 

that north side of Annie Creek Canyon. It is 

noted that there exist USFS Campgrounds along 

Little Spearfish Creek (2 on Route 222), plus a 

picnic area at Roughlock Falls, a USFS 

Campground along Forest Road 196 to Hanna 

plus one USFS picnic area there, and picnic 

grounds along Hwy 85 to the west of Cheyenne 

Crossing. These campgrounds and picnic areas 

provide ample opportunity for all vehicles, 

including OHVs, to enjoy the environment of 

Little Spearfish and Hanna Canyons, as well as 

that of Spearfish Creek on Hwy 85, without 

Thank you for you comment. Once the motor vehicle 

use map is published all motorized traffic will be 

expected to abide by the rule.

464/7.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

461

further exposure of these Creeks and riparian 

areas to wheeled motorized traffic. Illegal 

operations such as the Annie Creek area 

violations will be difficult to stop, given that there 

probably will be some few violators of the OHVplanned roads/trails/access. In the past, there 

have not been significant or repeated off-roading 

violations to my knowledge in the Hannah Creek, 

Spearfish Creek and Little Spearfish Creek 

reaches and adjacent riparian areas noted. SCOA 

believes the only way to continue to protect these 

areas is to deny any OHV operations including 

dispersed Camping and Game Retrieval in them.

1911 Route 

Specific 

Comment

There is one area depicted on the Alternative B 

and C maps, which show the short, approximate

(one quarter) mile road branching off Hwy 14A 

into Raspberry Gulch, designated as “Roads open 

to Highway Legal”. Since this road extends only 

for the quarter-mile, and serves only four private 

lots as an access road, it is recommended that the 

road should not be open to general public OHV 

travel.

FSR 584.1 was analyzed as a road open to all in Alt C 

and as road open to highway legal in Alternatives B, D 

and E. If the road is open to highway legal vehicles for 

the residences then it must be open to all vehicle traffic 

that is highway legal. Any decision on routes selected 

will be documented in the Record of Decision.

464/8.

1912 Route 

Specific 

Comment

SCOA [Spearfish Canyon Owners Association] 

can support Alternative B if the OHV dispersed 

camping and game retrieval activities are restricted 

in: (1) Spearfish Canyon Scenic Byway; (2) Hanna 

Canyon from Cheyenne Crossing south past Road 

207 to Cyclone Hill (approximately 0.8 miles 

south of Hanna); (3) Hwy 85 west from Cheyenne 

Crossing to the Lead-Deadwood water intake 

(approximately 6 miles west of Cheyenne 

Crossing); and (4) Little Spearfish Canyon along 

Road 222 west of Savoy to where Little Spearfish 

Creek flows into Little Spearfish Canyon. This 

restriction should include no motorized dispersed 

camping or game retrieval off these roads 

adjacent to the Creeks and their riparian areas.

Thank you for your comment. 464/9.

1913 Route 

Specific 

Comment

[From ATT 2] Page v. Major Conclusions: “...all 

action alternatives would reduce current levels of 

effects from motorized use...” This statement is 

Thank you for your comment. 464/13.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

462

not true for the proposed initiation of off-road 

dispersed camping/game retrieval along Hanna 

Creek, Spearfish Creek west of Cheyenne 

Crossing and Little Spearfish Creek along Route 

222.

1914 Route 

Specific 

Comment

[From ATT 2] Page 55. Alternative B: “Most 

seasonal designation of trails and roads would 

overlap with snowmobile trails.” The Black Hills 

Snowmobile Trails maps do not include any trails 

in Spearfish Canyon other than access to the trail 

system from Savoy up Route 222. The trails do 

travel along Route 209 south of Hanna. It would 

seem that this OHV plan would use those 

conditions as a guideline and should not allow 

additional operations in the Hanna area, including 

dispersed camping game retrieval. In addition, 

snowmobiling along these Hanna Creek 

headwaters south of 207 is done over deep, 

packed snow. During seasons without this snow 

cover, wheeled motorized vehicles would quickly 

damage this riparian area further south along 

Hanna Road to the bottom of “Cyclone Hill” 

approximately 0.8 miles south of Hanna. These 

are still headwaters of Hanna Creek.

Thank you for your comment. 464/21.

1915 Route 

Specific 

Comment

[ATT 2] Page 104 Environmental Effects 

Analysis: “...the greatest potential for effects to 

soils from motorized recreation are likely to be 

associated with potential disturbances from areas 

used for dispersed camping, followed by areas 

open to game retrieval. Neither should be 

allowed along Hanna Creek, Spearfish Creek West 

and Little Spearfish Creek.

Dispersed camping and game retrieval were analyzed 

along FSR 196 in Alternatives B and C and removed in 

Alternatives D and E. Dispersed camping is currently 

not allowed along Spearfish Creek and Little Spearfish 

Creek and they were not analyzed in Alternatives B and 

C for dispersed camping Any decision on routes 

selected will be documented in the Record of Decision. 

464/24.

1916 Route 

Specific 

Comment

SCOA [Spearfish Canyon Owners Association] 

recommends no general public OHV operations 

in Alternative B from Hwy 14A into Raspberry 

Gulch near Cheyenne Crossing.

FSR 584.1 was analyzed as a road open to all in Alt C 

and as road open to highway legal in Alternatives B, D 

and E. If the road is open to highway legal vehicles for 

the residences then it must be open to all vehicle traffic 

that is highway legal. Any decision on routes selected 

will be documented in the Record of Decision.

464/38.

1917 Route 

Specific 

By comparing the DEIS with other maps, we 

[Black Hills Sportsmen‟s Club and South Dakota 

Various numbers of trailheads were analyzed in 

Alternatives B through E with Alternative E showing 

465/21.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

463

Comment Wildlife Federation] realized that motorized 

trailhead locations should be far away from hiking 

trailheads or other non-motorized sites, leave 

some campsites and lakesides away from 

motorized trailheads, not adjacent to primitive 

management areas, Beaver Park, etc.

only currently existing trailheads. Some of the trailheads 

in Alternative C were removed in Alternative D, and 

Alternative E does not include any trailheads. Your 

comment will be considered and any decision on 

trailheads selected will be documented in the Record of 

Decision. 

1918 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Walk-in areas should not be considered 

Alternative motorized routes in the future but 

should remain in a primitive or semi-primitive 

designation. We [Black Hills Sportsmen‟s Club 

and South Dakota Wildlife Federation] have 

worked closely with the South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Division of 

Wildlife, to propose creation of more contiguous 

acreages for “walk-in” areas. Some roads numbers 

were missing or hard to read so our proposals are 

best effort suggestions. RMEF [Rocky Mountain 

Elk Foundation] Purchased lands Managed by 

BHNF. Most of the sportsmen and women in BH 

Sportsmen‟s Club and SD Wildlife Federation, 

also contributed finances and man-power to 

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation to purchase 

these lands for wildlife and wildlife habitat. We do 

not wish to see roads in these parcels or 

motorized recreational trails designated 

immediately outside the boundaries. Custer 

Crossing (Gonzales) Besant Park: We cannot 

support an ATV trail outside Besant‟s fence line. 

Close U100073, 209.3B. Tilson Spring, Meeker 

Creek (Ina Davis), Wildcat Canyon other than 

occupant/permittee needs, Beaver Creek (one 

main road through this parcel is OK, but do not 

allow other roads).

FSR 209.3B, 209.3A, 209.3J and 206.1A (Besant Park) 

were analyzed in Alternative B, C, D and E to be a road 

open to all..U100073 was analyzed in Alternative B as a 

trail open to vehicle 50 inches or less and removed from 

Alternatives C, D and E. FSR 256.1S and 219.1G 

(Gonzales) were analyzed in all alternatives as road open 

to all. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. 

465/24.

1919 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Walk-in areas should not be considered 

Alternative motorized routes in the future but 

should remain in a primitive or semi-primitive 

designation. We [Black Hills Sportsmen‟s Club 

and South Dakota Wildlife Federation] have 

worked closely with the South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Division of 

Thank you for your interest in this project. The 

Pleasant Valley Walk-in Area you suggest adding has 

been reviewed and will be considered by the Decision 

Maker at the time of Decision. 

465/25.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

464

Wildlife, to propose creation of more contiguous 

acreages for “walk-in” areas. Some roads numbers 

were missing or hard to read so our proposals are 

best effort suggestions. Pleasant Valley Walk-in 

Area: RMEF [Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation] 

and SDGFP [South Dakota Department of 

Game, Fish, and Parks] know that elk use these 

lands for calving. Herd is estimated at about 100 

head. Creation of this walk-in would give solitude 

to the herd and create an elk emphasis area for 

viewing publics and hunters. We [Black Hills 

Sportsmen‟s Club and South Dakota Wildlife 

Federation] supported closures in a recent timber 

sale and ask that this DEIS not re-open those 

routes. 715.3D, South 077,316.1M, 316.1N, 

U420010, U420017, U420009, CZ-3236, 31631H, 

315.1U, 315.1R, 3153JQ, South 076.

1920 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Walk-in areas should not be considered 

Alternative motorized routes in the future but 

should remain in a primitive or semi-primitive 

designation. We [Black Hills Sportsmen‟s Club 

and South Dakota Wildlife Federation] have 

worked closely with the South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Division of 

Wildlife, to propose creation of more contiguous 

acreages for “walk-in” areas. Some roads numbers 

were missing or hard to read so our proposals are 

best effort suggestions. Roger‟s Shack Fire Walkin Area:307, 3071A, 307.1D, 307.1F, 307.1C, 

307.1E, 307.1G, 402, 402.1C, 402.1B, 402.1F, 

4021D, 409, 445, 715.3J, 275, 275.1C, 275.1D, 

715.31, 715.3E, 715.3M, 715.3L, 310.1H, 310.1G, 

310.1D, 507, 715.3E, 715.3K, 275.1A, 275.1B, 

715.3P, 715.3O, 715.3N, 409.1A, U350143, 

310.1E

Thank you for your interest in this project. The Roger's 

Shack Fire Walk-in Area you suggest adding has been 

reviewed and will be considered by the Decision Maker 

at the time of Decision. 

465/26.

1921 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Walk-in areas should not be considered 

Alternative motorized routes in the future but 

should remain in a primitive or semi-primitive 

designation. We [Black Hills Sportsmen‟s Club 

and South Dakota Wildlife Federation] have 

Thank you for your interest in this project. The Jasper 

Fire-Hell Canyon Walk-in Area you suggest adding has 

been reviewed and will be considered by the Decision 

Maker at the time of Decision. 

465/27.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

465

worked closely with the South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Division of 

Wildlife, to propose creation of more contiguous 

acreages for “walk-in” areas. Some roads numbers 

were missing or hard to read so our proposals are 

best effort suggestions. Jasper Fire-Hell Canyon 

Walk-in Area: 282.2K, 282.1A, 282.1F, 284.2G, 

284.2F, 284.2D, 284.2A, 284.2B, 284.2A, 2842J, 

284.2F, 284.2J, 284.2T, 681, 681.1A, 680.1B, 680, 

681, 681.1D, 284.2C.

1922 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Walk-in areas should not be considered 

Alternative motorized routes in the future but 

should remain in a primitive or semi-primitive 

designation. We [Black Hills Sportsmen‟s Club 

and South Dakota Wildlife Federation] have 

worked closely with the South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Division of 

Wildlife, to propose creation of more contiguous 

acreages for “walk-in” areas. Some roads numbers 

were missing or hard to read so our proposals are 

best effort suggestions. Park Complex and French 

Creek Walk-in Areas: Along the boundaries of 

Custer State Park [CSP] Norbeck Wildlife 

Preserve and Wind Cave National Park 

[WCNP].As stated in 2007, it is critical to protect 

boundaries of SCP, WCNP, Norbeck and the 

Meeker parcel. Close 373.1B, 435, 340, 337.1D, 

342.1Q, (and adjacent southern spur too short to 

see number on BHNF map) 339.1B, 343.1J, 

343.1F, 345.1A, 349.1A, 349.1D, 349.1E.

Thank you for your interest in this project. The Park 

Complex and French Creek Walk-in Area you suggest 

adding has been reviewed and will be considered by the 

Decision Maker at the time of Decision. 

465/28.

1923 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Walk-in areas should not be considered 

Alternative motorized routes in the future but 

should remain in a primitive or semi-primitive 

designation. We [Black Hills Sportsmen‟s Club 

and South Dakota Wildlife Federation] have 

worked closely with the South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Division of 

Wildlife, to propose creation of more contiguous 

acreages for “walk-in” areas. Some roads numbers 

were missing or hard to read so our proposals are 

Thank you for your interest in this project. The Roger's 

Shack Spring Walk-in Area you suggest adding has been 

reviewed and will be considered by the Decision Maker 

at the time of Decision. 

465/29.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

466

best effort suggestions. Roger‟s Shack Spring 

Walk-in Area: 272.2I, 272.2H, 272.2D, 272.2C, 

272.2E, 272.2F, 276.1T, 276.1D, U410011, CZ3942, 276.1F, 272.2B.

1924 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Walk-in areas should not be considered 

Alternative motorized routes in the future but 

should remain in a primitive or semi-primitive 

designation. We [Black Hills Sportsmen‟s Club 

and South Dakota Wildlife Federation] have 

worked closely with the South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Division of 

Wildlife, to propose creation of more contiguous 

acreages for “walk-in” areas. Some roads numbers 

were missing or hard to read so our proposals are 

best effort suggestions. McVey Burn-Silver City 

Walk-in Area: One of the most traditional soughtafter areas for big game hunting. U190001, 

142.1B, 142, 436, 251.1G, 249.3A, 249.2H, 

249.2G, 606 (909?).

FSR 606 is open seasonally in Alternatives C, D, and E 

as it provides access to the Deerfield Trail at Flannigan's 

Cabin. Comment has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

465/30.

1925 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Walk-in areas should not be considered 

Alternative motorized routes in the future but 

should remain in a primitive or semi-primitive 

designation. We [Black Hills Sportsmen‟s Club 

and South Dakota Wildlife Federation] have 

worked closely with the South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Division of 

Wildlife, to propose creation of more contiguous 

acreages for “walk-in” areas. Some roads numbers 

were missing or hard to read so our proposals are 

best effort suggestions. Silver Mountain Walk-in 

Area: U260047, 358.1B DE, 674.

U260047, FSR 358.1B, and FSR 674 are not included in 

Alternative D, and are open to highway legal vehicles 

only in Alternative E.

465/31.

1926 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Walk-in areas should not be considered 

Alternative motorized routes in the future but 

should remain in a primitive or semi-primitive 

designation. We [Black Hills Sportsmen‟s Club 

and South Dakota Wildlife Federation] have 

worked closely with the South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Division of 

Wildlife, to propose creation of more contiguous 

acreages for “walk-in” areas. Some roads numbers 

FSR 257.1B, 257.1C, 710, and 710.1A are closed in 

Alternative D. Comment has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

465/32.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

467

were missing or hard to read so our proposals are 

best effort suggestions. Horse Creek Walk-in 

Area: 257.1A, 257, 257.1B, 257.1C, 710, 710.1A, 

U190099.

1927 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Walk-in areas should not be considered 

Alternative motorized routes in the future but 

should remain in a primitive or semi-primitive 

designation. We [Black Hills Sportsmen‟s Club 

and South Dakota Wildlife Federation] have 

worked closely with the South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Division of 

Wildlife, to propose creation of more contiguous 

acreages for “walk-in” areas. Some roads numbers 

were missing or hard to read so our proposals are 

best effort suggestions. Swede Gulch Walk-in 

Area: 231.4B, 234.1, un-numbered spur in Sec. 33 

off 206.1, 206.1G, 206,1D, 206.1E

FSR 231.4B accesses recreation cabins that are under 

special use permit. This road was analyzed to remain 

open in all alternatives to provide access. FSR234.1 and 

231.5J (referred to as unnumbered spur) are open 

system roads that is not within the Swede Gulch nonmotorized area. It was analyzed to remain open in 

Alternatives B, C and E and was removed from Alt D. 

FSRs 206.1G, 206.1D and 206.1E are open system 

roads that were analyzed in all alternatives to remain 

open. Any decision about selected routes will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. 

465/33.

1928 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Walk-in areas should not be considered 

Alternative motorized routes in the future but 

should remain in a primitive or semi-primitive 

designation. We [Black Hills Sportsmen‟s Club 

and South Dakota Wildlife Federation] have 

worked closely with the South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Division of 

Wildlife, to propose creation of more contiguous 

acreages for “walk-in” areas. Some roads numbers 

were missing or hard to read so our proposals are 

best effort suggestions. Black Fox Botanical 

Walk-in Area: 233.3A, 190.1R, 125, 125.1D, 

191.1B, 190.1J.

