Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the

Proposed Action

Introduction

This chapter describes the alternatives considered for the Forest Travel Management Plan. The 

maps for each alternative considered are included in Appendix I, the map packet. This chapter 

also presents the alternatives in comparative form, defines the differences between each 

alternative, and provides a clear basis for choice among options by the decisionmaker and the 

public. Some of the information used to compare the alternatives is based on the design of the 

alternative and some of the information is based upon the expected environmental, social, and 

economic effects that could be expected from implementing each alternative. These effects are 

discussed in detail in Chapter 3 of this document.

Alternative Development

To support alternative development, information provided by the public and Forest personnel 

was used to develop a comprehensive inventory map of roads, trails, and areas across the Forest.

Public comments on the proposed action, public preferences concerning travel management 

expressed at meetings, and the knowledge of agency personnel were used to develop the 

alternative themes. The topics considered in developing the alternative themes include:

Motorized cross-country use in the form of big game retrieval and dispersed camping

Looped OHV trail opportunities

Access points (trailheads)

Noise

Conflicts with other uses of the National Forest including nonmotorized recreation

Effects on cultural resources

Effects on natural resources including plants, wildlife and watersheds

Spread of noxious weeds

Education and law enforcement

Economic feasibility

Administrative access

After the alternative themes were established, the alternatives were developed by examining 

each road, trail (whether system or nonsystem), and area. The ID team and District staff used 

site-specific comments and knowledge of specific site conditions to develop a strategy for the 

management of roads, trails, and areas based on the alternative theme. Alternatives were then 

checked for consistency with the Forest Plan.

Relationship of Alternatives to Forest Plan Direction

The Forest Plan defines a set of goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines that provide 

direction for managing the Forest and its resources. The law requires that individual project 

decisions be consistent with Forest Plan direction. If a project proposal is not consistent with that 

direction, the project may be modified to make it consistent; it may be dropped; or, the Plan may 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

2

be amended to allow implementation of the project. The alternatives presented in this document 

would manage motorized travel in different ways. Several changes to Forest Plan direction are 

proposed to update Plan direction and allow implementation of each action alternative.

Forest goals are broad statements that describe overall conditions managers would strive to 

achieve. They are not directly measurable and there are no timeframes for achieving them. Goals 

describe the ends to be achieved rather than the means to these ends; they serve as vision 

statements. Objectives provide means in the form of measurable steps required to accomplish 

goals. Objectives generally are achieved by implementing projects or activities. However, 

objectives are not targets, which are a measure of annual outputs dependent on budgets.

A standard is a course of action that must be followed, or a limit to actions that may be taken 

when implementing individual projects. Adherence to standards is mandatory. Consistency with 

the Forest Plan is defined as compliance with standards. Deviations from standards must be 

analyzed and documented in a Forest Plan amendment with appropriate public involvement.

A guideline is a preferred or advisable course of action, or a recommended limit to actions when 

implementing projects. Deviation from guidelines is allowed with clear and acceptable rationale.

A Forest Plan also establishes additional direction for individual management areas, each with 

a different management emphasis. Management area direction includes a desired condition 

statement and then defines which management activities may be carried out, with additional 

standards and guidelines as needed to manage or protect specific resources within the boundaries 

of those areas. Wilderness and developed recreation sites are two examples of management areas 

with very different management emphasis.

Forest Plan Goals and Objectives

The Travel Management Plan would meet goals and objectives established in the Forest Plan, 

although the relative emphasis varies by alternative. Some of the relevant goals found in the 

Forest Plan include:

(Goal 1) Protect basic soil, air, water, and cave resources.

(Goal 2) Provide for a variety of life through management of biologically diverse 

ecosystems.

(Goal 4) Provide for scenic quality, a range of recreational opportunities and protection 

of cultural resources in response to the needs of the Forest visitors and local 

communities.

(Goal 6) Improve financial efficiency for all programs and projects.

(Goal 7) Emphasize cooperation with individuals, organizations and other agencies 

while coordinating planning and project implementation.

(Goal 8) Promote rural development opportunities.

Relevant Forest Plan standards and guidelines are cited in individual resource sections in 

Chapter 3, and can be reviewed in the Forest Plan.
Features Shared by All Alternatives

Any selected alternative would provide for the following:

Emergency - Search and rescue and other emergency operations, and the use of any fire, 

military, or law enforcement vehicle for emergency purposes would be exempted from travel 

management prohibitions.

Emergency Closure - Emergency closure would be implemented by the responsible official as 

warranted to protect resources, health and safety, etc. Federal land managers are directed to 

ensure that the use of motorized vehicles and off-road vehicles are managed to protect the 

resources of those lands, to promote the safety of users, to minimize conflicts among the diverse 

uses of the Federal lands, and to provide for public use of routes designated as open. (Executive 

Order 11644, 26 CFR 212 and 43 CFR 8342.1.)