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in 

the Record of Decision.

465/34.

1929 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Walk-in areas should not be considered 

Alternative motorized routes in the future but 

should remain in a primitive or semi-primitive 

designation. We [Black Hills Sportsmen‟s Club 

and South Dakota Wildlife Federation] have 

worked closely with the South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Division of 

Wildlife, to propose creation of more contiguous 

acreages for “walk-in” areas. Some roads numbers 

were missing or hard to read so our proposals are 

U080156 in management area 4.1 was analyzed in 

Alternative B an C and removed from Alternatives D 

and E. Other then existing open system roads there 

were no new routes proposed in management areas 4.1 

or 3.32

465/35.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

468

best effort suggestions. Beaver Park Inventoried 

Roadless Area: We [Black Hills Sportsmen‟s Club 

and South Dakota Wildlife Federation] question a 

user created (U080156) route through an area 

identified as MA [management area] 4.1 Limited 

Motorized Use and MA 3.32 Backcountry NonMotorized Recreation.

1930 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Three Blind Mice was hiked on April 25, 2009 

with SDOVHC [South Dakota Off-Highway 

Vehicle Coalition] and Black Hills Keeps 

representatives, U.S. Forest Service Archeologist 

Tony King, and Hell Canyon District Ranger 

Lynn Kolund. No sufficient reasons for excluding 

these trails were found during these hikes other 

than maintenance concerns; however, local club 

representatives and members have volunteered to 

deal with issues concerning trail maintenance. 

This trail starts out at approximately 

43[degrees]34‟31.51N / 103[degrees]51‟41.05W, 

and ends respectively at 43[degrees]36‟46.29N / 

103[degrees]50‟40.56W. The trail offers a wide 

variety of challenges and bypasses around the 

most difficult obstacles if the option is taken. 

Some fallen trees may or may not need to be 

moved to access the area, but minimal work 

would be needed to open these trails. This trail is 

in close vicinity of a number of other trails in the 

area, which would be a great play area for hours 

and hours of entertainment.

Thank you for your comments regarding the Black Hills 

National Forest Travel Management Plan DEIS. In 

response to the rock crawling trails in the Southern 

Black Hills: Both the Hell Canyon District Ranger, 

Lynn Kolund and the District Archeologist, Anthony 

King hiked some of these trails to become familiar with 

the interest and concerns. These trails were submitted 

as a rock crawling trail route to be considered in the 

Travel Management planning process. The Decision 

Maker will consider this request. If this trail is not 

designated during this planning process it is possible 

that in the future additional trails could be designated in

the Southern Hills. However, this would need to be 

considered in detail in a separate environmental analysis. 

With respect to your concerns for youth under 16 years 

of age, this is a licensing requirement of the State of 

South Dakota, which the Forest Service has no control 

of.

467/2.

1931 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The Camp 5 area is perhaps becoming one of the 

most used 4x4 trail connectors in the Black Hills. 

At this time, the area doesn‟t see so much use that 

it is difficult to find a place [to] enjoy the 

particular kind of activity you enjoy, but I could 

see this area becoming more and more popular in 

the near future, especially as trail systems become 

identified, and people have fewer places to go. 

This area is primarily used by larger Jeep and 

pickups modified for extreme terrain, however, 

it‟s increasingly becoming popular with the ATV 

Thank you for your comment. 469/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

469

and single-track use for connectors for the area. 

The access to Boulder Canyon makes this an 

excellent Trailhead for base camps for both 

weekend getaways and daily outings. It‟s close 

proximity to Deadwood and Sturgis also add 

food, fuel, and lodging at a short distance away 

from this area.

1932 Route 

Specific 

Comment

There are a couple of trails in the area that are not 

currently being utilized in this area that could be 

utilized for extreme rock crawling activities. There 

is a dry creek bed along CZ-0216, known as 

Calamity Canyon that is a runoff rock bed that 

runs into the dry creek bed in the Camp 5 area. 

There are 2 other runoff areas that form a natural 

rock terrain that is similar to Camp 5 that connect 

to the dry creek and road in Camp 5. These trails 

are identified on my included map Camp 5-5 

[ATT 4], trail NS190RC and NS189RC.

Due to resource concerns none of the route shown on

your map were analyzed in any Alternative and therefore 

are outside the scope of this document.

469/2.

1933 Route 

Specific 

Comment

A former Rock crawling trail shown on included 

Camp 5-4 [ATT 3], trail NS788RC, should be 

designated as a trail, even though this trail may 

need some stricter guidelines than others in this 

area. This trail has since been closed because of a 

small stream of water coming out of the rocks on 

the upper part of the trail that runs down part 

way, and returns underground. This trail had been 

run for years without water running down the trail 

and it wasn‟t until several wet spring seasons that 

the water opened up and drained down the trail. 

This would lead me to believe in a drier year, the 

water would no longer emerge and the trail could 

be reopened. It has a defined exit at the top of the 

draw as well.

Due to resource concerns none of the route shown on 

your map were analyzed in any Alternative and therefore 

are outside the scope of this document.

469/3.

1934 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I would like to show a correction of a proposed 

ATV connector trail to FS567.1C and FS567.1E, 

which would be better suited to a multi-use trail, 

as there is no width restrictions for vehicles, and 

the connector would lead to scenic opportunities 

for all. This route can be seen on my included 

map Camp 5-6 [ATT 3], route NS225MU. There 

The connector you speak of U070030 was not analyzed 

in any Alternative and therefore is outside the scope of 

this project. The other route passes through non-Forest 

Service jurisdiction with no ROW and was not analyzed 

in any Alternative and therefore is outside the scope of 

this document. Any consideration for future trail 

locations will be dealt with as individual projects by 

469/4.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

470

is another connector as well that is a main road 

that would be a natural connector to FS172.1.

Districts.

1935 Route 

Specific 

Comment

A trail named Full Size was not included in the 

proposal as a 4x4 designated Rock Crawling Trail. 

This trail had the entrance obliterated, mistakenly 

from my understanding, and was to be reopened 

last summer. As far as I know it has not yet been 

reopened. This trail provided smaller 4x4‟s a short 

run through rocks, suitable for smaller 4x4‟s or to 

challenge less built vehicles and/or skill levels. 

This trail has been permitted for our events for 

years, and I have not seen any changes in 

condition of trail, proving it is sustainable.

The trail known as Full Size was analyzed in Alternatives 

B, C and D as a trail open to all and removed from 

Alternative E. The trail being mistakenly closed is 

beyond the scope of this document. Any decision about 

selected routes will be documented in the Record of 

Decision.

469/5.

1936 Route 

Specific 

Comment

(cont. from comment no. 3) [Elbow Canyon 

Trail, Three Blind Mice Trail, Edgemont Trail AC, See ATT 1] All these trails have been 

submitted through the proper channels via Jon 

Wermers with SDOHVC, at the public input 

meetings in Custer and Rapid City, and hand 

delivered to the Hell Canyon Acting District 

Ranger in addition to being hiked with the 

aforementioned officials.

Thank you for your comments regarding the Black Hills 

National Forest Travel Management Plan DEIS. In 

response to the rock crawling trails in the Southern 

Black Hills: Both the Hell Canyon District Ranger, 

Lynn Kolund and the District Archeologist, Anthony 

King hiked some of these trails to become familiar with 

the interest and concerns. These trails were submitted 

as a rock crawling trail route to be considered in the 

Travel Management planning process. The Decision 

Maker will consider this request. If this trail is not 

designated during this planning process it is possible 

that in the future additional trails could be designated in 

the Southern Hills. However, this would need to be 

considered in detail in a separate environmental analysis. 

With respect to your concerns for youth under 16 years 

of age, this is a licensing requirement of the State of 

South Dakota, which the Forest Service has no control 

of.

470/4.

1937 Route 

Specific 

Comment

After attending the Edgemont town hall meeting 

and receiving the draft environmental impact 

statement, a concern over the proposed 

Alternative Maps A through E has arisen. 

Absolutely none of the submitted trails [Elbow 

Canyon Trail, Three Blind Mice, and Edgemont

Trails A-C] are in any of the maps.

Thank you for your comments regarding the Black Hills 

National Forest Travel Management Plan DEIS. In 

response to the rock crawling trails in the Southern 

Black Hills: Both the Hell Canyon District Ranger, 

Lynn Kolund and the District Archeologist, Anthony 

King hiked some of these trails to become familiar with 

the interest and concerns. These trails were submitted 

as a rock crawling trail route to be considered in the 

Travel Management planning process. The Decision 

470/6.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

471

Maker will consider this request. If this trail is not 

designated during this planning process it is possible 

that in the future additional trails could be designated in 

the Southern Hills. However, this would need to be 

considered in detail in a separate environmental analysis. 

With respect to your concerns for youth under 16 years 

of age, this is a licensing requirement of the State of 

South Dakota, which the Forest Service has no control 

of.

1938 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Deadwood to Galena to Camp 5 to Boulder Park 

Area: We [Lawrence County Commissioners] 

recognize this area as a popular recreational area. 

We support using U07031 to connect FSR 567.1 

and FSR 172.4 to Galena. We support using 

U070032 to connect FSR 170.4 to Galena. 

Utilizing previously traveled trails in the Forest 

makes more sense than trying to gain access 

across private property. We also strongly support 

using connector routes through BLM lands to 

connect to the Deadwood/Lead areas. Those 

routes will get ATV traffic off paved highways, 

such as SD Hwy 14A.

The roads identified in the comment, U7031 and 

U7032, are existing roads on which it was determined 

the Forest Service does not have jurisdiction. As such 

neither could be designated in any decision on this 

project. The Forest will continue to work with local 

governments to provide access to communities. 

472/2.

1939 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Deadwood to Galena to Camp 5 to Boulder Park 

Area: We [Lawrence County Commissioners] 

recognize this area as a popular recreational area. 

We disagree with the comment that FSR 535.1 is 

not under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service. 

We believe that road is under your jurisdiction 

because of your intention to close it last year. 

That road is used as the emergency access 

connecting the Two Bit Road with the Upper 

Two Bit Road (which is ultimately a connector of 

SD Hwy 385 and SD Hwy 14A). We requested, 

and again request, that you leave that road open 

for emergency access in case of fire or other 

catastrophic event. We aren‟t asking for any 

improvements or designation in the trail system, 

just left open for emergency purposes.

The Forest Service portion of FSR 535.1 was analyzed 

as a road open to highway legal vehicles in Alternatives 

B, D, and E and as road open to all in Alt C. The FS 

will continue to work with other local governments to 

provide access into the surrounding communities. Any 

decision about route selected will be documented in the 

Record of Decision.

472/3.

1940 Route 

Specific 

Deadwood to Galena to Camp 5 to Boulder Park 

Area: We [Lawrence County Commissioners] 

The FS will continue to work with other local 

governments to provide access into the surrounding 

472/4.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

472

Comment recognize this area as a popular recreational area. 

We have no problem using that portion of the 

Yellow Creek Road under county jurisdiction as 

this could be a connector to Lead. Permission to 

cross BLM lands may also be needed.

communities including the connector into Yellow Creek 

road.

1941 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Deadwood to Galena to Camp 5 to Boulder Park 

Area. We [Lawrence County Commissioners] 

recognize this area as a popular recreational area. 

We support the use of NH7 (snowmobile trail) to 

make the connection to the Steel Wheel and the 

Hwy 385 corridor.

The route from Steele Wheel to the Hwy 385 corridor 

was analyzed in various portions from road open to all 

to trail open to all to trail less then 50inches. The FS 

will continue to work with other local governments to 

provide access into the surrounding communities.

472/5.

1942 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Deadwood to Galena to Camp 5 to Boulder Park 

Area. We [Lawrence County Commissioners] 

recognize this area as a popular recreational area. 

We have no problem using the portion of the 

road north out of Deadwood Denver Street that 

is under county jurisdiction. This would have to 

be coordinated with the BLM also.

FSR 133.1 to Denver street was analyzed in alternatives 

as being under other jurisdiction. The FS will continue 

to work with other local governments to provide access 

to the Mt. Roosevelt area from Deadwood.

472/6.

1943 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Deadwood to Galena to Camp 5 to Boulder Park 

Area. We [Lawrence County Commissioners] 

recognize this area as a popular recreational area. 

We strongly do not want Maitland Road out of 

Central City used in the trail system. This road has 

too much traffic already and we don‟t see the 

benefit of OHV traffic directed that way when 

there aren‟t many trails to access.

Maitland road was analyzed as other jurisdiction. 472/7.

1944 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Sturgis Area (portion located in Lawrence 

County): We [Lawrence County Commissioners] 

agree with both of your comments about 

Vanocker Canyon/Hwy 14A and the Galena 

Road. We urge you to find an alternate route in 

Vanocker Canyon for the OHV traffic.

Vanocker Canyon and Galena Road were analyzed as 

other jurisdiction. 

472/8.

1945 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Brownsville: We [Lawrence County 

Commissioners] agree that SD Hwy 385 ditches 

are used by businesses along the highway to gain 

access to the forest. We also recognize these 

businesses along this highway are heavily reliant 

on OHV business. As there are both resource 

issues and safety issues in the ditch, we urge 

coordination with the State in alleviating those 

The FS will continue to work with other local 

governments to provide access when possible to these 

locations.

472/9.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

473

risks.

1946 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Brownsville: We [Lawrence County 

Commissioners] advise no OHV travel 

designation on the Nemo Road. This road is a 

paved forest highway with county maintenance 

and the traffic already is heavy.

Nemo road was analyzed as other jurisdiction. 472/10.

1947 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Brownsville: We [Lawrence County 

Commissioners] could support a crossing on 

County Road 44 (Elk Creek) to access the Galena 

area.

The FS will continue to work with other local 

governments to provide access into the surrounding 

communities.

472/11.

1948 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Brownsville: We [Lawrence County 

Commissioners] do not support the use of the 

Englewood Road as an access from Brownsville 

to Englewood area as we do not see any 

connecting trails.

Englewood road was analyzed as other jurisdiction. 472/12.

1949 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Brownsville: We [Lawrence County 

Commissioners] could support use of the Custer 

Peak Road as an access to Custer Peak area and 

Minnesota Ridge area.

The Custer Peak road was analyzed as other jurisdiction 

and the connection roads (FSR 516) to Custer Peak 

were analyzed in Alt C as a road open to all and 

Alternatives B, D and E as a road open to highway legal. 

The FS will continue to work with other local 

governments to provide access into the surrounding 

communities.

472/13.

1950 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Brownsville: We [Lawrence County 

Commissioners] do not support any use of the 

Custer Crossing Road as this is the main cutacross road from SD Hwy 385 to the Rochford 

Road. This road is heavily traveled already.

The Custer Crossing road was analyzed in all alternatives 

as a route under other jurisdiction. It was reviewed on 

the ground by agency staff. The agency recognizes the 

road is heavily used currently. 

472/14.

1951 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Brownsville: We [Lawrence County 

Commissioners] do not support using the 

Rochford Road as this is a forest highway with 

county maintenance and a heavily traveled road 

already.

The Rochford Road was analyzed in all alternatives as 

other jurisdiction.

472/15.

1952 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Rochford (portion located in Lawrence County): 

We [Lawrence County Commissioners] support 

usage of the Merritt Estes Road to gain access to 

the Centennial Trail only. We realize there are 

parking issues at the Pilot Knob parking area and 

overflow parking is at the Sugar Shack. We urge 

you to find an alternate access to continue to 

Nemo. We could support South Box Elder Forks 

Merritt Estes road was analyzed as other jurisdiction. 

The Centennial trail was analyzed as a trail less then 50 

inches in Alternatives B, C, and E. It was removed 

from Alt D. The portion of the South Boxelder road 

that connects to the Centennial trail was analyzed as 

other jurisdiction. The FS will continue to work with 

other local governments to provide access into the 

surrounding communities.

472/16.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

474

road usage to connect Nemo to the Centennial 

Trail and the Nemo area.

1953 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Spearfish: We [Lawrence County Commissioners] 

do not support usage of FSR 134 Tinton Road 

(the portion under county maintenance) as an 

access to Spearfish as this is a residential area and 

would enter into Spearfish residential areas.

FSR 134 Tinton Road was analyzed in all alternatives as 

open to highway legal vehicles only. 

472/17.

1954 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Spearfish: We [Lawrence County Commissioners] 

urge you to designate the Big Hill Trailhead as a 

motorized trailhead. We realize Big Hill trail is a 

non-motorized trail, but there are parking issues 

for motorized vehicles who wish to travel to the 

Iron Creek/Higgins Gulch areas.