Future Changes - The final rule recognizes that the designations of roads, trails, and areas for 

motorized vehicle use are not permanent and that environmental impacts, administrative needs, 

changes in demand, route construction, and monitoring conducted under the final rule may lead 

land managers to consider revising designations. (36 CFR 212.54, 212.57.) Nothing in this plan 

precludes future project-specific environmental analysis from proposing construction of new 

system roads and trails, or annual changes to roads and trails and areas as conditions warrant.

Administrative Access - The Forest Service would retain administrative access authority 

sufficient to carry out official business including but not limited to conducting resource surveys, 

administering contracts and permits, suppressing wildfires or addressing other such emergencies, 

maintaining roads and other facilities, etc.

Access would also be allowed to contractors and permit holders operating within the terms and 

scope of their contract or permit, to conduct Government-related business. This specifically 

would include, but not be limited to commercial traffic such as timber sale purchasers, road 

contractors, and those holding special use and livestock grazing permits.

Reasonable administrative access would be allowed as appropriate for other local, State and 

Federal agencies to manage their adjacent or isolated parcels. If a National Forest System road or 

a specially designated OHV trail is needed for timber or fuels management or fire suppression, 

all OHV use, both highway-legal and non-highway-legal, would be temporarily suspended or 

could even be permanently discontinued. Substitute routes may, or may not, be designated.

Special seasons of use and other restrictions on operations of all OHVs, both highway-legal and 

non-highway-legal, would not necessarily pertain to timber, fire, and fuels management activities 

unless they are applied in a decision to implement those projects.

Language in existing permits or contracts would not be interpreted to allow OHV use where it is 

otherwise prohibited. For example, a firewood permit that allows the permittee to collect 

firewood from areas where motorized game retrieval is prohibited would not be construed to 

allow motorized game retrieval under the guise of collecting firewood.

Permitted Access – Those currently holding legally documented easements or rights-of-way 

allowing for motorized use under law or pursuant to reserved or outstanding rights would not be 

subject to prohibitions on motor vehicle use as it is allowed to them (36 CFR 261.13(h)).

Activities authorized by a permit would continue to be governed by the terms of that permit, and 

motor vehicle use specifically allowed under such permits would not be affected by the 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

4

Alternative A would continue the current 

situation. Cross-country motorized use 

would continue on 864,000 acres in an 

unregulated manner. The trail system 

would consist of the existing 36 miles of 

motorized trails. User compliance and law 

enforcement would continue to be difficult 

without an approved MVUM. Resource 

damage and conflicts with nonmotorized

recreationists would continue to take 

place, and motorized users would not 

enjoy a planned travel system designed to 

meet their needs.

restrictions proposed here (36 CFR 212.51(a)(8)). Individuals could continue to seek Forest 

Service authorization for motorized use for access to private property, or in association with 

other authorized uses of National Forest System lands. Examples of situations in which 

motorized uses would be exempt from prohibitions include:

The owner of property within the boundaries of the National Forest requires use of 

motorized vehicles for reasonable use and enjoyment of the property and obtains a 

permit or easement from the Forest Service.

The holder of a grazing permit requires use of motorized vehicles for maintenance of 

water systems, repair of fencing, or other livestock management activities and obtains 

authorization from the Forest Service under the grazing permit.

An individual requires motorized access to a mining claim or mineral lease and obtains 

Forest Service authorization under a plan of operations or surface use plan.

Description of the Alternatives

The alternatives, including no action and 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. After reviewing the issues and grouping them in 

different combinations, several possible alternative themes emerged. Each represented a 

potential travel plan that met the project objectives (purpose and need) and addressed the issues 

in different ways.

Alternatives considered in detail are described below in terms of their theme and the relationship 

to the issues. The theme focuses on a particular issue or a group of compatible issues (for 

example, limiting effects of motorized use to natural resources and reducing conflicts with 

nonmotorized users). The relationship to issues further explains how specific elements of the 

issues are addressed by the alternative.

Alternatives Considered in Detail

In addition to no action and the proposed action, the Forest Service developed three other 

alternatives in response to issues raised by the public. These alternatives are presented after the 

no action and proposed action alternatives.

Alternative A – No Action

NEPA regulations at 40 CFR 1502.14 

require that “agencies shall...include the 

alternative of no action.” This is intended 

to provide a baseline against which the 

effects of other alternatives can be 

measured.

Under this alternative, there would be no 

change from present management. Current 

management plans would continue to guide 

motorized travel in the project area.

Current travel patterns, modes of use and 

enforcement actions would be expected to 
continue.

There are presently 10,280 miles of existing routes on National Forest System lands, including 

some 4,109 miles of known unauthorized routes. There are about 820 miles of other public roads 

on National Forest System lands, which would not be affected by the decision on this project.