Big Hill trailhead was analyzed in all alternatives as an 

existing facility. Any decision about trailheads selections 

will be documented in the Record of Decision.

472/19.

1955 Route 

Specific 

Comment

[From ATT 1] The perennial stream crossing 

proposed for three years of monitoring includes 

two impaired water bodies, Elk Creek and 

Victoria Creek, and EPA recommends that those 

crossings be eliminated from the travel system 

(DEIS page 309).

None of the alternatives include motorized routes that 

cross Victoria Creek. Many existing system roads cross 

Elk Creek in many different locations. These routes 

were analyzed in various alternatives as road open to all 

or road open to highway legal vehicles. No new routes 

were proposed to cross Elk Creek. Current and any 

future crossings will be mitigated with proper stream 

crossing devices such as culverts or bridges. 

473/12.

1956 Route 

Specific 

Comment

We [Dan and Kim Kelley] have been especially 

dismayed by the soil erosion potential of OHV 

trails on BHNF land adjacent to our property 

[HES 102.59-10, T2N, and R5E]. Proposed usercreated Motorcycle Trails #CZ-4835 and CZ4870 pass perpendicular to topographic contour 

lines on steep erodible slopes, and pass through 

the intermittent stream and riparian habitat in 

Spruce Draw west of our land. With no procedure 

in place to close these routes during wet periods 

(pg. 88 DEIS), the problems already experienced 

maintaining the nearby Centennial Trail (pg. 83 

DEIS) will likely be repeated. We now notice 

more turbidity in our pond, downstream from 

Pilot Knob Trailhead, even when there has not 

been recent rain.

CZ4835 and CZ4870 were included in Action Alt. B as 

open year round and in Action Alternative C as open 

seasonally. They were not included in Alternatives D 

and E. Any routes selected will have design criteria put 

in place to minimize impacts. Any decision about 

routes selected will be documented in the Record of 

Decision. While routes were evaluated for inclusion as 

part of the future designated system, there may be 

portions or sections of any designated transportation 

system under the decision that may be located on a 

geologic formation where the transportation facility can 

require more extensive trail design, maintenance, 

application of aggregate or other surfacing materials to 

limit erosion of the trail surface and maintain the system 

for use without resulting in impacts to adjacent 

resources located immediately adjacent to the designated 

transportation facility. Please see the decision for 

transportation facility designation and Appendix B of 

the FEIS for the transportation design criteria common 

474/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

475

to all alternatives for protection of the transportation 

infrastructure and other resources.

1957 Route 

Specific 

Comment

We [Dan and Kim Kelley] have been especially 

dismayed by the soil erosion potential of OHV 

trails on BHNF land adjacent to our property 

[HES 102.59-10, T2N, and R5E]. Proposed 

Motorcycle Trail CZ-4835, (running within 17 to 

300 ft. and paralleling our south and west farm 

boundaries for approximately one-half mile) 

actually crosses the steep banks of Jim Creek near 

the trail‟s juncture with Bogus Jim Rd. (FS# 201). 

This is not evident on the trail map, but is 

obvious on site inspection of the path taken by 

bikers. This trail also crosses another riparian area 

associated with the intermittent stream located in 

Spruce Draw. With no procedure in place to close 

these routes during wet periods (pg. 88 DEIS), 

the problems already experienced maintaining the 

nearby Centennial Trail (pg. 83 DEIS) will likely 

be repeated. We now notice more turbidity in our 

pond, downstream from Pilot Knob Trailhead, 

even when there has not been recent rain.

CZ4835 and CZ4870 were included in Alternative B as 

open year round and in Alternative C as open 

seasonally. They were not included Alternatives D and 

E. Any routes selected will have design criteria put in 

place to minimize impacts. Any decision about routes 

selected will be documented in the Record of Decision. 

While routes were evaluated for inclusion as part of the 

future designated system, there may be portions or 

sections of any designated transportation system under 

the decision that may be located on a geologic 

formation where the transportation facility can require 

more extensive trail design, maintenance, application of 

aggregate or other surfacing materials to limit erosion of 

the trail surface and maintain the system for use without 

resulting in impacts to adjacent resources located 

immediately adjacent to the designated transportation 

facility. Please see the decision for transportation facility 

designation and Appendix B of the FEIS for the 

transportation design criteria common to all alternatives 

for protection of the transportation infrastructure and 

other resources.

474/2.

1958 Route 

Specific 

Comment

We [Dan and Kim Kelley] have been especially 

dismayed by the soil erosion potential of OHV 

trails on BHNF land adjacent to our property 

[HES 102.59-10, T2N, and R5E]. Proposed 

Motorcycle Trail # CZ-4880 utilizes the valley 

bottom followed by the intermittent stream in 

Spruce Draw, crossing the stream at multiple 

sites. Throughout the 1990‟s, and again during the 

last year and a half, this stream has carried water 

along much of its course and has provided habitat 

for beaver during the last two decades. With no 

procedure in place to close these routes during 

wet periods (pg. 88 DEIS), the problems already 

experienced maintaining the nearby Centennial 

Trail (pg. 83 DEIS) will likely be repeated. We 

CZ-4880 was analyzed in Alternatives B and C and 

removed from Alternatives D and E. Any routes 

selected will have mitigation measures put in place for 

stream crossings. Any decision about selected routes 

will be documented in the Record of Decision. 

474/3.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

476

now notice more turbidity in our pond, 

downstream from Pilot Knob Trailhead, even 

when there has not been recent rain.

1959 Route 

Specific 

Comment

We [Dan and Kim Kelley] have been especially 

dismayed by the soil erosion potential of OHV 

trails on BHNF land adjacent to our property 

[HES 102.59-10, T2N, and R5E]. Proposed AllVehicle Trail #CZ-0301 passes through an oldgrowth aspen grove which was clear-cut some 

years back with a view to stimulating regeneration 

of the trees and improving wildlife habitat.

CZ0301 was analyzed in Alt B as a special designation 

trail (rock crawling) and in Alt C as a seasonal trail open 

to all. Any routes selected will have design criteria put 

in place to minimize impacts. Any decision about 

routes selected will be documented in the Record of 

Decision. 

474/4.

1960 Route 

Specific 

Comment

We [Dan and Kim Kelley] have been especially 

dismayed by the soil erosion potential of OHV 

trails on BHNF land adjacent to our property 

[HES 102.59-10, T2N, and R5E]. Proposed 

Special Designation Rock Crawler #CZ-0301, 

utilizes very steep terrain that leads into the 

riparian habitat of Spruce Draw.

CZ0301 was included in Alt B as a special designation 

trail (rock crawling) and in Alt C as a seasonal trail open 

to all. Any routes selected will have design criteria put 

in place to minimize impacts. Any decision about 

routes selected will be documented in the Record of 

Decision. While routes were evaluated for inclusion 

as part of the future designated system, there may be 

portions or sections of any designated transportation 

system under the decision that may be located on a 

geologic formation where the transportation facility can 

require more extensive trail design, maintenance, 

application of aggregate or other surfacing materials to 

limit erosion of the trail surface and maintain the system 

for use without resulting in impacts to adjacent 

resources located immediately adjacent to the designated 

transportation facility. Please see the decision for 

transportation facility designation and Appendix B of 

the FEIS for the transportation design criteria common 

to all alternatives for protection of the transportation 

infrastructure and other resources. 

474/5.

1961 Route 

Specific 

Comment

We [Dan and Kim Kelley] have been especially 

dismayed by the soil erosion potential of OHV 

trails on BHNF land adjacent to our property. 

[HES 102.59-10, T2N, R5E]. Proposed Special 

Designation Rock Crawlers #CZ-0303, 

#U130185.

CZ0303 was included in Action Alt B as a special 

designation trail (rock crawling) and in Action Alt C as a 

seasonal trail open to all. Any routes selected will have 

mitigation measures put in place for stream crossings or 

steep slopes. Any decision about routes selected will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. While routes 

were evaluated for inclusion as part of the future 

designated system, there may be portions or sections of 

any designated transportation system under the decision 

474/6.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

477

that may be located on a geologic formation where the 

transportation facility can require more extensive trail 

design, maintenance, application of aggregate or other 

surfacing materials to limit erosion of the trail surface 

and maintain the system for use without resulting in 

impacts to adjacent resources located immediately 

adjacent to the designated transportation facility. Please 

see the decision for transportation facility designation 

and Appendix B of the FEIS for the transportation 

design criteria common to all alternatives for protection 

of the transportation infrastructure and other resources.

1962 Route 

Specific 

Comment

For the 22 years we [Don and Kim Kelley] have 

lived on and tended our land, we have devoted 

literally thousands of hours to eradicating noxious 

weeds from our property, [HES 102.59-10, T2N, 

R5E] despite continuous heavy re-seeding from 

surrounding USFS land. Our requests for weed 

control efforts on adjacent FS land by Agency 

employees have resulted in only cursory and 

largely ineffective measures. This is to some 

degree understandable in view of forest wide FS 

budgetary constraints and the large areas 

disturbed annually by logging and other vehicular 

traffic. Increasing this soil-disturbing activity 

through sanctioned OHV traffic is a very 

discouraging prospect to those of us trying to 

reduce the impact of invasive weed species in the 

Black Hills. As cited (DEIS pg. 277), these 

vehicles readily transport weed seeds from other 

areas in their undercarriages. If new stands of 

thistle are established and new species of invasive 

weeds introduced along the above mentioned 

proposed trails [CZ-4835, CZ-4870, CZ0301, CZ-

0303, CZ-029.8, CZ-0295, U130385], the 

prevailing wind will seed our meadow first.

See Chapter 3, Noxious Weeds. Each Action 

Alternative will overall have a positive affect on the 

spread of weeds. In some areas, increased use will occur, 

the likelihood is that will continue without travel 

management or Alternative A, the current situation. 

Alternative A has much less control over where travel 

can occur than the actionalternatives. CZ-4835, CZ-

4870, were analyzed in Alternatives B and C as 

motorcycle routes and removed from Alternatives D 

and E. CZ 0301 , CZ-0303, CZ 0295, CZ-0298 and 

U130385 were analyzed as special designation in 

Alternative B and as seasonal trails open to all in 

Alternative C. They were removed from Alternatives D 

and E. 

474/7.

1963 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Another area we [Don and Kim Kelley] have 

been concerned with for many years is a segment 

of Jim Creek in sections 10 and 11, east of our 

land. Large numbers of vehicles have left Bogus 

Jim Road there, crossed Jim Creek in many places 

The DEIS and FEIS addressed a variety of alternatives 

for motorized opportunities for the Bogus Jim area. 

While Alternative A has the area open to off-road 

motorized opportunities, all the other alternatives close 

the area to off-road use, thus helping to ensure 

474/9.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

478

and driven in the creek bed for considerable 

distances. Dispersed camping close to this 

perennial stream has also taken place since the 

1990s, apparently in violation of the FS guideline 

(DEIS pg. 48) which encourages that dispersed 

activity take place 100 ft. or more from a stream 

and SD State law (DEIS pg. 47) which only allows 

campfires in developed campgrounds with 

established fire grills. At the suggestion of our 

closest neighbors, we petitioned for the 

installation of a guardrail at the side of Bogus Jim 

Road. USFS personnel instead placed large 

boulders across the entrance to the user-created 

trail. These were quickly moved and the 

incursions continue. Administrative action means 

that the law enforcement officials also drive 

through and along Jim Creek to access the 

campsites. We are hopeful that this area will be 

effectively closed to motorized use and that 

dispersed camping will be limited, owing to the 

close proximity of Bogus Jim Road to Jim Creek, 

and to allow the riparian habitat time to recover.

protection of the creeks from motorized impacts. 

Motorized dispersed camping in the DEIS analyzed 

opportunities anywhere on the National Forest under 

Alternative A, but restricted to 100 feet of designated 

routes under Alternative B and 300 feet under 

Alternative C, and not allowed at all under Alternatives 

D and E. Alternative D for Bogus Jim area offers the 

greatest restrictions of motorized use to help protect the 

area. Decisions for the Travel Management Program 

will be documented in the Record of Decision. 

Motorized users will be expected to stay on the routes 

once the selections are made and the rule goes into 

effect on the BHNF. Forest Service law enforcement 

personnel play a critical role in ensuring compliance 

with laws and regulations, protecting public safety, and 

protecting National Forest resources. The Forest 

Service also maintains cooperative relationships with 

many State and local law enforcement agencies that 

provide mutual support across jurisdictional boundaries. 

Education and cooperative relationships with users 

support enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance. Campfires are outside the scope of this 

document.

1964 Route 

Specific 

Comment

We [Don and Kim Kelley] have several concerns 

regarding management capabilities of the BHNF 

if large motorized trail networks and dispersed 

camping (as differentiated from game retrieval) 

are legitimated. Public Safety: a) Merritt-Estes Rd. 

(FS #208) follows a steep talus slope east of our 

house and a blind curve with no guardrail turns 

north at the highest point of the road. This 

dangerous site feature is not easily mapped and 

has been the cause of several accidents. We have 

responded to many incidents on this curve, and to 

our knowledge, none have been reported to law 

enforcement. We worry that unlicensed drivers 

who choose to go off of the nearby motorized 

trail, and licensed but inexperienced young riders 

will be vulnerable.

Illegal activity has been reported to law enforcement, 

resulting in more patrols by law enforcement officers 

and Forest Protection Officers. Design standards for 

trails address road crossings, and improvements can be 

made as needed. 

474/12.

1965 Route We have several concerns regarding management The area surrounding FSR 201on the Northern Hills 474/13.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

479

Specific 

Comment

capabilities of the BHNF if large motorized trail 

networks and dispersed camping (as differentiated 

from game retrieval) are legitimated.[Public 

Safety:]Bogus Jim Road (FS #201) is currently 

classified as a “roaded, natural non-motorized 

area” (DEIS pg. 56). It also has numerous blind 

curves, is narrow and rocky in many places. We 

have responded to one accident involving an 

ATV on this road and frequently encounter large 

groups of ATVs speeding along on both of these 

roads.

Ranger District is Management Area 5.4, big game 

winter range, and the recreation opportunity spectrum 

for this area is roaded natural. Forest Service law 

enforcement personnel play a critical role in ensuring 

compliance with laws and regulations, protecting public 

safety, and protecting National Forest resources. The 

Forest Service also maintains cooperative relationships 

with many State and local law enforcement agencies that 

provide mutual support across jurisdictional boundaries. 

Education and cooperative relationships with users 

support enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance. 

1966 Route 

Specific 

Comment

According to the BHNF (DEIS PG. 9) “dispersed 

camping” and “off-road parking” are 

interchangeable. While the Pilot Knob Trailhead 

may be the recommended parking location for 

OHVs on trailers in our [Don and Kim Kelley] 

area, there are numerous other access points 

where trailers may be parked and vehicles offloaded. How can law enforcement be expected to 

patrol so many locations, distinguish the trail the 

OHV rider intends traveling and hope to find 

those riders in violation of the rules?

The comment states that the DEIS, page 9, stated that 

dispersed camping and off-road parking are 

interchangeable. The DEIS identified on page 9 the 

decision to be made for this motorized travel program, 

which includes whether to authorize dispersed camping 

or off-road parking. These are two separate activities of 

the travel program for the Black Hills and are not 

interchangeable. Dispersed camping was evaluated for 

various distances from a designated route, while offroad parking only allows a vehicle width from a 

designated route. With regards to law enforcement 

concerns, there is an expectation that most of the 

motorized users of the Black Hills National Forest will 

comply with the new requirements to help protect the 

resources of the Forest for future generations. Illegal 

motorized use of the Forest does leave evidence behind 

that law enforcement can use to locate and fine 

violators. The public is encouraged to assist law 

enforcement by providing information about violators, 

such as license plates, vehicle descriptions, time of 

violation, type of violation, etc., to maintain the integrity 

of the travel program.

474/15.

1967 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The proposed motorcycle trails listed at the 

beginning of our letter [CZ-4835, CZ 4870, CZ 

4880, CZ-0300, CZ-0303, CZ-0298, CZ-0295, 

and V130185] will be very difficult for FS 

personnel to patrol or even access.

Forest Service law enforcement personnel play a critical 

role in ensuring compliance with laws and regulations, 

protecting public safety, and protecting National Forest 

resources. The Forest Service also maintains 

cooperative relationships with many State and local law 

enforcement agencies that provide mutual support 

474/17.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

480

across jurisdictional boundaries. Education and 

cooperative relationships with users support 

enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance.

1968 Route 

Specific 

Comment

We [Don and Kim Kelley] have noticed increased 

noise pollution resulting from large numbers of 

trail bikes, ATVs, and hill climbing 4WD‟s in our 

immediate vicinity during recent years. It is not 

unusual to encounter convoys of 12-18 4WD 

rock-crawlers, plus up to two dozen ATVs and 

trail bikes traveling the Merritt-Estes and Bogus 

Jim roads past our place, layering clouds of dust 

along the Jim Creek Valley. We are negatively 

affected by noise on the adjacent user-created 

trails, several portions of which are located within 

17 to 300 ft. of our western boundary.

Common to all alternatives the sound limit will be set at 

96 decibels for all OHV traffic. This restriction should 

reduce the number of user conflicts and complaints that 

are based on sound.

474/22.

1969 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Seasonal Closure of certain specific roads/trails 

for protection of wildlife and hunters: After 

spending most of the month of October 2007 in 

the BHNF in pursuit of elk in the BHNF, I 

strongly recommend seasonal closure of some 

roads to permit wildlife to have refuge and for 

hunters to have the opportunity for a hunt 

uninterrupted by vehicle traffic. My hunting effort 

was focused in the BHNF in the vicinity of 

Moon, which can sustain quite intense hunting 

pressure at times. Many of the roads/trails are in 

the center of meadows and in close proximity to 

springs and waterholes, and vehicle traffic can 

keep wildlife from the water and ruin the 

opportunity for the hunter who has set up on the 

waterhole. Specifically, I would again strongly 

recommend seasonal closure (from September 1 

through December 31) of all trails shown in red 

(seasonal closure) on the current Trail Map which 

are West of FR 117, between the intersections of 

FR 117 and FR 284 and FR 117 and FR 294. In 

addition, I would recommend the seasonal 

closure of the following roads: FR376.2F, 2H, 2I, 

2J, 2K, 2L, and 2M; FR 117.5A, 5A, 5R, 5T, 5U, 

The area that you describe is a very popular area for 

ATV and UTV trail riding. It is also an area that 

generally receives significant snowfall during November 

through April. For these reasons this area was not 

consider for seasonal closure for the protection of 

wildlife and hunters. There are several walk-in hunting 

areas that are proposed in Alternatives B and C that will 

be considered by the Decision Maker in the final 

Decision. These areas are located within the Jasper Fire 

Area, Pleasant Valley, and Norbeck.

475/5.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

481

5V, 4A, and 4C; FR 112.1A, 1B and 1C; FR 

157.2A; FR 294.2J, 2L, and 2M. Seasonal closure 

would provide protection of wildlife from vehicle 

harassment, and it would provide hunters with a 

walk-in hunting opportunity free from intrusion 

by vehicles.

1970 Route 

Specific 

Comment

We [Sundance Chain Gang Mountain Bike 

Association] have noted on many occasions the 

trespass of motorized vehicles in non-motorized 

areas such as at the gate at Sandpit, which ATV 

and motorcycle have gone over the hill and 

around the gate. Which now unhindered has 

created eyesores, erosion control problems, and 

resource damages. We have also found multiple 

ATV parts, oil spills and gasoline spills from nonmotorized users, whom won‟t take the care 

needed to maintain their equipment, or aren‟t 

responsible enough to operate their machines 

with some care and diligence. We have found this 

to be true, in Ogden Creek, Peterson trail, and off 

certain roads near Surprise Gulch, School House 

Gulch, Tinton Rd and surrounding areas.

Once motorized routes are designated motor vehicles 

will be expected to stay on them. Individual 

responsibility of machine maintenance is outside the 

scope of this DEIS.

479/4.

1971 Route 

Specific 

Comment

On several occasions we have witnessed elk herds 

in the Dugout area, and observed them from 

several hundred yards. The uniqueness of this trail 

is that it is off the beaten path, it has limited 

usage; and due to that-it seems unspoiled. It is 

wild and natural as can be without designation as 

an RNA or Wilderness area. We [Sundance Chain 

Gang Mountain Bike Association] believe that 

once motorized vehicles are allowed this will be 

spoiled within a week. You will have resource 

damage, vegetation contamination, and elk herds 

that frequent the area will move out, and become 

scarcer. This would also include raptors, 

mountain lions, and many other species that 

would be affected.

Alternatives A, D, and E of the DEIS and FEIS 

addressed this concern and eliminated motorized 

opportunities, except administrative purposes within the 

Dugout Gulch area. 

479/7.

1972 Route 

Specific 

Comment

As a supporter of the Top 50 Trailhead project, I 

understand and agree that the development of 

this trailhead will create a “gateway community” 

Top 50 trailhead is on private property and outside of 

FS jurisdiction and is therefore outside the scope of this 

document. 

481/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

482

for the Piedmont area. The location of the Top 

50 Trailhead at exit 46 off I-90 is ideal for local 

and out of state visitors enjoying motorized and 

non-motorized outdoor recreational activities. 

This easy access convenient location provides a 

maintained 2 acre location for loading, unloading, 

short term and long term parking at no charge as 

visitors enjoy the Black Hills. I feel the 

development of the Top 50 Trailhead will benefit 

the area fully support its further development.

1973 Route 

Specific 

Comment

We are landowners on North Bogus Jim Road 

(FS#201) and we are concerned about the 

motorcycle trails proposed in Alternatives A, B 

and C that will be concentrated in this area. First, 

we would like to point out that these trails have 

been used very infrequently in the past. In fact, 

these trails were illegally created in the summer of 

2006 just after it was announced that user trails 

were going to be used to create the trail system 

that is currently being proposed. They have been 

very rarely used since then. Putting these trails in 

this area is not an historic use of the area and will 

constitute introducing a user group that has not 

been in this area in the past. If these trails are 

included on the final map, the area will go from 

very infrequently used by motorcycles to a heavily 

used and intensely concentrated motorcycle area -

significantly impacting other forest users, 

landowners and travelers.

Thank you for your comment. 482/1.

1974 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Concern - Safety: As we expressed to Forest 

Supervisor Craig Bobzien and Northern Hills 

District Ranger Rhonda O‟Byrne when they 

visited the area to meet with us, our primary 

concern, above all, is safety on FS#201 and 

FS#202. It seems in the headlong rush to put this 

Travel Management plan in place, concerns for 

safety were put aside. Several BHNF employees 

stated that prior to these [motorcycle] trails 

appearing on the initial proposed travel map, no 

BHNF employees had visited the area. GPS 

On routes selected in the decision on this project 

measures will be put in place to provide for safety. The 

Forest Service assumes that users generally will comply 

with use regulations, and enforcement will be 

undertaken as needed. Forest Service law enforcement 

personnel play a critical role in ensuring compliance 

with laws and regulations, protecting public safety, and 

protecting National Forest resources. The Forest 

Service also maintains cooperative relationships with 

many State and local law enforcement agencies that 

provide mutual support across jurisdictional boundaries. 

482/2.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

483

coordinates were provided by off-road 

motorcycle riders and the BHNF had not looked 

at the area for suitability or safety. In Alternatives 

B and C the maps show there are areas of 

concentrated trails designated for single track offroad motorcycle use-only on the ridges above 

these roads. There are several roads and trails 

coming off the ridges connecting these roads 

(FS#201 and FS#202) with the single track trails 

above them. FS#201 and FS#202 are narrow 

(basically one lane requiring a vehicle to pull off 

the road when passing oncoming traffic), winding, 

hilly and have many blind corners and a one lane 

bridge. On many occasions we have encountered 

vehicles traveling at high rates of speed around 

blind corners and have had several near misses 

including incidents with illegally riding unlicensed 

off-road motorcycles. If these trails go in and the 

trails connecting them to these roads stay in place, 

there will be a significant amount of motorcycle 

and vehicle traffic

Education and cooperative relationships with users 

support enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance.

1975 Route 

Specific 

Comment

(cont from comment no. 2) The vast majority of 

off-road motorcycles are sure to be unlicensed, 

uninsured and unidentifiable. Although these 

roads do not allow such unlicensed use, there is 

sure to be large numbers of people riding these 

roads to get to other trails due to the 

concentrated use in this area. Of all the off-road 

groups, the one group most prone to riding 

aggressively at a high rate of speed, more than any 

other group, are these off-road motorcycles. 

Mixing these types of riders with passenger 

vehicles is creating an unsafe situation that puts 

the health and safety of our family and the public 

in general in danger and puts a great deal of 

liability on the insured motorist due to the high 

potential for accidents. It would be irresponsible 

for these trails and roads connecting the single 

track motorcycle trials to FS#201 and FS#202 to 

be included in the final Travel Management Plan. 

The alternatives in the EIS vary in how they address 

motorized recreation opportunity and safety. 

Alternatives B and C provide more mileage of routes, 

including mixed-use routes. Alternative D provides a 

lower total mileage of motorized mixed-use roads to 

reduce the safety risk to users of non-highway-legal 

OHVs and motorcycles from larger vehicles on higherspeed roads. The Forest Service assumes that users will 

generally comply with guidance on the MVUM, but 

enforcement will be undertaken as needed. Forest 

Service law enforcement personnel play a critical role in 

ensuring compliance with laws and regulations, 

protecting public safety, and protecting National Forest 

resources. The Forest Service also maintains 

cooperative relationships with many State and local law 

enforcement agencies that provide mutual support 

across jurisdictional boundaries. Education and 

cooperative relationships with users support 

enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

482/3.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

484

Several BHNF employees have stated that 

nothing can be done about the hazards involved 

until something happens. This puts a huge 

amount of liability on the Forest Service by 

recognizing the danger but not acting to stop it. 

There will be accidents with great potential for 

serious injuries and/or fatalities. It seems to us 

that waiting for a serious accident or fatality to 

occur before addressing a known hazard would 

constitute gross negligence and subject the Forest 

Service to large law suits.

compliance. 

1976 Route 

Specific 

Comment

In order to help mitigate the safety issues of travel 

on FS#201 and FS#202, we suggest eliminating 

off-road motorcycle access from these trails to 

FS#201 and FS#202. Our understanding of the 

proposed trails is that they are for off-road single 

track motorcycle use. Allowing access from 

FS#201 and FS#202 is condoning illegal use by 

encouraging unlicensed, uninsured off-road 

motorcycles to use these roads. A better idea 

would be to allow access only from designated 

trailheads off of major roadways such as Hwy 44 

and Hwy 385. In addition, there is already a trailhead at Pilot Knob on FS#208 (Merritt Estes 

Rd) and a trailhead could be established on 

FS#202 just east of the intersection with Hwy 

385. These off-road motorcycle groups want 

single track off-road use, so there is no reason 

they should be traveling on other Forest Service 

roads in this area. Limiting their access to 

trailheads-only would allow the Forest Service to 

more successfully control off road use and 

mitigate the safety hazards by keeping them away 

from FS#201 and FS#202. This would make it 

easier for the BHNF to prevent illegal activity (i.e. 

unlicensed motorcycles on the roads) and help 

remove a large part of the burden of law 

enforcement. They will not have to constantly 

patrol these roads to stop illegal use that is sure to 

occur by allowing access to FS#201 and FS#202. 

The alternatives in the EIS vary in how they address 

motorized recreation opportunity and safety. 

Alternatives B and C provide more mileage of routes, 

including mixed-use routes. Alternative D provides a 

lower total mileage of motorized mixed-use roads to 

reduce the safety risk to users of non-highway-legal 

OHVs and motorcycles from larger vehicles on higher-

speed roads. The Forest Service assumes that users will 

generally comply with guidance on the MVUM, but 

enforcement will be undertaken as needed. Forest 

Service law enforcement personnel play a critical role in 

ensuring compliance with laws and regulations, 

protecting public safety, and protecting National Forest 

resources. The Forest Service also maintains 

cooperative relationships with many State and local law 

enforcement agencies that provide mutual support 

across jurisdictional boundaries. Education and 

cooperative relationships with users support 

enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance.

482/4.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

485

This suggestion would also make it easier for the 

BHNF to manage the off-road single track 

motorcycle trails rather than creating a free-for-all 

that will be totally unmanageable.

1977 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Concern - Impact of Trails on Residents: The 

Bogus Jim Valley has seen very little off-road use 

historically. The majority of property owners in 

the area are horse owners. This is an extremely 

quiet valley and you will create a great deal of 

conflict by encouraging the off-road single track 

motorcycle users access the FS#201 (Bogus Jim 

Rd) and FS#202. All residences along these roads 

will be adversely impacted by the illegal activity 

the BHNF will be encouraging by allowing access 

to these roads. They will be adversely affected by 

increased travel on the road, the loud noise of the 

off-road motorcycles, the increased dust due to 

increased traffic, the deteriorating road conditions 

due to the high traffic volume and lack of 

maintenance. Our property comes within 100 feet 

of FS#201.2D which is part of the proposed offroad single track motorcycle trail (#CZ-4870) that 

starts on FS#201. Our quality of life will be 

significantly impacted by noise, dust, property 

value, etc. By changing the historic use of this 

area you will be adversely impacting many people 

who are residents in the area.

The majority of FSR 201 through Bogus Jim Valley is 

not Forest Service jurisdiction. The portion of FSR 201 

that is Forest Service jurisdiction, and FSR 202 are open 

to highway legal vehicles only in Alternatives C, D, and 

E. The proposed single track route was analyzed in 

Alternatives B and C and was removed from 

Alternatives D and E. Noise issues are common to all 

alternatives and will be regulated at 96 decibels. Any 

decision to include this route will be documented in the 

Record of Decision.

482/5.

1978 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Concern - Wildlife: FS#201 and FS#202 are 

adjacent to a large Wildlife Winter Closure area. 

The Bogus Jim valley is a spring and fall migration 

route for large numbers of deer and elk. Clearly 

the wildlife would be dramatically affected by a 

high volume of traffic on these roads and loud 

motorcycles traveling at high rates of speed. 

Keeping the motorcycles out of the valley and off 

of FS#201 and FS#202 would eliminate this 

issue.

Routes in winter range areas are being analyzed for 

seasonal use in Alternative C and year round access in 

Alternative B. The majority of FSR 201 through Bogus 

Jim Valley is not Forest Service jurisdiction. The 

portion of FSR 201 that is Forest Service jurisdiction, 

and FSR 202 are open to highway legal vehicles only in 

Alternatives C, D, and E.

482/6.

1979 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Concern-Law Enforcement: Under Alternatives 

A, B and C, there will be many unlicensed 

vehicles riding illegally on FS#201 and FS#202. 

Forest Service law enforcement personnel play a critical 

role in ensuring compliance with laws and regulations, 

protecting public safety, and protecting National Forest 

482/7.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

486

Forest-wide the Forest Service has extremely 

limited law enforcement capability making it 

impossible for them to uphold the law. The 

argument that off road groups will police 

themselves isn‟t going to happen. They don‟t do it 

now and they won‟t do it then. The off-road 

groups have no enforcement capability and to 

think peer pressure will work amounts to wishful 

thinking.

resources. The Forest Service also maintains 

cooperative relationships with many State and local law 

enforcement agencies that provide mutual support 

across jurisdictional boundaries. Education and 

cooperative relationships with users support 

enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary compliance 

along with peer pressure to also encourage compliance. 

1980 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Eliminate the [motorcycle] trails coming down 

from the off-road trails to FS#201 and FS#202.

The motorcycle routes were analyzed in Alternatives B 

and C and removed from Alternatives D and E on the 

NH district. Any decision about routes selected will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. There are no 

trails open to motorcycles only that connect with FSR 

201 and 202 in any of the alternatives on the Mystic 

District.

482/10.

1981 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Trail 141.1D should be eliminated. This trail starts 

on the north on Silver City Road. From there it 

goes uphill for a few hundred feet until it forks 

into two. The left fork joins up again with Silver 

City Road at the top of the hill while the right 

fork continues on and dead-ends close to Trail 

#40 (Deerfield Trail). The left fork is very muddy 

and the right fork is a trail at the bottom of the 

drainage. The trail doesn‟t offer any aesthetic 

value and therefore provides no specific purpose. 

Recommendation: Eliminate Trail 141.1D.

FSR 141.1D is closed in Alternative D. Comment has 

been evaluated and will be considered in the Record of 

Decision.

488/8.

1982 Route 

Specific 

Comment

FSR 249.3A is a road that is currently gated. This 

road is part of the Rapid Creek drainage. The 

meadows at the top of this trail are home to yearround elk. As the trail starts to descend towards 

Rapid Creek it crosses a year-round spring. 