This alternative would continue the current “passive” travel system, meaning a travel system that 

was not designed to accommodate recreational motorized use of various types. Continuation of 

use on the current system would not meet the recommendation of the NFAB Travel 

Subcommittee to establish an “active” motorized travel system. The sheer size of the existing 

system would continue to present the Forest Service with many maintenance challenges.

No motor vehicle use map would be issued, so no roads, trails, or areas would be officially 

designated open to motorized-vehicle travel on lands administered by the Forest. As a result, if 

this alternative were selected the Forest Service would not comply with the 2005 travel rule.

Future project decisions could consider designating unauthorized routes as part of the travel 

system; however, no unauthorized routes would be officially designated part of the Forest system 

by selecting this alternative.

Vehicles - South Dakota State law requires that motor vehicles using public roads be registered 

and bear a vehicle license (highway-legal). Wyoming State law allows use of both highway-legal 

and non-highway-legal motor vehicles on certain enrolled roads.

Vehicle Operators - Current State law in both South Dakota and Wyoming requires that motor 

vehicles on public roads be operated only by licensed drivers.

Cross-country Use - About 864,000 acres of the Forest currently open to motorized crosscountry use would remain open. Motorized cross-country travel presently is undertaken for a 

variety of purposes including retrieval of big game harvested by hunters, dispersed camping, and 

general OHV recreational traffic.

Currently, no roads or trails are officially designated open to motorized vehicle use as 

contemplated in the Final Travel Management Rule. Motorized use occurring on roads, trails, 

and in areas where such use is not specifically prohibited has generally been legal within Federal 

regulation if it is not damaging natural resources. Such motorized use has also generally been 

legal within the bounds of state law if the vehicle is highway-legal and the operator is licensed.

Attempts by Forest Service law enforcement personnel to successfully prosecute citations for 

resource damage in courts of law have been made difficult by the need to witness the accused in 

the act of damaging resources. Since law enforcement officers do not witness most such 

instances, many cases have not been prosecuted fully. If Alternative A were selected, it is 

expected that these enforcement difficulties would continue. It is expected that the use of 

unauthorized routes, and the proliferation of new unauthorized routes, would also continue. 

Motorized recreation opportunities under Alternative A are characterized in Table 1.

Please refer to Table 7 for parameters further describing this alternative, and to compare this 

alternative to others.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

6

Table 1. Indicators of motorized recreation opportunities in Alternative A (no action)

Indicators Alternative A

(current condition)

Roads

Miles of road open to all vehicles (motorized-mixed-use roads) 160

Miles of road open to highway legal vehicles only (non-highway-legal vehicles 

prohibited) 3,580

Total miles of roads 3,740

Trails

Miles of trail open to all vehicles 0

Miles of trail open to vehicles 50 inches or less in width 36

Miles of motorcycle trail 0

Miles of special designations 0

Total miles of trails 36

Total miles of proposed motorized routes 3,776

Number of motorized-use trailheads 7

Area open to Motorized Cross-country Use

Acres open to dispersed camping (motorized) 864,000

Acres open to game retrieval (motorized) 864,000

Acres open to cross-country travel (nongame retrieval) 864,000

Total area open to motorized cross-country travel (acres) (Note: not 

additive) 864,000

Action Alternatives – Alternatives B through E

Alternatives B through E are referred to in this document as the action alternatives, to distinguish 

them from Alternative A, the no action alternative. The action alternatives include Alternative B, 

the modified proposed action, and Alternatives C, D and E, which were developed to address 

concerns expressed by the public about the proposed action.

Features Common to Action Alternatives

The following features would be incorporated in each action alternative unless stated otherwise.

Compliance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule - Each action alternative would 

designate selected roads and trails open to motorized-vehicle travel on lands administered by the 

Forest, and set specific seasons and types of use for designated roads, trails and areas. Coupled 

with publication of the Forest motor vehicle use map (see below), the Forest Service would 

comply with the requirements of the 2005 Travel Management Rule (36 CFR Parts 212, 251 and 

261).

Motor Vehicle Use Map - For any action alternative selected, a motor vehicle use map would be 

produced depicting those routes and areas that would be open to motorized travel. The motor 

vehicle use map would be the primary tool used to determine compliance with and to enforce 

motorized travel designations. Routes not designated open on the motor vehicle use map would 

be legally closed to motorized travel except for administrative access. User responsibilities and 

law enforcement would focus on compliance with the motor vehicle use map, pursuant to 

regulations at 36 CFR 261, Subpart A. The Forest Service believes this would tend to improve 

user understanding of acceptable behavior and use of the motorized system, and to facilitate 

enforcement and prosecution of violations.
Sound - A stationary sound limit of 96 decibels (dB(A)) is proposed for OHVs including 

motorcycles operating on designated routes and areas administered by the Black Hills National 

Forest. The stationary sound test procedure provided by the Society of American Engineers 

(SAE J1287) would be the standard used to determine compliance with this sound limit.

Enforcement would be based on measurement conducted by Forest trail rangers and law 

enforcement personnel, but measurement for educational purposes could also be performed by 

dealers, clubs, and other groups. A Forest order may be needed to implement this feature.

New Construction Efforts Associated With Action Alternatives B, C, and D - Alternatives B, 

C, and D involve designating between 181 and 460 miles of routes as trails 65 inches or less in 

width in South Dakota, 50 inches or less in Wyoming (year-round and seasonal), between 21 and 

134 miles of motorcycle trails, and between 23 and 34 trailheads. Many of the trails proposed to 

be designated are roads currently closed (maintenance level (ML) 1), low-standard roads (ML 2), 

unauthorized routes that were old roads, routes that were pioneered by cross-country travel, or 

trails that are proposed but currently have no physical form on the ground. Routes to be added 

that were identified by citizens, and routes defined by ranger districts to complete loops or 

otherwise complement the motorized system, are those most likely to require reconstruction or 

some limited new construction to support recreation in an environmentally sustainable manner.

Construction efforts that would be needed to provide an environmentally sustainable trail system 

from these beginnings would include several different tasks: reconstructing some existing ML 1 

roads and some old roadbeds to support and endure concentrated ATV or motorcycle traffic, 

constructing new engineered trails where only tracks now exist, constructing stream crossings 

(bridges, culverts, etc.) where needed, and constructing new trailheads. The construction 

methods would vary depending on the level of effort needed, and could involve use of equipment

ranging from a small trail dozer to a road grader to rework existing roadbeds or create a parking 

lot for a trailhead. A State stormwater permit would have to be secured prior to new construction 

of any facilities over a certain size (generally one acre) in either Wyoming or South Dakota.

Such a permit would be required if the facility did not qualify for a silvicultural exemption, such 

as a road needed primarily for a timber sale.

Game Retrieval and Dispersed Camping in Action Alternatives B and C - Limited motorized 

cross-country use would be allowed in Alternatives B and C for the purposes of retrieving legally 

harvested game and for dispersed camping. Motorized game retrieval and dispersed camping 

would be allowed where shown on the alternative maps, and as generally described in the 

alternative descriptions. For game retrieval, there would be no restriction on time of day. Only 

one vehicle would be allowed off-road to retrieve each harvested animal, but more than one pass 

of this single vehicle would be allowed as needed. Persons retrieving a game animal would be 

required to use the most direct route to and from the nearest designated open route, possess a 

valid hunting license, and keep weapons cased during game retrieval.

For both game retrieval and dispersed camping, resource damage would not be allowed as a 

result of the activity (for example, cutting live vegetation or leaving wheel ruts on the ground).

Crossing streams would not be allowed if water is present (except on designated routes), and 

crossing wetlands would not be allowed.

Alternative B – Modified Proposed Action

Alternative B represents the action proposed by the Forest Service to the public during scoping.

It has been modified since that time to correct data errors, and some routes or areas have been 

added or deleted. However, the intent of this alternative is the same as the original proposed 

action on which the public was asked to comment at scoping. Alternative B incorporates, to a 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

8

Alternative B would meet most NFAB 

recommendations to provide an active 

travel system while protecting resources and 

reducing conflicts with other users. It would 

provide 2,226 miles of mixed-use roads and 

boost motorized trails to 663 miles, and limit 

cross-country motorized use to 179,000 acres 

for game retrieval and dispersed camping 

only. The MVUM would make user 

compliance and law enforcement easier.

Resource damage and conflicts with 

nonmotorized recreationists would be 

reduced, and motorized users would find a 

planned travel system designed to meet 

their needs.

Motorized Trail System

(MTS) – a defined area 

featuring smaller-scale 

loop routes and other 

motorized travel 

opportunities.

greater degree than any other alternative, 

the initial input from the National Forest 

Advisory Board and Travel 

Subcommittee, and citizen-user input 

received during public meetings and 

workshops. This alternative also 

incorporates agency knowledge of 

resource conditions and risks of damage 

to resources.

The intent of this proposal is to provide 

for diverse motorized recreation 

opportunities on an active (consciously

designed) motorized travel system of 

designated roads and trails. The system 

would limit effects to natural resources, 

as well as conflicts with nonmotorized recreationists. This alternative would limit cross-country 

motorized travel to specified distances from certain roads for the sole purposes of game retrieval 

and dispersed camping, with certain exceptions provided by law. This would represent a major 

reduction from the current situation in terms of the total area on which motorized cross-country 

travel would be allowed, and the types of use allowed on that area. This alternative would 

designate almost as many miles of motorized routes near adjacent private lands as in Alternatives 

A, C and E.