Because of the spring and the disruption of 

wildlife, it would be better to leave this trail 

closed. Recommendation: Eliminate FSR 249.3A 

from the travel map.

FSR 249.3A is closed in Alternative D. 488/9.

1983 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The trails U190186, U190187, and U190188 are 

very pretty trails with aesthetic appeal. However 

these trails have some seasonal water running 

through them. That general area has many trails in 

These routes are closed in Alternatives D and E. 488/10.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

487

much better shape than this trail; therefore it begs 

the question, why did the Forest Service pick this 

trail and leave all the others out. I would ask you 

to revisit this trail and if you are going to leave it 

in the map then make sure it is designated only as 

a seasonal trail. Recommendation: Trails 

U190186, U190187, and U190188 should be 

seasonal only.

1984 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Trails 249.2A, 2B, 2D, and 2E are currently 

closed and are all dead-end trails. 

Recommendation: Eliminate 249.2A, 249.2B, 

2492D, 249.2E.

FSR 249.2A, 2B, 2D, and 2E are closed in Alternatives 

D and E.

488/11.

1985 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Road 675.1A is currently closed year-round. Road 

249 is currently closed in the winter. Streams 

cross over both of these roads. The water feeds 

Rapid Creek and Pactola. Recommendation: 675.1 

and 249 should be designated as seasonal through 

their entire lengths.

Alternative E includes FSR 675.1 as a seasonally closed 

route. This is a mapping error, as this route is currently 

closed yearlong, and would continue as such in a 

corrected Alternative E. FSR 249 remains closed 

seasonally from just north of FSR 254 to the junction 

with FSR 251 in Alternative E.

488/12.

1986 Route 

Specific 

Comment

A quick view of the Google Earth maps show 

that under some of the alternatives, the 

Centennial Trail is being opened to vehicles just 

north of the Deer Creek Trailhead. This trail is 

used by many users and it is well known that this 

trail is non-motorized (except for Pilot Knob). 

The area of the trail north of Deer Creek 

Trailhead is a favorite of mountain bikers because 

of the single track and multiple s-turns. 

Recommendation: Leave the Centennial Trail as a 

non-motorized trail.

FSR 613, 746, 746.1B, 1D, and 1F in the area of Deer 

Creek Trailhead were inadvertently included in 

Alternatives B and C as motorized routes, but were 

removed from Alternative D. Your comment has been 

evaluated and will be considered in the Record of 

Decision. 

488/13.

1987 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Roads 671, 671.1B, and 141.2B are narrow roads 

on the bottom of gulches. Motorized game 

retrieval on these two roads is not practical since 

it is very steep on both sides of the road. There 

are other better roads nearby where game retrieval 

could be easier. Recommendation: Eliminate 

game retrieval from 671, 671.1B and 141.2B. Add 

game retrieval to 261 and 672.

FSR 141.2B, 671, and 671.1B are open to highway legal 

vehicles only and not open to game retrieval in 

Alternatives C, D, and E.

488/15.

1988 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Some trails located in this [Edgemont] area [See 

ATT 1]: All these trails [ATT 1] have been 

submitted through the proper channels via Jon 

Thank you for your comments regarding the Black Hills 

National Forest Travel Management Plan DEIS. In 

response to the rock crawling trails in the Southern 

489/2.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

488

Wermers with SDOHVC [South Dakota OffHighway Vehicle Coalition], at the public input 

meetings in Custer and Rapid City, and hand-

delivered to the Hell Canyon Acting District 

Ranger in addition to being hiked with numerous 

officials. Elbow Canyon was hiked on April 18, 

2009 with SDOVHC, Black Hills Jeeps, and Black 

Hills 4X4 representatives, U.S. Forest Service 

Archeologist-Tony King, and Hell Canyon 

District Ranger-Lynn Kolund. Next, Three Blind 

Mice was hiked on April 25, 2009 with SDOVHC 

and Black Hills Jeeps representatives, U.S. Forest 

Service Archeologist-Tony King, and Hell 

Canyon District Ranger-Lynn Kolund.

Finally, Edgemont Trails A-C were hiked on May 

09, 2009 with SDOVHC, Black Hills Jeeps, and 

Black Hills 4X4 representatives, and Hell Canyon 

District Ranger-Lynn Kolund. No sufficient 

reasons for excluding these trails were found 

during these hikes other than maintenance 

concerns; however, local club representatives and 

members have volunteered to deal with issues 

concerning trail maintenance.

Black Hills: Both the Hell Canyon District Ranger, 

Lynn Kolund and the District Archeologist, Anthony 

King hiked some of these trails to become familiar with 

the interest and concerns. These trails were submitted 

as a rock crawling trail route to be considered in the 

Travel Management planning process. The Decision 

Maker will consider this request. If this trail is not 

designated during this planning process it is possible 

that in the future additional trails could be designated in 

the Southern Hills. However, this would need to be 

considered in detail in a separate environmental analysis.

1989 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Some trails located in this [Edgemont] area are 

[See ATT 1]: All these trails [ATT 1] have been 

submitted through the proper channels via Jon 

Wermers with SDOHVC, at the public input 

meetings in Custer and Rapid City, and hand-

delivered to the Hell Canyon acting district ranger 

in addition to being hiked with numerous 

officials. Elbow canyon was hiked on April 18, 

2009 with SDOHVC [South Dakota OffHighway Vehicle Coalition], Black Hills Jeeps, 

and Black Hills 4X4 representatives, U.S. Forest 

Service Archeologist-Tony King, and Hell 

Canyon District Ranger-Lynn Kolund. Next, 

Three Blind Mice was hiked on April 25, 2009 

with SDOVHC and Black Hills Jeeps 

representatives, U.S. Forest Service Archeologist-

Tony King, and Hell Canyon District Ranger-

Thank you for your comments regarding the Black Hills 

National Forest Travel Management Plan DEIS. In 

response to the rock crawling trails in the Southern 

Black Hills, both the Hell Canyon District Ranger, Lynn 

Kolund and the District Archeologist, Anthony King 

hiked some of these trails to become familiar with the 

interest and concerns. These trails were submitted as a 

rock crawling trail route to be considered in the Travel 

Management planning process. The Decision Maker 

will consider this request. If this trail is not designated 

during this planning process it is possible that in the 

future additional trails could be designated in the 

Southern Hills. However, this would need to be 

considered in detail in a separate environmental analysis.

490/2.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

489

Lynn Colon. Finally, Edgemont Trails A-C were 

hiked on May 09, 2009 with SDOVHC, Black 

Hills Jeeps, and Black Hills 4X4 representatives, 

and Hell Canyon District Ranger-Lynn Kolund. 

No sufficient reasons for excluding these trails 

were found during these hikes other than 

maintenance concerns; however, local club 

representatives and members have volunteered to 

deal with issues concerning trail maintenance.

1990 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Trail closure. We noticed several trails that we 

have used in the past being proposed closed. 

These are in three general areas: 711, 110.4A, 

110.4B, and 110.4G; 117.5Q and 117.5X, 117.5Y; 

and 502.1A, 502.1C, 502.1E, and 502.1I. Could

you please explain the rational for proposing 

these trails closed?

These roads were constructed to access timber harvest 

units in the past and are no longer needed for resource 

management. They are spur roads that dead end. After 

review by District resource specialists, these roads were 

deemed un-necessary and were closed by physical 

barriers and removed from the Travel information maps 

and Travel Management DEIS Alternative maps. 

491/6.

1991 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I would like to see the Buzzworms historic off 

road trail opened during the summer months after 

the spring runoff. This 30+ year old trail is a 

favorite for locals and visitors alike. It offers a 

challenging rock crawling route that is near other 

rock crawl trails that could be interconnected into 

a wonderful loop near the Piedmont area.

Due to resource concerns this trail was not analyzed in 

any Alternative and therefore is outside the scope of this 

document.

492/5.

1992 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Winter is [the] best time to ride without impact

on environment. ATV motorized vehicles don‟t 

chase deer and there are a lot less riders who 

choose to ride in winter due to temperature, i.e. 

727.1A open all year! Open more access in winter.

FSR 727.1A remains seasonally closed in Alternatives 

C, D, and E. Comment has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision

494/15.

1993 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The trails in and around Cement Ridge are steep, 

but if you were to partner with off road clubs they 

could be reworked to make them more 

sustainable.

Thank you for your comment. 508/12.

1994 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Hill City is one town that would very much like to 

have a trailhead - a portion of the Mickelson Trail 

could be paralleled or designated motorized with 

very reduced speed limits.

The Mickelson Trail is not Forest Service jurisdiction. 

Alternative C connects communities to the extent 

possible but opportunities are limited due to private 

property, paved highways, and other jurisdictions

508/14.

1995 Route 

Specific 

Comment

There is a lack of access to services in all 

alternatives. Trails need to connect to towns or 

businesses that will provide services to trail users 

such as food, fuel, repairs, camping and motels. 

The towns and services you refer to, including City of 

Sturgis and Top 50 are on private property and not 

within FS jurisdiction and therefore are outside the 

scope of this document.

511/13.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

490

Trailheads are not well placed, and do not 

contribute to access to these services. Why can‟t I 

get to or from Sturgis? And Top 50 Rally park?

1996 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The Piedmont Trailhead is extremely important 

to my family and myself as we currently use this 

area very regularly. We live in the Piedmont area 

and love to be able to go riding after work for a 

couple of hours without having to travel very far. 

My biggest concern with the Piedmont trailhead is 

that my ten-year-old son will not be able to ride 

with us from this trailhead if licensing is required. 

It is extremely important to us to have this family 

recreation. I would like to see a way for us to at 

least utilize the Piedmont Trailhead and at least 

have the opportunity to get to a point on the trail 

system that is designated trail and not road. 

Although we would utilize the Piedmont trailhead 

most often, I am also looking forward to the 

implemented trail system as a way to explore 

other areas of the forest that we would not go to -

afraid of crossing private property or poorly 

marked closed areas.

The piedmont fire trail was analyzed in Alternatives B, C 

and D as a road open to all and in Alt E as a road open 

to highway legal vehicles. Any decision about routes 

selected will be documented in the Record of Decision. 

NM: State of South Dakota traffic laws apply. 

519/2.

1997 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Access to Ice Cave (trail 144 21), Bat Cave as well 

as the top of Botany Canyon is very important to 

us, as we like to visit these places. We love to hike 

down Botany Canyon several times a year and 

access to the top of this area would be extremely 

beneficial as the bottom is bordered by private 

property and landowners who dislike anyone to 

travel on their private road, since the Stagebarn 

Cave has been closed. We also like to camp at 

Dalton Lake and ride from there to the Ice Cave, 

Bat Cave and Botany Canyon.

Thank you for your comment. 519/5.

1998 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I spent the afternoon hiking along the 546.1 road 

this past Sunday and noticed that the Forest 

Service has placed more no travel signs in areas 

that are being abused by ATVs. But even with the 

new signs there are still ATVs off roading in these 

areas. Not only are they ignoring the signs but 

they are destroying them. This 546.1 road and its 

FSR 546 was analyzed in Alternative B, C and D as a 

seasonal road open to all. It was analyzed in Alt E as a 

seasonal road open to highway legal vehicles. FSR 

546.2B and 546.2A were analyzed in Alt B as a seasonal 

road open to all and in Alternatives C, D and E as a 

seasonal road open to highway legal vehicles. Any 

decision about routes selected will be documented in the 

524/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

491

other roads 546.2A, 546.2B and all its user created 

trails continues to be abused and the violators 

continue to get away with it. I propose that 546.1 

and this area be closed to all motorized travel. 

This road leads to private land that also 

continuous to be abused even with all the no 

trespassing signs. I believe this area is easily 

accessed from the Piedmont fire trail by hiking, 

mountain bike, or horseback. The closing of this 

road will no doubt upset a few off-road people. 

But I feel that if you don‟t close it the resource 

damage will only continue. And I‟m sure there are 

many others that will also enjoy this area if they 

didn‟t have to compete with road traffic. The offroad enthusiasts have had their chance to do 

what‟s right for many years in this area. Now let 

the rest of us enjoy it.

Record of Decision.

1999 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I would like to see the Buzzworms historic off 

road trail opened during the summer months after 

the spring runoff. This 30+ year old trail is a 

favorite for locals and visitors alike. It offers a 

challenging rock crawling route that is near other 

rock crawl trails that could be interconnected into 

a wonderful loop near the Piedmont area.

Due to resource concerns this trail was not analyzed in 

any Alternative and therefore is outside the scope of this 

document.

526/5.

2000 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I am an avid hiker who seeks to preserve the 

pristine trails and quiet solitude of Botany Canyon 

and Little Elk Canyon for my grandchildren as 

well as future generations. It is extremely 

important to take out CZ 1790 in order to 

prevent any additional damage to the fragile 

environment of Botany Canyon which contains 

many ferns and plant specimens dating back to 

prehistoric times and to allow turn around.

CZ-1790 was included in Alternatives C and D as a 

special designation route, but was removed from 

Alternatives D and E.

527/1.

2001 Route 

Specific 

Comment

We feel opening botanical trails, such as the 

Dugout Gulch Botanical Hiking Trail would be a 

mistake, especially if they are currently designated 

semi-primitive and non-motorized. So also would 

we oppose converting to OHV trails areas like the 

following: FDR 134 (Tinton Road), areas adjacent 

to FDR 134 (Red Lake and Limestone Plateau), 

A range of alternatives in the DEIS and FEIS was 

considered for these areas.

529/3.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

492

the connector road through the Crow Peak nonmotorized area, an OHV trail on and into the 

middle of the Eagle Cliff Trail System, and the 

area south of Hanna Campground. Surely there 

are already enough OHV trails/roads that there 

shouldn‟t be a need to open roads and areas 

specifically designated for non-motorized 

recreational experience and/or use. These areas 

are special in part because motorized use was not 

allowed in them. If OHV riders want to 

experience these areas they can always get off 

their vehicles and hike into them.

2002 Route 

Specific 

Comment

We are concerned with the segment of trail south 

of Piedmont, South Dakota (NH9) the one on the 

correction for Alternative C. We believe this is the 

section line that Jessie Jurrens of the Top 50 Rally 

Park wants opened to the public so he can use the 

Top 50 as a trailhead. We absolutely oppose this 

road being opened to OHVs and/or designated a 

trailhead. We live across Sturgis Road from the 

main entrance to the Top 50. We have already 

had to deal with problems when the Top 50 has 

had Labor Day Rallies. Our subdivision is a nice 

residential area (built years before the Top 50) 

and within the city limits of Piedmont. As 

homeowners and taxpayers, we feel we should be 

able to enjoy our home and investment. The 

residents of our neighborhood would have to deal 

with increased noise, traffic, litter, and 

inconsiderate activities of Top 50 visitors.

NH 9 was analyzed in Alternative C as a seasonal trail 

open to all and was removed from Alternatives B, D 

and E. Any decision about routes selected will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

529/4.

2003 Route 

Specific 

Comment

We believe opening NH9 to OHVs would also be 

dangerous because they would have to travel on 

the highway from the Top 50 to reach the trail 

segment. Sturgis Road was recently widened and 

rebuilt, and no travel is allowed or possible in the 

ditches. The OHV riders would have to cross the 

highway at some point; and this could be 

particularly dangerous because of traffic on the 

highway and the fact there is an elementary 

school near the proposed trail segment.

NH 9 was analyzed in Alternative C as a seasonal trail 

open to all and was removed from Alternatives B, D 

and E. Any decision about routes selected will be

documented in the Record of Decision. Crossing of the 

highway is outside FS jurisdiction and outside the scope 

of this project.

529/5.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

493

2004 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Piedmont already has one trailhead, and that 

should be developed further and should be 

enough for this area. The loop the NH9 segment 

is proposed to connect with is close to and 

already accessed by the Piedmont Trailhead. We 

do not see the need to add another access or 

trailhead to support the commercial interests of 

the Top 50.

NH 9 was analyzed in Alternative C as a seasonal trail 

open to all and was removed from Alternatives B, D 

and E. Any decision about routes selected will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

529/6.

2005 Route 

Specific 

Comment

We are also concerned that the proposed NH9 

trail segment and access to BHNF is close to the 

Botany Canyon area and Stagebarn Canyon. We 

feel this trail segment is too close to Botany 

Canyon and too much traffic in this area would 

endanger its unique and fragile ecosystem.

Speculation about someone breaking the future travel 

management regulations are beyond the scope of this 

document.

529/7.

2006 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I support Alternative C. I recommend these trails 

and roads be added to Alternative C: Open FS 

727.1a to all year travel like in Alternative B and 

turn it into a trail open to all vehicles, all the way 

to FS 386.