Alternative B would increase the number of miles of motorized Forest trails from 36 to 663 (a 

627-mile increase), and increase the miles of Forest roads where motorized mixed use is allowed 

from 160 to 2,226 (a 2,066-mile increase; see Table 2). This would include 210 miles of routes 

identified by citizens or defined by ranger districts. The number of motorized-use trailheads 

would increase from 7 to 31. Motorized cross-country use for the sole purposes of game retrieval 

or dispersed camping would be reduced from 864,000 to 179,000 acres (a 685,000-acre 

decrease). Total National Forest System route mileage used would decrease by over 4,000 miles 

to 4,950 miles, and the number of motorized road and trail crossings on perennial streams would 

decrease by more than 1,200 to 547. Please refer to Table 7 for parameters further describing this 

alternative, and to compare this alternative to others.

Permits would need to be secured prior to any in-water construction work on six proposed new 

perennial stream crossings, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (see Appendix B, 

design criteria for fisheries and hydrology). Stormwater permits under Section 402 would be 

required for construction exceeding one acre in size on trailheads or other facilities.

This alternative would provide for motorized mixed use 

(meaning use by both highway-legal and non-highway-legal 

motor vehicles) on a designated system of roads (primarily 

Level 2 with some Level 3, 4 and 5 roads). In response to 

recommendations from the NFAB, and scoping comments, this 

system would feature travel loops within motorized trail 

systems (MTSs), and routes connecting motorized trail systems.
Table 2. Motorized recreation opportunities in Alternative B, the proposed action

Indicators Alt. B

Current 

condition

Roads

Miles of road open to all vehicles (motorized-mixed-use roads) 2,226 160

Miles of road open to highway legal vehicles only (non-highwaylegal vehicles prohibited) 1,240 3,580

Total miles of roads 3,466 3,740

Trails

Miles of trail open to all vehicles 147 0

Miles of trail open to vehicles 65 inches or less in width in South 

Dakota, and 50 inches or less in Wyoming 414 36

Miles of motorcycle trail 76 0

Miles of special designations 25 0

Total miles of trails 663 36

Total miles of proposed motorized routes 4,129 3,776

Number of motorized-use trailheads 31 7

Area open to Motorized Cross-country Use

Acres open to dispersed camping (motorized) 63,500 864,000

Acres open to game retrieval (motorized) 179,000 864,000

Acres open to cross-country travel (nongame retrieval) 0 864,000

Total area open to motorized cross-country travel (acres) 

(Note: not additive)

179,000

(limited) 864,000

Vehicles - By providing for use by both highway-legal and non-highway-legal motor vehicles, 

this alternative, if selected, would on some routes pre-empt (not be in accord with) South Dakota 

State law in its current form, which requires that only highway-legal motor vehicles may use 

public roads. Wyoming State law provides for use of both highway-legal and non-highway-legal 

motor vehicles on certain roads officially recognized (enrolled) by the State. If this alternative 

were selected, the Forest Service would comply with Wyoming State law by enrolling all 

designated roads in the Wyoming program.

Vehicle Operators - It is important to understand that only users with a valid state driver’s 

license (from any state) would be legally allowed to operate motor vehicles on the roaded 

portion of the motorized travel system in this alternative. Unlicensed operators could legally 

operate a motor vehicle only on the trail portion of the system. This would comply with current 

State law in both South Dakota and Wyoming. Please refer to Table 6 for more information on 

vehicle and operator requirements, and motorized-mixed-use opportunities available under this 

alternative.

Cross-country Use- Unrestricted motorized cross-country use would not be allowed in this 

alternative. Instead, limited motorized cross-country use would be allowed for retrieving 

harvested elk only (not deer) within 300 feet of certain designated roads; and, for dispersed 

camping within 100 feet of certain designated roads. Motorized cross-country travel would not 

be allowed for any other purpose or in any other location, with certain exceptions provided by 

law. Total area available to limited motorized cross-country use in this alternative would be 

179,000 acres.

A Forest Plan amendment would be required to implement this alternative. Changes to existing 

Forest Plan direction would take two general forms. First, where existing objectives provide 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

10

Alternative C would provide the largest 

travel system. It would provide 2,878 miles of 

mixed-use roads and boost motorized trails 

to 771 miles, and limit cross-country 

motorized use to 485,500 acres for game 

retrieval and dispersed camping only.

The motor vehicle use map would make 

user compliance and law enforcement 

easier. Higher user numbers could bring 

more business to adjacent communities, 

and motorized users would find a planned 

travel system designed to meet their needs.

quantities for road and trail mileage and cross-country area, these would be updated to conform 

to the quantities provided by this alternative. Second, certain standards and guidelines would be 

updated to conform to the final rule and amended regulations, to provide that motorized vehicle 

use would be allowed on roads, trails, and areas only as shown on the motor vehicle use map or 

as contained in a Forest Travel Order. Refer to Appendix F for specific changes to existing Forest 

Plan direction proposed under this alternative. It is anticipated that these proposed changes 

would constitute a minor or nonsignificant Forest Plan amendment.

Alternative C

The intent of Alternative C is to create more motorized recreation opportunities than any other 

alternative on an active, designed system of looped roads and trails. This alternative would 

provide cross-country travel opportunity on a larger area than in Alternative B for the purposes 

of game retrieval or dispersed camping in specified areas. Allowing higher levels of motorized 

recreation use on the Forest and close to communities is intended to provide more economic 

opportunity for nearby communities and businesses. To a lesser degree, this alternative considers 

effects of use on natural resources, and the concerns of adjacent landowners, by allowing more 

miles of use near adjacent private lands.

Alternative C would increase the number of miles of motorized Forest trails from 36 to 771 

miles; and increase the mileage of Forest roads where motorized mixed use is allowed from 160

to 2,878 miles (see Table 3). This would include 284 miles of routes identified by citizens or 

defined by ranger districts. The number of motorized-use trailheads would increase from 7 to 34.

Three small beginner practice areas are proposed in this alternative. These three areas total 10 

acres in size. Two would be located on the Bearlodge Ranger District (Bearlodge Pit on the north 

end, and Hain Spring Pit in the south); a third would be located on the Northern Hills Ranger 

District at the Spearfish Quarry near the City of Spearfish. These areas could serve as practice 

areas for novice riders. Other than these three areas, motorized cross-country use would be 

reduced from 864,000 acres to 485,500 acres, for the sole purposes of game retrieval or 

dispersed camping. Total National Forest 

System route mileage used would 

decrease from 8,971 to 5,173 miles, and 

the number of motorized road and trail 

crossings on perennial streams would 

decrease from over 1,700 to 536. Permits 

would need to be secured prior to any inwater construction work on five proposed 

new perennial stream crossings, pursuant 

to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 

(see Appendix B, design criteria for 

fisheries and hydrology). Stormwater 

permits under Section 402 would be 

required for construction exceeding one 

acre in size on trailheads or other 

facilities.

This alternative would provide for motorized mixed use (meaning use by both highway-legal and 

non-highway-legal motor vehicles) on a designated system of roads (primarily Level 2 with 

some Level 3, 4 and 5 roads). In response to recommendations from the NFAB, and scoping 

comments, this system would feature travel loops within motorized trail systems, and routes 

connecting motorized trail systems.
Table 3. Motorized recreation opportunities in Alternative C

Indicators Alt. C Current 

condition

Roads

Miles of road open to all vehicles (motorized mixed-use roads) 2,878 160

Miles of road open to highway legal vehicles only (non-highwaylegal vehicles prohibited)

704 3,580

Total miles of roads 3,582 3,740

Trails

Miles of trail open to all vehicles 154 0

Miles of trail open to vehicles 65 inches or less in width in South 

Dakota, and 50 inches or less in Wyoming 460 36

Miles of motorcycle trail 134 0

Miles of special designations 22 0

Total miles of trails 771 36

Total miles of proposed motorized routes 4,353 3,776

Number of motorized-use trailheads 34 7

Area open to motorized cross-country use

Acres open to dispersed camping (motorized) 184,000 864,000

Acres open to game retrieval (motorized) 385,500 864,000

Acres open to cross-country travel (non-game retrieval) 10 864,000

Total area open to motorized cross-country travel (acres) 

(Note: not additive)

485,500 

(limited) 864,000 

Vehicles - By providing for use by both highway-legal and non-highway-legal motor vehicles, 

this alternative, if selected, would on some routes pre-empt (not be in accord with) South Dakota 

State law in its current form, which requires that only highway-legal motor vehicles may use 

public roads. Wyoming State law provides for use of both highway-legal and non-highway-legal 

motor vehicles on certain roads officially recognized (enrolled) by the State. If this alternative 

were selected, the Forest Service would comply with Wyoming State law by enrolling all 

designated roads in the Wyoming program.

Vehicle Operators - It is important to understand that only users with a valid state driver’s 

license (from any state) would be legally allowed to operate motor vehicles on the roaded 

portion of the motorized travel system in this alternative. Unlicensed operators could legally 

operate a motor vehicle only on the trail portion of the system. This would comply with current 

state law in both South Dakota and Wyoming. Please refer to Table 6 for more information on 

vehicle and operator requirements, and motorized-mixed-use opportunities available under this 

alternative. Please refer to Table 7 for parameters further describing this alternative, and to 

compare this alternative to others.

Cross-country Use - Unrestricted motorized cross-country use would be allowed in three small 

beginner practice areas as described earlier. Other than this, limited motorized cross-country use 

would be allowed to retrieve harvested elk and deer in certain large designated areas; and, for 

motorized dispersed camping within 300 feet of certain designated roads. Motorized crosscountry travel would not be allowed for any other purpose or in any other location, with certain 

exceptions provided by law. Total area available to limited motorized cross-country use in this 

alternative would be 485,500 acres.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

12

Alternative D would provide the smallest 

motorized travel system, and would 

emphasize user safety. It would provide 580 

miles of mixed-use roads and 320 miles of 

motorized trails, and prohibit motorized 

cross-country use for any reason, with 

exceptions.