FSR 727.1A remains seasonally closed in Alternatives C, 

D, and E. Comment has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision

534/1.

2007 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I support Alternative C. I recommend these trails 

and roads be added to Alternative C: Add MY63 

and MY64 to Alternative C as mixed-use road.

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in 

the Record of Decision

534/2.

2008 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I support Alternative C. I recommend these trails 

and roads be added to Alternative C: Turn 386.1 

into a trail open to all vehicles.

FSR 386.1 is open to highway legal vehicles only in 

Alternatives C, D, and E due to safety considerations.

534/3.

2009 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I support Alternative C. I recommend these trails 

and roads be added to Alternative C: In 

Alternative B, FS 385 is a mixed use road to FS 

396.1E. Continue that in Alternative C and CZ 

3017 and CZ 0776 in Alternative B are trails; 

restore them to trails. (CZ0776 appears to move 

location from Alt B to Alt C).

FSR 396.1E does not exist. CZ0776 has been 

eliminated due to cultural resources. A portion of FSR 

385 is a road open to all vehicles in Alternative C and D. 

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in 

the Record of Decision.

534/4.

2010 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I support Alternative C. I recommend these trails 

and roads be added to Alternative C: There is no 

trailhead in the Savoy area the only trailhead is 

across US 85 in the Hanna area which is 

accessible on the proposed routes.

Savoy is on private property and also within the 

Spearfish Canyon management area which prohibits off 

road travel. No trailheads were analyzed here as it is 

outside the scope of this project.

534/5.

2011 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I support Alternative C. I recommend these trails 

and roads be added to Alternative C: None of the 

mixed use roads cross the Hwy [85] at a 90-degree 

Snowmobile trails are beyond the scope of this 

document.

534/6.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

494

angle and some user created trails that have been 

submitted do cross US 85, doesn‟t the 

snowmobile trail system cross US 85?

2012 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I support Alternative C. I recommend these trails 

and roads be added to Alternative C: FS 209.1 

needs to be a mixed use road in Alternative C just 

like in Alternative B.

FSR 209.1 was analyzed in Alt B as a road open to all 

and in Alt C, D, and E as a road open to highway legal 

vehicles. Any decision about routes selected will be 

documented in the Record of Decision.

534/7.

2013 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I support Alternative C. I recommend these trails 

and roads be added to Alternative C: Add 209.2F 

to Alternative C as a 50 in. or less trail.

FSR 209.2F was analyzed in Alt B as a seasonal trail to 

vehicles less then 50 inches. In Alt E it was analyzed as 

a road open to highway legal vehicles. It was removed 

from Alt C and D. Any decision about routes selected 

will be documented in the Record of Decision.

534/8.

2014 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I support Alternative C. I recommend these trails 

and roads be added to Alternative C: Add 211.2D 

and 211.2C to Alternative C just like in 

Alternative B.

FSR 211.2D and 211.2C were analyzed in Alt B as a 

seasonal trail to vehicles less then 50 inches. In Alt E 

they were analyzed as roads open to highway legal 

vehicles. They were removed from Alt C and D. Any 

decision about routes selected will be documented in the 

Record of Decision.

534/9.

2015 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I support Alternative C. I recommend these trails 

and roads be added to Alternative C: In 

Alternative C there is no mixed-use road that 

connects the Stageyard Campground to the roads 

south of it as there is in Alternative B.

FSR 209 that connects Stageyard trail head to other 

routes was analyzed in Alternative B as a road open to 

all and in Alt C, D and E as a road open to highway 

legal vehicles. Any decision about routes selected will 

be documented in the Record of Decision.

534/10.

2016 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Over 60 miles of roads were closed in the South 

Project in the Hell Canyon district. Since nobody 

is going to get to use these roads, they might as 

well be used for trails.

Trails and routes were considered in the South Project 

area. The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) for the South 

Project worked with the Forest Travel Planning, 

addressing both routes to be closed and routes to be 

open, as well as the possibility of a trail system within 

the South project boundary. These discussions are 

documented in the South Project Planning Record. The 

Decision Maker for this Travel Management Plan could 

consider trail designation within the South Project area 

as part of this decision, or under a separate decision in 

the future. 

534/17.

2017 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The Area between Sheridan Lake Road, Highway 

385, and Highway 44 is particularly isolated -

From both the north and south. Add at least one 

connecting trail across the highways to the north, 

south, and west.

Topography associated with the Rapid Creek corridor is 

not conducive to a trail connecting to the north. In 

addition, trails crossing high speed highways is a safety 

concern, and such highways are not Forest Service 

jurisdiction.

536/9.

2018 Route The section of USFS 159 in Sec 35, T1N, and The referenced portion of FSR 159 is open to highway 536/24.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

495

Specific 

Comment

R7E should be open to mixed use or a 

motorcycle trail designated just to the north of it.

legal vehicles only in Alternatives C, D, and E. A road 

open to all vehicles goes north off FSR 159 in this area 

in Alternative C.

2019 Route 

Specific 

Comment

USFS 150.1E in Sec 24, T1N, R7E should be 

extended north to the east side of Victoria Creek 

canyon near Rapid Creek along the existing two 

track. There is an excellent rock climbing area 

along Victoria Creek near Rapid Creek. The 

closest access is from Dark Canyon, but is across 

private property. Access from FS land requires 

hiking down into the canyon a fair distance.

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a userrequested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

536/25.

2020 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Let me describe my idea of what an ideal trail 

system would contain. I imagine comparing it to a 

large downhill or even a cross country ski area. 

There would be a system of connecting trails that 

would leave from points of interest (POI) and 

arrive at POI‟s. Along the trail I imagine scenic 

views as well as beautiful places to stop and have 

picnics. The trails range in difficulty from easy to 

challenging and are marked indicating the level. I 

enjoy just cruising down an easy trail but I also 

enjoy some challenge. I would like to see easy 

going trails as well as trails that involve perhaps 

some maneuvering, some inclines, and maybe 

some rocks or downed trees to climb over. I am 

basically a Northern Hills rider and I like to leave 

from Spearfish, stop at the Iron Creek Lake Store, 

have a picnic at Cement Ridge and take a 

different route back to Spearfish. When I leave 

for a day of ATVing I tend to rack up about 100 

miles. I enjoy sightseeing and looking for some 

history to include old cabins, old mines, etc.

Thank you for your comment. 538/11.

2021 Route 

Specific 

Comment

It would be nice to be on a trail where I do not 

have to worry about a full size vehicle driving fast. 

So I prefer to be off of Tinton Road as soon as 

possible after leaving Spearfish even if the ATVs 

Thank you for your comment. 538/12.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

496

have to travel parallel with the road at times.

2022 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I foresee ATV riders camping at Rod & Gun and 

Timon Campgrounds and likely accessing the area 

of FS Road 733 and 736. I like the trails in around 

FS Road 733 but would like to see more of them 

connecting and making more loops. I would also 

like to see an ATV trail loop which includes the 

FS Road 736.1 area. It would be nice to have 736 

and 736.1A connect to make a loop. A trailhead 

near Rod and Gun Campground would make 

sense so the ATV traffic could depart from that 

location and proceed up FSR 223.1. This area is 

not hiked much and it offers the ATV rider some 

awesome views.

Thank you for your comment. No trailhead locations 

were analyzed near Rod and Gun Campground and is 

therefore outside the scope of this document.

538/17.

2023 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I would like to see the Forest Service work with 

SD GF&P to come to an agreement that would 

allow riders to travel to the end of FS 626.1 and 

continue on through the Higgins Gulch State 

Farm down to Higgins Gulch. By doing this you 

will create a nice ATV trail/loop that will use an 

existing road/trail. I was up there last year but at 

that time the SD GF&P [South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish and Parks] had the 

gate locked. This loop would be a convenient 

loop with awesome views.

FSR 626 was analyzed in Alterative B, C and D as a 

seasonal road open to all. The Forest Service will 

continue to work other local governments but the 

continuation of this road onto SD GFP lands is beyond 

the scope of this document.

538/19.

2024 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I would like to see an ATV trail that would follow 

FS 626.1 up and over the hill connecting Higgins 

Gulch and Tinton. This is a challenging spot but 

not a problem for experienced riders. The trail 

that is currently located in this spot has been in 

use since 1975 or before. I realize it is near the 

closed area but with an approved trail perhaps it 

would be possible to allow ATV travel.

Due to resource concerns no routes were analyzed in 

that area and therefore beyond the scope of this 

document.

538/20.

2025 Route 

Specific 

Comment

An ATV trailhead near FSR 801.1 would make 

sense because many ATV riders come in from the 

Gillette/Sundance side and use FSR 801.1 to 

offload and head up to the Cement Ridge area.

No suitable National Forest land was located along FSR 

801.1 for development of a trailhead to park multiple 

vehicles with potential trailers.

538/21.

2026 Route 

Specific 

Comment

FS Roads #105.1D, #105.1C which are accessible 

from FS Road #105.1 (Wagon Canyon Rd.) are of 

prime concern to me to close off to motorized 

FSR 105.1C was analyzed in Alt B D and E as road 

open to highway legal vehicles and in Alt C as road open 

to all. FSR 105.1D was analyzed in Alt B and C as a 

540/2.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

497

vehicle use. FS#105.1D provides access to 

headwaters of Middle Beaver Creek which has a 

ponds, marshy areas and yearlong stream flow all 

the way to its intersection to the east with North 

Beaver Creek. The area is a prime calving ground 

for elk and deer in the spring and summer 

months as well as a major breeding ground for elk 

in the fall of the year. This area is circumnavigated 

with FS Roads #222, #850.1, #804.1, #104.1 and 

#105.1 and is approximately 1 Ѕ to 1 ѕ miles 

across from any of these surrounding FS Roads. 

FS Road #105.1C has a trail at the north end of 

the road that ties across to FS #105.1D and also 

could access the wetland area. These two roads 

are the main deep accesses into the area but it can 

also be accessed from #105.1A with an old 

unused trail at the north end that joins into 

#105.1C. #105.1F and #105.1G also penetrate 

portions of the area but would be less conducive 

to allowing access to the marshy areas. Where 

#222.1E and 850.1E meet is an old trail that was 

closed with rock barricades 5-6 years ago that ties 

into #105.1D. Since that time the rocks 

barricades have simply been driven around. This 

trail needs to stay closed to protect the area. It 

would be my utmost desire to have this entire 

area that is now circumnavigated with roads kept 

as a quiet area for wildlife and to protect the 

watershed at the inner core. Barring that option 

the least I would like to see is FS Roads #105.1D 

and C closed to motorized travel with the 

exception of ranchers with grazing permits in the 

area and possibly relatives of the two remote 

gravesites located in the Forest Service on Middle 

Beaver.

road open to all. It was removed from Alt D and 

analyzed as a road open to highway legal vehicles in Alt 

E. Any decision about routes selected will be 

documented in the Record of Decision. Motorized 

visitors will be expected to stay on the designated roads 

and trails once a use map is published.

2027 Route 

Specific 

Comment

We are writing to ask that you keep the Forest 

Service road 150/1E open to motorized vehicles 

for use of Victoria Canyon. Without this access, 

our complete enjoyment might not be fulfilled 

and it would be unreasonably difficult for anyone 

FSR 150.1E is a road seasonally open to all vehicles in 

Alternative C, and a road seasonally open to highway 

legal vehicles in Alternative E. It is believed the 

comment is referring to the route extending 

approximately one-half mile north beyond the end of 

541/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

498

to also get pleasure from this place. As you might 

or not might know, the entrance from Dark 

Canyon road is now private property at its 

opening. For everything taken in twice as much is 

taken out. This goes for the canyon and accessible 

roads! As local climbers from Spearfish, we make 

a day trip to Victoria Canyon which is over two 

hours round trip to enjoy the canyon. It is the 

only area that has many exceptional and tall 

overhung routes and beautiful scenery. There are 

only a few dedicated delicate climbers that are 

willing to make the drive, hike, and endure the 

hard routes, so the number of people entering 

Victoria Canyon is minimal. Road 150/1E is the 

only accessible way to get to Victoria Canyon. We 

would much appreciate the road being kept open 

so that we can enjoy this beautiful wonder.

FSR 150.1E. This route was not included in any of the 

alternatives because it is not in the Forest Service 

inventory, nor was it previously submitted as a userrequested route. However, based on comments 

received on the DEIS, the one-half mile uninventoried 

route has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

Record of Decision.

2028 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I own 40 acres within the boundaries of the 

BHNF on T1S R4E Section 12. The area is 

known as Union Hill and is a subdivision with 11 

parcels, four of which have already been built. 

Our closest town to get supplies, mail, etc, is Hill 

City. As the crow flies, Hill City is only three 

miles away, however it takes us over 20 minutes 

get there because there is no direct route. Open 

254.1F and MY65 year-round to all vehicles as 

shown on Alternative #B. By opening this road, 

residents of Union Hills will be able to cut four 

miles from their trip to Hill City. All residents of 

Union Hill would be very thankful to you if you 

opened MY65.

In Alternative C FSR 254.1F is a road open to all 

vehicles year-round, and MY65 is a trail open to vehicles 

<50" year-round. MY65 is not suitable for full-size 

vehicle use.

557/1.

2029 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Union Hill used to have a direct route to Hill City 

through 254.1A but it was cut-off years ago when 

the property owner fronting the Deerfield Road 

closed access. That access is still being disputed 

and may be lost forever since your maps do not 

include 254.1A all the way to Deerfield Road.

FSR 254.1A is open to highway legal vehicles yearlong 

in Alternatives C, D, and E. Routes through private 

property are not Forest Service jurisdiction.

557/2.

2030 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Eliminate the trailhead at China Gulch Road. 

While trailheads are useful for unloading ATVs 

and Motorcycles, adding a new one will be 

The China Gulch trailhead is not included in 

Alternatives D and E. Parking areas provide a point of 

contact for better enforcement, education, and 

557/3.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

499

unnecessary since there are already many other 

trailheads in the maps. The expense is probably 

better used on other projects.

management. 

2031 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I own 40 acres within the boundaries of the 

BHNF on T1N 05E Section 18 (see attached 

map) [ATT 1]. My legal access is through an 

easement on the private property to the south. My 

comments pertain to your plan to open trails and 

roads around the property. Open 675.1 and 

675.1A as shown in map D. Open 675.1N to 

reach the private property. However, these roads 

should be open only seasonally and only if 

adequate funding is established to build bridges 

and culverts across Middle Nugget Creek. If you 

are going to open 675.1N then I would like to ask 

that you open 675.1N to give me access to my 

property from the north [see ATT 1]. It is a short 

stretch on higher ground that should not have an 

impact on any sensitive areas.

Comment has been evaluated and will be considered in 

the Record of Decision.

558/1.

2032 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Alternative A misrepresents road 675.1 as being 

open. Today, this road is closed year-round on 

both sides by a series of permanent gates, tank 

traps, and boulders. It was closed seven years ago 

by the Forest Service after discussions regarding 

the sensitive riparian areas and the fact that the 

road has multiple perennial crossings. It came as a 

surprise to see this road shown as open in all the 

maps.

Alternatives A and E show FSR 675.1 as a seasonally 

open route. This is a mapping error, as this route is 

currently closed yearlong, and would continue as such in 

a corrected Alternative E. Comment has been evaluated 

and will be considered in the Record of Decision.

558/2.

2033 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The road 675.1 has aesthetic value because of the 

varied vegetation, the winding stream with 

waterfalls, and the old growth trees. If the Forest 

Service decides to open 675.1 it must set aside 

resources to incorporate appropriate stream 

crossings including the building of structures 

(culverts, bridges, etc) and other protective 

measures. The stream is significant enough that it 

carries brown trout. Direct effects to fish will 

occur where vehicles drive through the perennial 

stream or when in-water construction occurs. In 

August 2007, Ranger Jeremy Rogers (Mystic 

Alternative E includes FSR 675.1 as a seasonally closed 

route. This is a mapping error, as this route is currently 

closed yearlong, and would continue as such in a 

corrected Alternative E. Comment has been evaluated 

and will be considered in the Record of Decision.

558/3.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

500

office) conducted a site visit. During the height of 

the drought it was confirmed by him that there is 

a perennial stream down that Gulch. The road 

crosses the stream multiple times creating boggy 

conditions. It was originally closed because of the 

damage it was creating. Please get Mr. Rogers‟ 

opinion before deciding to open this road.

2034 Route 

Specific 

Comment

MY90 as shown in Alternative B is non-existent 

on the ground. The area is very steep and 

impassable. There is very little evidence of any 

sort of trail there and the route has probably not 

been used in over 40 years. To make this road 

usable, the Forest Service will have to invest in 

heavy equipment and road construction. Even if a 

road were to be built, it would face north and east 

and therefore be unusable for most of the year. 

Being that there are so many trails and roads 

already open it is not recommended to spend time 

and resources in building this new road.

MY 90 does not exist and is not included as a motorized 

route in Alternatives C, D, or E.

558/4.

2035 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Eliminate 675.1G, 675.1L, 675.1K, 675.1H, 

675.1I, 249.2D, 249.2B, 249.2C, 249.2A, 249.2E, 

and all other spurs and connectors. These trails 

are all currently closed behind locked gates. Please 

leave them closed.

Alternative E includes the FSR 675.1X system as 

seasonally closed routes. This is a mapping error, as 

these routes are currently closed yearlong, and would 

continue as such in a corrected Alternative E. FSR 

249.2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, and 2E are closed in Alternatives D 

and E. Comment has been evaluated and will be 

considered in the Record of Decision.

558/5.

2036 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Eliminate 675.1G, 675.1L, 675.1K, 675.1H, 

675.1I, 249.2D, 249.2B, 249.2C, 249.2A, 249.2E, 

MY90 and all other spurs and connectors. These 

trails while high and dry cannot be connected 

together because of the deep gulch (675.1) that 

separates them. There is no way for them to be 

connected and therefore will remain dead-end 

spurs. It is best to eliminate them altogether.

MY 90 does not exist and is not included as a motorized 

route in Alternatives C, D, or E. Alternative E includes 

the FSR 675.1X system as seasonally closed routes. 

This is a mapping error, as these routes are currently 

closed yearlong, and would continue as such in a 

corrected Alternative E. FSR 249.2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, and 

2E are closed in Alternatives D and E.

558/6.

2037 Route 

Specific

Comment

Eliminate 675.1G, 675.1L, 675.1K, 675.1H, 

675.1I, 249.2D, 249.2B, 249.2C, 249.2A, 249.2E, 

MY90 and all other spurs and connectors. There 

is already an overabundance of trails open north 

of Silver City and therefore it is not prudent to 

open any more south of Silver City. The heavy 

MY 90 does not exist and is not included as a motorized 

route in Alternatives C, D, or E. Alternative E includes 

the FSR 675.1X system as seasonally closed routes. 

This is a mapping error, as these routes are currently 

closed yearlong, and would continue as such in a 

corrected Alternative E. FSR 249.2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, and 

558/7.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

501

concentration of ATVs and motorcycles around 

this part of the Hills is bothersome. As a private 

owner I would prefer to not have any trails or 

roads open in the vicinity of this area.

2E are closed in Alternatives D and E.

2038 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Eliminate 675.1G, 675.1L, 675.1K, 675.1H, 

675.1I, 249.2D, 249.2B, 249.2C, 249.2A, 249.2E, 

MY90 and all other spurs and connectors. 

Alternatives B and C propose opening over 15 

trails and roads around my property [see ATT 1]. 

Today there is just one. I believe that our 

enjoyment and satisfaction of our land is being 

disproportionately disrupted with all these trails. 

It is hard to see any other private owner who is 

being affected to the degree that we are with all 

the motorized activity that you are proposing. 

Please leave the situation in this area as it is today. 

Do not add more trails.

MY 90 does not exist and is not included as a motorized 

route in Alternatives C, D, or E. Alternative E includes 

the FSR 675.1X system as seasonally closed routes. 

This is a mapping error, as these routes are currently 

closed yearlong, and would continue as such in a 

corrected Alternative E. FSR 249.2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, and

2E are closed in Alternatives D and E.

558/8.

2039 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Do not have any year-round connector between 

Hill City and Pactola/Silver City. FSR 249 should 

stay seasonal from the intersection of FSR 251 all 

the way to the intersection of FSR 530. Today, 

the only way to go year round between Hill City 

and Pactola / Silver City is through Hwy 385 or 

through Mystic (231.1 and Rochford Road). It 

should stay this way. The fact is that this area 

south and west of Silver City has steep gulches 

and narrow canyons. It is not conducive for yearround travel .The watershed feeds Rapid Creek. 

In the spring, the water coming down nugget 

creek (FSR 249) can reach 12 cfs. It is not 

advisable to have vehicle traffic crossing the 

stream.

FSR 249 remains closed seasonally from just north of 

FSR 254 to the junction with FSR 251 in Alternative E.

558/9.

2040 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Do not have any year-round connector between 

Hill City and Pactola/Silver City. FSR 249 should 

stay seasonal from the intersection of FSR 251 all 

the way to the intersection of FSR 530. If you 

absolutely need to have a year-round connector 

from Silver City to Hill City, I would recommend 

you establish the current route FSR 251 to FSR 

244 to FSR 249. Please leave 675.1A and 249 as 

FSR 249 remains closed seasonally from just north of 

FSR 254 to the junction with FSR 251 in Alternative E. 

FSR 675.1A is seasonally open in Alternative E.

558/10.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

502

seasonal only. They traverse lower elevations and 

therefore carry more perennial streams.

2041 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I am in strong opposition to the way that 

Alternative C and D address the need for yearround connectors. The Alternative maps show 

FSR 249 as seasonal but opens 675.1 for all 

vehicle year-round travel. This will have the effect 

of moving all year-round traffic through 675.1. 

Remember that 675.1 was closed seven years ago 

because of the damage that very light traffic was 

causing on the riparian areas. Opening it yearround to all vehicles and diverting more traffic 

through the road is completely unworkable and 

irresponsible.

FSR 249 remains closed seasonally from just north of 

FSR 254 to the junction with FSR 251 in Alternative E. 

Alternative E includes FSR 675.1A as a seasonally 

closed route. This is a mapping error, as these routes 

are currently closed yearlong, and would continue as 

such in a corrected Alternative E. 

558/11.

2042 Route 

Specific 

Comment

MY13 was built two years ago when the Forest 

Service conducted a controlled burn in the area. It 

is not part of the inventory of trails. The trail 

serves no purpose and there is no need to add 

new trails to the system. [Eliminate MY13]

MY 13 was eliminated in Alternatives D and E. 558/12.

2043 Route 

Specific 

Comment

[Eliminate 244.1A and My13] MY13 and 244.1A 

could be opened but only in the event that 675.1 

were to remain closed. In that case MY13 and 

244.1A would be helpful since they would serve 

as a connector through FSR 244.

FSR 244.1A and MY 13 were eliminated in Alternative 

D, and FSR 244.1A is seasonally open to highway legal 

vehicles only in Alternative E.

558/13.

2044 Route 

Specific 

Comment

[See ATT 1] Great rock crawling in this area. 

Some trails we have been using form many years 

are not shown on Alternative. Map not detailed 

enough to show routes. These routes have been 

turned in but not shown. Advanced rock crawling 

and very sustainable routes!

Routes not shown on the Alternative maps were not 

analyzed and are outside the scope of this document.

559/1.

2045 Route 

Specific 

Comment

[See ATT 1] This trail used to be a loop but rock 

slide eliminated 4x4 travel. Still a great trail along 

with others in this area are not shown on 

alternatives. May need some maintenance due to 

downed trees. Most of the roads in this area 

should be open to mixed use not just 50" or less. 

Perfect areas for loops and lookout areas for 

families and handicapped.

Routes not shown on the Alternative maps were not 

analyzed and are outside the scope of this document.

559/3.

2046 Route 

Specific 

[See ATT 1] Many great trails in this area- good 

for loops and possibly a “learning area.” The sand 

Routes in this area were not previously submitted, and 

therefore are outside the scope and cannot be 

559/6.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

503

Comment area is a great destination because of the variety 

and beauty-good spot to educate and for others to 

learn about the history of the area.

considered at this time. In addition, this area is under 

special use permit for non-motorized use. The sand 

area referenced is on private property and not subject to 

Forest Service jurisdiction.

2047 Route 

Specific 

Comment

[See ATT 1] Two great trails shown but a good 

area to expand the trail system. Many mixed use 

and rock crawling opportunities in this area. 

Could expand to an “open” area or used as a way 

to work with Forest Service to see how multi-use 

this area could be.

Routes in this area were not previously submitted, and 

therefore are outside the scope and cannot be 

considered at this time. 

559/7.

2048 Route 

Specific 

Comment

[See ATT 1] Amazing area for expanding trail 

system. Basically nothing is shown on Alternative 

for any motorized. A few good advanced 4x4 

trails exist and have been submitted but not 

shown. The one 50" or less should be mixed use 

because it is a great trail with beautiful views and 

has been there for many years. This area is 

perfectly suited for an “open” area. Many existing 

trails along with quarries and sustainable riding 

areas.

Additional trails in this area will be considered by the 

Decision Maker and documented in the Record of 

Decision for this project.

559/8.

2049 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I am opposed to opening the five trails [not 

identified by respondent] to OHV in the Black 

Hills National Forest currently under 

consideration. I currently utilize these areas 

because they are restricted to OHVs. I am not 

opposed to OHV use in designated areas and 

believe the Black Hills has a wonderful trail 

system for OHVs. There are plenty of resources 

available for all to enjoy while respecting others 

choices and the future for all.

While it's uncertain exactly which trails are of concern, 

some non-motorized trails have been included in the 

motorized opportunities since they overlap with existing 

open motorized roads. Various numbers of routes were 

analyzed in Alternatives B through E. Any decision 

about routes selected will be documented in the Record 

of Decision.

560/1.

2050 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I am writing in regard to a road that is the access 

to my property and does not show up on the 

maps. It is only about 3/4 miles long. The road 

has been there for 100+ years and is partly on my 

property and partly on Forest Service land, 

approximately 50/50. It used to be part of the 

Jenny Gulch Road. In 1972 the Forest Service 

decided to build a new road up on the ridge. I 

gave a small piece of land to them in order to 

build the road. The new road shows up on the 

This route was not considered in any Alternative since it 

is not a Forest System Road, and it was not considered 

as part of the trail system since it dead ends at private 

property. This road will need to be dealt with as an 

easement issue by the Northern Hills Ranger District to 

allow access to private property across NFS lands.

564/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

504

map as 2613. I did receive the opportunity to tie 

into the road, which I have done and have 

continued using... I do not mind that it doesn't 

show up on the map, because it has been dead 

ended as per agreement and only goes to my 

property. I just want you to know the details as to 

why the road is there.

2051 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Fortunately, the Pleasant Valley area near us has 

very little traffic which should warrant that most 

existing roads and trails remain open.

I appreciate your thoughts and in sights into this Travel 

management process thus far. Your comments and 

recommendations will be considered by the Decision 

Maker. Although the examples of interconnecting trails 

off of Forest Service Road 504 and 286 were not 

designated as trails in the alternatives for the DEIS

because of resource concerns, it is possible that some 

other routes could be considered for designation at 

some time in the future.

565/4.

2052 Route 

Specific 

Comment

[From ATT 1] Here are some examples of 

interconnecting trails with designated roads: Off 

of 504 from Wabash Spring Rd (781), there is a 

trail .7 mi. in and another .9 mi in. Both of these 

trails should be designated trails open to vehicles 

50" or less in width (seasonally). They both 

intersect with 654 which then connects to Upper 

French Creek Road (286). If you have to stay on 

504, it goes south and connects to 286 way down 

by Hwy 16 which causes the rider to travel much 

farther north on the road instead of in the forest. 

If the ATV is not street legal, the rider would 

have to backtrack.

I appreciate your thoughts and in sights into this Travel 

management process thus far. Your comments and 

recommendations will be considered by the Decision 

Maker. Although the examples of interconnecting trails 

off of Forest Service Road 504 and 286 were not 

designated as trails in the alternatives for the DEIS 

because of resource concerns, it is possible that some 

other routes could be considered for designation at 

some time in the future.

565/6.

2053 Route 

Specific 

Comment

[From ATT 1] There is an existing trail off of 286 

just before Diamond Road which drops onto 

654.1A.

I appreciate your thoughts and in sights into this Travel 

management process thus far. Your comments and 

recommendations will be considered by the Decision 

Maker. Although the examples of interconnecting trails 

off of Forest Service Road 504 and 286 were not 

designated as trails in the alternatives for the DEIS 

because of resource concerns, it is possible that some 

other routes could be considered for designation at 

some time in the future.

565/7.

2054 Route 

Specific 

[From ATT 1] There are many existing trails and 

logging roads off of 413 between 286, 284, and 

I appreciate your thoughts and in sights into this Travel 

management process thus far. Your comments and 

565/8.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

505

Comment 284.1A. recommendations will be considered by the Decision 

Maker. Although the examples of interconnecting trails 

off of Forest Service Road 504 and 286 were not 

designated as trails in the alternatives for the DEIS 

because of resource concerns, it is possible that some 

other routes could be considered for designation at 

some time in the future.

2055 Route 

Specific 

Comment

[From ATT 1] Please do not allow ATV riders to 

ride in ditches along Hwy 16 west of Custer.

The Forest Service does not have jurisdiction over the 

ditches in the US16 highway right-of-way, and so cannot 

make decisions on uses allowed there. 

565/12.

2056 Route 

Specific 

Comment

This trailhead [Top 50] is important to ensure the 

Black Hills Travel Management system remains 

socially acceptable, economically sustainable, and 

environmentally sound.

Top 50 trailhead is on private property and not within 

FS jurisdiction therefore it is outside the scope of this 

document.

566/10.

2057 Route 

Specific 

Comment

This trailhead ensures access to the hills for the 

public use... whether they use it for education, 

hiking, biking or motorized activity.

Top 50 trailhead is on private property and not within 

FS jurisdiction therefore it is outside the scope of this 

document.

567/10.

2058 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Gateway communities like this [Top 50 Trailhead] 

are essential to the preservation of the forest and 

the public‟s right to access and use the land 

designated for these purposes.

Top 50 trailhead is on private property and not within 

FS jurisdiction therefore it is outside the scope of this 

document.

567/11.

2059 Route 

Specific 

Comment

This project [Top 50 Trailhead] is good for the 

off-road community. It offers many benefits to 

those who will access Black Hills trails from the 

Piedmont area and appears to have [no] 

disadvantages whatsoever. Please join me in 

supporting this project.

Top 50 trailhead is on private property and not within 

FS jurisdiction therefore it is outside the scope of this 

document.

568/10.

2060 Route 

Specific 

Comment

This trailhead [Top 50 Trailhead] very 

accommodating to get to and its very user friendly 

for all types of hills recreation. Excellent location!

Top 50 trailhead is on private property and not within 

FS jurisdiction therefore it is outside the scope of this 

document.

569/10.

2061 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I strongly support the development of the Top 50 

Trailhead Project as a gateway to the proposed 

BHNF OHV Trail System.

Top 50 trailhead is on private property and not within 

FS jurisdiction therefore it is outside the scope of this 

document.

572/10.

2062 Route 

Specific 

Comment

This trailhead [Top 50 Trailhead] is a much 

needed addition to my business. Approximately 

60% of the guests at the Covered Wagon Resort 

come here to play in the hills. At this time their 

access to the trails is half highway, half ditch. It is 

dangerous, and will not be accessible at all from 

here soon. It is imperative that we do something 

Top 50 trailhead is on private property and not within 

FS jurisdiction therefore it is outside the scope of this 

document.

574/10.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

506

to insure access for everyone and this is a perfect 

solution to the problem from this trailhead we 

can endure the proper education is available for 

touring the hills.

2063 Route 

Specific 

Comment

This [Top 50 Trailhead] would be great. If it 

could connect with the Piedmont Fire Trail 

Parking area as well this would make a nice loop 

and provide more opportunities to ride different 

trails. We were in Piedmont this year and spent 2 

weeks riding in the Black Hills, it would have 

been nice if more trails joined together. We were 

in Utah last year and many of their trails were 

connected making large systems containing 

hundreds of miles of trails/roads. Within these 

systems the trails took us to points of interests 

and towns providing food, lodging and supplies.

Top 50 trailhead is on private property and not within 

FS jurisdiction therefore it is outside the scope of this 

document.

575/10.

2064 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The same thing [as Top 50 Trailhead] should be 

developed for motorcycle trails in the Rochford 

area.

Rochford in on private property and not within FS 

jurisdiction therefore it is outside the scope of this 

document.

576/10.

2065 Route 

Specific 

Comment

This [Top 50 Trailhead] will be a great asset to the 

Black Hills and surrounding communities!

Top 50 trailhead is on private property and not within 

FS jurisdiction therefore it is outside the scope of this 

document.