The motor vehicle use map would make 

user compliance and law enforcement 

easier. Resource damage, conflicts with 

nonmotorized recreationists and system 

maintenance costs would be reduced, and 

motorized users would find a planned travel 

system designed to meet their needs.

Many scoping comments, including those from the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and 

Parks requested that hunters be allowed adequate access to much of the Forest to retrieve 

harvested game using motorized vehicles. The Forest Service plotted a one-mile distance off 

certain designated roads for such use, as proposed by the State of South Dakota, but found that 

this approach left slivers and small areas of land on which this use would not be allowed. The 

Forest Service felt this would pose problems for hunters attempting to stay within the allowed 

distances off of roads.

In an effort to respond to the States and others who commented, and to provide a range of 

alternatives for motorized game retrieval, the Forest Service chose instead to delineate areas 

within which motorized game retrieval would be allowed. These large areas do not include those 

management areas where motorized cross-country use is specifically prohibited, such as 

wilderness; or those areas with a year-round closure to motorized cross-country use. Although 

the Forest Service believes hunters would find it easier to comply with this approach, it is not 

technically consistent with the Travel Management Rule, which stipulates that any motorized 

game retrieval areas be designated by distance off of roads. For this reason, any decision to 

implement this alternative may require some modification to comply with the rule.

A Forest Plan amendment would be required to implement this alternative. Changes to existing 

Forest Plan direction would take two general forms. First, where existing objectives provide 

quantities for road and trail mileage and cross-country area, these would be updated to conform 

to the quantities provided by this alternative. Second, certain standards and guidelines would be 

updated to conform to the final rule and amended regulations, to provide that motorized vehicle 

use would be allowed on roads, trails, and areas only as shown on the motor vehicle use map or 

as contained in a Forest Travel Order. Refer to Appendix F for specific changes to existing Forest 

Plan direction proposed under this alternative. It is anticipated that these proposed changes 

would constitute a minor or nonsignificant Forest Plan amendment.

Alternative D

This alternative would provide a smaller active motorized transportation system than that 

provided by any other alternative. No cross-country motorized opportunity would be allowed 

under this alternative. The intent of this 

alternative is to limit the level and 

likelihood of effects on natural and 

cultural resources through a smaller 

motorized travel system. This alternative 

is intended to reduce conflicts with 

nonmotorized recreationists and could 

provide more area and solitude for these 

users. Alternative D would allow less 

motorized use near adjacent private 

landowners than any other alternative, 

and would provide fewer trailheads near 

adjacent communities and businesses.

Alternative D would increase the number 

of miles of motorized Forest trails from 

36 to 320 miles; and increase the mileage 

of Forest roads where motorized mixed use is allowed from 160 to 580 miles (see Table 4). This 

would include 70 miles of routes identified by citizens or defined by ranger districts. The number 
of motorized-use trailheads would increase from 7 to 23. No motorized cross-country use would 

be allowed for any purpose (with exceptions for emergency and administrative access as 

described above). Total National Forest System route mileage used would decrease from over 

8,900 miles to 4,018 miles, and the number of motorized road and trail crossings on perennial 

streams would decrease from over 1,750 to 455. Permits would need to be secured prior to any 

in-water construction work on two proposed new perennial stream crossings, pursuant to Section 

404 of the Clean Water Act (see Appendix B, design criteria for fisheries and hydrology).

Stormwater permits under Section 402 would be required for construction exceeding one acre in 

size on trailheads or other facilities. Please refer to Table 7 for parameters further describing this 

alternative, and to compare this alternative to others.

Table 4. Motorized recreation opportunities in Alternative D

Indicators Alt. D Current 

condition

Roads

Miles of road open to all vehicles (motorized mixed-use roads) 580 160

Miles of road open to highway legal vehicles only (non-highwaylegal vehicles prohibited)

2,297 3,580

Total miles of roads 2,877 3,740

Trails

Miles of trail open to all vehicles 112 0

Miles of trail open to vehicles 65 inches or less in width in South 

Dakota, and 50 inches or less in Wyoming 181 36

Miles of motorcycle trail 21 0

Miles of special designations 6 0

Total miles of trails 320 36

Total miles of proposed motorized routes 3,197 3,776

Number of motorized-use trailheads 23 7

Area open to motorized cross-country use

Acres open to dispersed camping (motorized) 0 864,000

Acres open to game retrieval (motorized) 0 864,000

Acres open to cross-country travel (nongame retrieval) 0 864,000

Total area open to motorized cross-country travel (acres) 

(Note: not additive) 0 864,000 

This alternative would provide for a diversity of motorized uses similar to that in other 

alternatives. However, it would provide a lower total mileage of motorized-mixed-use roads in 

order to reduce the safety risk to users of non-highway-legal OHVs and motorcycles from larger 

vehicles on higher-speed roads. Motorized mixed use would be allowed only on Level 2 roads 

within motorized trail systems. No motorized mixed use would be allowed between motorized 

trail systems. This means that users of non-highway-legal vehicles transiting from one motorized 

trail system to another would need to transport their vehicles using highway-legal vehicles. No 

motorized mixed use would be allowed on Level 3, 4 or 5 roads under this alternative in South 

Dakota, but such use would still be allowed on 118 miles of Level 3, 4 and 5 roads currently 

enrolled in the Wyoming ORV program.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

14

Alternative E would provide a motor vehicle 

use map showing the existing travel system.