577/10.

2066 Route 

Specific 

Comment

There is a dispute between OHV promoters and 

locals in Piedmont about the OHV trails near 

Piedmont. The Top 50 Rally Park near Piedmont 

is proposing a new off road trail [NH 9] through 

an undeveloped section line into the National 

Forest near Piedmont. The OHV want to have a 

trail that some of the locals don‟t want. The road 

the new trail would connect to is a road the 

Forest Service has been unsuccessfully trying to 

close for years and that the Norbeck Society has 

proposed be eliminated in the new travel 

management plan, we agree with t hem. We 

[Prairie Hills Audubon Society] support the use of 

the Piedmont Fire Trail as primary access for 

OHVers to the National Forest in this area.

NH 9 was proposed in Alt C and removed from 

Alternatives B, D and E. Any decision about selected 

routes will be documented in the Record of Decision.

578/10.

2067 Route 

Specific 

Comment

We [Prairie Hills Audubon Society] request a 

buffer around all Inventoried Roadless Areas -

attempt to have very low road and OHV impacts 

Buffered routes around all inventoried roadless areas are 

beyond the scope of this document. The rock crawler 

route U080156 was analyzed in Alternatives B and C 

578/27.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

507

around them. We object to the rock crawler road 

just south of Beaver Park.

and removed from Alternatives D and E. Any decision 

about selected routes will be documented in the Record 

of Decision.

2068 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Pole Cabin Gulch/Surprise Gulch: Within this 

area we [Prairie Hills Audubon Society] object to 

803.1B, U710029, 804.16 (Surprise 

Gulch/Rattlesnake) and to U710034 

(Surprise/Guidinger). The only road allowed in 

this area should be the main route of Pole Cabin, 

and lower sections of Surprise Gulch road, and 

main route up to Cement Ridge from Rattlesnake 

and connecting to 801/101. All the crummy, 

primitive roads need to be deleted to consolidate 

a large SPM [semi primitive motorized], SPNM 

[semi-primitive non-motorized] and/or RNNM 

[roaded natural non-motorized] area just south 

and east and north of Sand Creek. Upper Surprise 

is a total mud mess in spring and Guidinger is not 

much better.

These routes were eliminated under Alternative D of the 

DEIS and FEIS.

578/29.

2069 Route 

Specific 

Comment

We [Prairie Hills Audubon Society] object to 

802.1A (Pole Cabin to Spotted tail); it‟s a not 

necessary spur, and eliminate it and consolidate a 

Roadless Area and get rid of one useless road.

This route was eliminated under Alternative D of the 

DEIS and FEIS.

578/30.

2070 Route 

Specific 

Comment

One may wish to close either 802.2A near 

Welcome, either a seasonal or permanent or 

partial closure of 802.2A and join with the full 

closure of 802.1A to protect the south edge of a 

Roadless Area and protect Spotted Tail creek, 

which is between roads.

Forest Service road 802.2A accesses a private 

recreational cabin. 

578/31.

2071 Route 

Specific 

Comment

[Prairie Hills Audubon Society] Object to -

U710040 - leads off of Cement Ridge heading 

towards SD - consolidate a large SPM,[semiprimitive motorized] SPNM [semi-primitive nonmotorized] and/or RNNM [roaded natural nonmotorized] area - primitive area by getting rid of 

roads - leads down to large aspen area I think.

Route U710040 was eliminated from motorized 

opportunities under Alternative D of the DEIS and 

FEIS.

578/32.

2072 Route 

Specific 

Comment

We [Prairie Hills Audubon Society] are concerned 

for Rodger Shack springs area. It is part non 

commercial timber and grassland and part 

commercial timber. We request close all of or the 

Forest road 272.2a is a main gravel road that connects to 

FDR 272. It is heavily utilized by both Forest Service 

and private landowners for access. Forest road 272.2b 

is a spur road that could be considered for closure. The 

578/34.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

508

western parts of 272.2A (and also spur of 

272.2B).

Decision maker for this project will consider your 

request.

2073 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The Black Hawk Trailhead appears to be on the 

edge of private land along Peaceful Pines Road 

and in Piedmont the Trailhead appears to be on 

the edge of the Forest near private land. I request 

a much more detailed map of all trailheads that 

occur in or near communities and abut private 

land and detailed discussion about the impacts to 

the communities from the concentration of 

OHVs downloading within their neighborhoods. 

I suggest you expand the discussion of what 

happens to people living in communities that host 

a trailhead and that you discuss the disruption to 

our quiet, but also the effect on our property 

values. Anyone who follows real estate knows 

that houses in cities that exist along routes 

transforming to busy arterial streets convert from 

residential to rental and business as the people 

who can afford to live elsewhere move inwards 

away from traffic. Residential neighborhoods 

invaded by highways, large streets, railroads or 

other transportation loads eventually downgrade 

and become seedier and less residential. I request 

that within the range of alternatives some 

alternatives provide that all trailheads don‟t occur 

near a community or private land, but occur fully 

insulated by over a mile of FS property. I request 

that the Forest Service do sound studies on an 

OHV trailhead noise. Your statistics on decibels 

is for one vehicle not many. You need to discuss 

the noise from many OHVs together.

The Peaceful Pines trailhead was not included in 

Alternatives D or E. Comment has been evaluated and 

will be considered in the Record of Decision.

585/1.

2074 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Access near Piedmont: There is a dispute between 

OHV promoters and locals in Piedmont about 

the OHV trails near Piedmont. The Top 50 Rally 

Park near Piedmont is proposing a new off road 

trail [NH9] through an undeveloped section line 

into the National Forest near Piedmont. The 

OHV want to have a trail that some of the locals 

don‟t want. The road the new trail would connect 

NH 9 was proposed in Alt C and removed from 

Alternatives B, D and E. Any decision about selected 

routes will be documented in the Record of Decision.

588/16.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

509

to is a road the Forest Service has been 

unsuccessfully trying to close for years and that 

the Norbeck Society has proposed be eliminated 

in the new travel management plan.

2075 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The [NH9] trail invades the Stagebarn Canyon 

Complex and the Ricco Fire area that offer 

tremendous potential for hunting, elk habitat, 

horse-back riding and other non motorized uses 

that suffer from the harassment of recreational 

off road riding.

NH 9 was proposed in Alt C and removed from 

Alternatives B, D and E. Any decision about selected 

routes will be documented in the Record of Decision.

588/17.

2076 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The section line and hillside the proposed route 

[NH9] follows is more than twice as steep in 

places as would be allowed under current Meade 

County standards. Giving a variance to construct 

a road in such an inappropriate location will 

create an ongoing maintenance and drainage 

problem that will eventually fall on the shoulders 

of tax payers.

NH 9 was proposed in Alt C and removed from 

Alternatives B, D and E. Any routes selected would 

have mitigation measures in place for drainage. Any 

decision about selected routes will be documented in the 

Record of Decision.

588/18.

2077 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The Forest Service needs to solve the problems 

created by off road traffic accessing the Piedmont 

Fire Trail through downtown Piedmont. Having 

the Top 50 Trailhead less than a mile away from 

the Piedmont Fire Trail will promote ATV/UTV 

travel between the two trailheads. That traffic will 

have no other choice than to travel down city 

streets and alleys, across the drives of private 

residences and down the road ditch of Sturgis Rd. 

That is what happened during the three days of 

the last Top 50 Rally and it will happen on a daily 

basis if the new route is approved.

Top 50 trailhead and the town of Piedmont are on 

private properties and not within FS jurisdiction 

therefore it is outside the scope of this document.

588/19.

2078 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I support use of the Piedmont Fire Trail as 

primary access for OHVers to the National 

Forest in this area. The proposed Top 50 route is 

redundant, is utterly disrespectful of neighboring 

residents, and accesses a “play area” on unstable, 

easily-erodible Opeche Shale that has been a 

continuing area of abuse of our public lands.

Top 50 trailhead is on private property and not within 

FS jurisdiction therefore it is outside the scope of this 

document.

588/20.

2079 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Beaver Park: The rock crawler road should not be 

allowed in the MA [Management Area] 4.1 just 

south of the Inventoried Roadless Area. The MA 

U080156 in management area 4.1 was analyzed in 

Alternatives B and C and removed from Alternatives D 

and E. Any decision about selected routes will be 

588/22.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

510

4.1 was part of the 1991 Wilderness proposal, 

which asked for a larger version of Beaver Park. 

The FS should provide quiet zones in the areas 

around Roadless Areas and others areas identified 

for trails or Primitive, Semi-Primitive or RNNM 

[Road Natural Non Motorized] ROS 

[Recreational Opportunity Spectrum] class. 

Protecting the back-country areas is not enough; a 

buffer around special areas is needed.

documented in the Record of Decision. Buffered quiet 

zones around certain management areas are beyond the 

scope of this document.

2080 Route 

Specific 

Comment

High End ROS [Recreational Opportunity 

Spectrum]: While I care about OHV impacts to 

communities. I especially care about protecting 

the back-country. No roads or motorized trails 

should be allowed in Primitive, Semi-primitive or 

Roaded Natural Non-motorized areas. 

Concentrated Motorized Use Areas should not be 

placed near non-motorized trails such as the 

Centennial Trail.

Alternative D of the DEIS and FEIS was designed to 

reduce the impacts of motorized recreation on existing 

primitive, semi-primitive and roaded natural nonmotorized settings on the Black Hills National Forest

within the Forest Service's jurisdiction. Resource 

analysis is disclosed in Chapter 3. The Centennial Trail is 

currently motorized from Dalton Lake to Pilot Knob. 

Proposed concentrated use areas in this vicinity were 

eliminated in Alternative E.

588/23.

2081 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Attached find a map with some roads of concern 

near Sand Creek, circled - remove roads please.

For the routes indicated on the map for the Bearlodge 

RD, these routes were considered for removal from 

motorized opportunities on Alternative D of the DEIS 

and FEIS.

589/1.

2082 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Nugget Gulch must be closed during winter 

months as this will leave our elk herd 

undisturbed.

FSR 249 remains closed seasonally from just north of 

FSR 254 to the junction with FSR 251 in Alternative E.

591/4.

2083 Route 

Specific 

Comment

Closing of roads under the guise of “protection of 

habitat”: within 1/2 mile of my residence, Forest 

Service roads #s 396 and 794 off of Sylvan Lake 

Road have been gated and locked to motorized 

travel. These roads have been used for logging 

and open for timber cutting in the past. I am for 

logging as it opens up the forest for better 

production of browse for deer and elk, but please 

do not insult our intelligence by stating the 

purpose of closing these roads and others is for 

“preservation of habitat”. Dragging one tree out 

by logging causes more harm to the habitat than 

any ATV would do in a lifetime. Horse travel 

which is expressly permitted and not confined to 

roads (as most responsible ATV and 4WD 

I appreciate your thoughts and insights into this travel 

management process thus far. Your comments and 

recommendations will be considered by the Decision 

Maker.

592/1.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

511

operators confine themselves to) does more 

damage to the environment than ATV travel.

2084 Route 

Specific 

Comment

I live on Two Bit Road, just outside of Deadwood 

and have enjoyed accessing the trails that connect 

Two Bit Road to Camp 5 & Galena. None of the 

proposed plans [alternatives] connect to Two Bit 

Road or Galena. With any of these plans I would 

have to trailer my ATVs to get to Camp 5 and 

would not be able to access Galena or the trails 

east of Galena.

The routes between Two Bit Road and Galena are on 

private property and not within FS jurisdiction and 

therefore outside the scope of this document. The FS 

will continue to work with other local governments so 

that access can be provided when possible.

603/14.

2085 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The BHMBA [Black Hills Mountain Bike 

Association] would like to raise concerns about 

plan [Alternative] C. The area around Shank‟s 

Quarry has been established as non-motorized 

area. Many trails have been created by mountain 

bikers and used by runners and hikers. This is an 

area that is in close to Rapid City, very accessible 

to these non-motorized users and in very close 

proximity of Buzzards Roost.

Many of the motorized routes in the Shank's Quarry 

area were removed in Alternative D, and are limited to 

highway legal vehicles only in Alternative E.

608/4.

2086 Route 

Specific 

Comment

The modification [to Alternative D] involves our 

[Spearfish Canyon Society] request to “keep 

roads/trails closed that had previous USFS public 

decision-making” particularly in the Tinton area 

around Big Hill. We regret that USFS may be 

lacking institutional memory on the significance 

and benefits of these earlier decisions.

In both Alternatives D and E roads in the Big Hill area 

that are currently closed were removed.

610/2.

2087 Attachments Attachments (Tables, Figures, Maps, Photos), 

associated with comment letters.

013/3. 024/4. 024/6. 035/2. 

037/6. 038/2. 120/2. 126/12. 

126/20. 126/48. 126/52. 

126/75. 126/77. 126/79. 

126/84. 126/153. 126/154. 

126/160. 126/172. 126/175. 

126/176. 126/177. 126/182. 

126/185. 126/260. 126/269. 

162/3. 312/2. 316/7. 317/28. 

317/29. 317/30. 317/31. 

317/32. 317/33. 317/34. 

317/35. 317/36. 317/37. 

317/38. 317/39. 317/40. 

317/41. 317/42. 317/43. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

512

317/44. 317/45. 317/46. 

317/47. 317/48. 317/49. 

317/50. 317/51. 317/52. 

317/53. 317/54. 317/55. 

317/56. 317/57. 317/58. 

317/59. 317/60. 317/ 61. 

317/62. 317/63. 319/50. 

319/57. 319/58. 319/80. 

319/83. 320/14. 320/15. 

320/16. 326/47. 346/14. 

346/36. 347/2. 348/2. 348/3. 

348/4. 348/5. 349/2. 349/3. 

350/2. 350/3. 350/4. 350/5. 

359/8. 360/7. 362/25. 367/7. 

377/4. 377/5. 377/6. 377/7. 

402/2. 414/13. 414/18. 414/39. 

414/44. 414/47. 414/80. 434/4. 

447/10. 453/29. 453/30. 

453/31. 453/32. 453/33. 

453/34. 453/35. 453/36. 

453/37. 453/38. 453/39. 

453/40. 453/41. 453.42. 456/6. 

456/15. 456/17. 456/23. 

456/46. 456/54. 456/63. 

456/64. 456/78. 456/87. 

456/103. 456/108. 456/148. 456/149. 456/150. 456/153. 

456/154. 456/155. 458/8. 

458/22. 458/24. 458/41. 

458/49. 458/65. 458/79. 

458/84. 460/16. 460/19. 

460/21. 460/23. 460/25. 

460/27. 460/29. 460/31. 

460/33. 460/34. 460/35. 

460/37. 460/39. 460/41. 

460/42. 460/44. 460/46. 

460/48. 460/50. 460/52. 

460/54. 460/56. 460/58. 

460/60. 460/64. 460/66. 

460/68. 460/79. 460/81. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

513

460/83. 460/85. 460/87. 

460/89. 460/91. 460/93. 

460/95. 460/97. 460/99. 

460/101. 460/103. 460/105. 

460/107. 460/109. 460/111. 

460/113. 460/115. 460/117. 

460/119. 461/43. 461/44. 

462/14. 462/19. 462/39. 

462/46. 462/47. 462/57. 

462/61. 462/64. 462/97. 

464/10. 464/35. 464/36. 

464/37. 466/1. 466/2. 466/3. 

466/4. 466/5. 466/6. 466/7. 

466/8. 466/9. 466/10. 466/11. 

466/12. 466/13. 466/14. 

466/15. 466/16. 466/17. 

466/18. 466/19. 466/20. 

466/21. 466/22. 466/23. 

466/24. 467/3. 467/4. 467/5. 

467/6. 467/7. 468/2. 469/6. 

469/7. 469/8. 469/9. 469/10. 

469/11. 469/12. 469/13. 

469/14. 470/5. 475/15. 475/16. 

475/17. 475/18. 475/19. 

479/16. 479/17. 479/18. 

479/19. 489/3. 490/3. 539/4. 

545/14. 558/14. 559/9. 579/2. 

579/3. 579/4. 579/5. 579/6. 

579/7. 580/4. 580/5. 580/6. 

581/4. 581/5. 581/6. 583/5. 

585/7. 589/2. 611/19.

2088 Letters 

Without 

Comments

Letters assigned a number, but containing no 

comments.

036/. 147/. 193/. 266/. 290/. 

291/. 352/. 383/. 455/. 466/. 

582/.

2089 Unassigned 

Numbers

Unassigned Numbers. 381/. 476/. 537/. 542/. 543/. 

550/. 551/. 552/. 553/. 554/. 

555/. 556/.