Alternative E would provide 160 miles of 

motorized-mixed-use roads and 36 miles of 

motorized trails. It would prohibit motorized 

cross-country use for any purpose, with 

exceptions.

The motor vehicle use map would make 

user compliance and law enforcement 

easier. Resource damage, conflicts with 

nonmotorized recreationists and 

maintenance costs would be reduced.

Motorized users would find a minimal planned 

travel system designed to meet their needs.

Vehicles - By providing for use by both highway-legal and non-highway-legal motor vehicles, 

this alternative would on some routes pre-empt (not be in accord with) South Dakota State law in 

its current form, which requires that only highway-legal motor vehicles may use public roads.

Wyoming State law provides for use of both highway-legal and non-highway-legal motor 

vehicles on certain roads officially recognized (enrolled) by the State. The Forest Service would 

comply with Wyoming State law by enrolling all designated roads in the Wyoming program.

Vehicle Operators - It is important to understand that only users with a valid state driver’s 

license (from any state) would be legally allowed to operate motor vehicles on the roaded 

portion of the motorized travel system in this alternative. Unlicensed operators could legally 

operate a motor vehicle only on the trail portion of the system. This would comply with 

applicable law in both South Dakota and Wyoming. Please refer to Table 6 for more information 

on vehicle and operator requirements, and motorized-mixed-use opportunities available under 

this alternative.

Cross-country Use - No cross-country motorized travel would be allowed in this alternative, 

with the exception of emergency and administrative use as described earlier.

A Forest Plan amendment would be required to implement this alternative. Changes to existing 

Forest Plan direction would take two general forms. First, where existing objectives provide 

quantities for road and trail mileage and cross-country area, these would be updated to conform 

to the quantities provided by this alternative. Second, certain standards and guidelines would be 

updated to conform to the final rule and amended regulations, to provide that motorized vehicle 

use would be allowed on roads, trails and areas only as shown on the motor vehicle use map or 

as contained in a Forest Travel Order. Refer to Appendix F for specific changes to existing Forest 

Plan direction proposed under this alternative. It is anticipated that these proposed changes 

would constitute a minor or nonsignificant Forest Plan amendment.

Alternative E

This alternative represents the minimum actions needed to comply with the Travel Management 

Rule. It would designate the entire existing system of open roads and motorized trails and amend 

the Forest Plan to accommodate this 

system. A motor vehicle use map would 

be issued, designating a minimally active 

motorized travel system to accommodate 

motorized recreation desires. This 

alternative would not allow any 

motorized cross-country travel.

The intent of this alternative is to reduce 

implementation costs and the impacts of 

motorized use to natural and cultural 

resources, and to maximize the 

effectiveness of limited management 

resources. To a lesser degree, this 

alternative addresses the issues of 

recreational user experience and 

socioeconomic effects. This alternative would allow the same level and miles of motorized uses 

on routes near adjacent private lands as Alternative A, but would allow no motorized use in areas 

off designated routes. No motorized trail systems would be provided in this alternative.
Alternative E would provide the same number of miles of motorized Forest trails (36), and the 

same mileage of Forest roads where motorized mixed use is allowed (160) as Alternative A (see 

Table 5). The number of motorized-use trailheads would remain at 7. No motorized crosscountry use would be allowed for any purpose (with exceptions for emergency and 

administrative use as described above). Total National Forest System route mileage used would 

decrease from over 8,600 miles to 4,596 miles, and the number of motorized road and trail 

crossings on perennial streams would decrease from more than 1,700 to 547, as in Alternative B.

No new stream crossings are proposed in this alternative. Please refer to Table 7 for parameters 

further describing this alternative, and to compare this alternative to others.

Table 5. Motorized recreation opportunities in Alternative E

Indicators Alt. E Current 

condition

Roads

Miles of road open to all vehicles (motorized mixed-use roads) 160 160

Miles of road open to highway legal vehicles only (non-highwaylegal vehicles prohibited) 3,580 3,580

Total miles of roads 3,740 3,740

Trails

Miles of trail open to all vehicles 0 0

Miles of trail open to vehicles 65 inches or less in width in South 

Dakota, and 50 inches or less in Wyoming 36 36

Miles of motorcycle trail 0 0

Miles of special designations 0 0

Total miles of trails 36 36

Total miles of proposed motorized routes 3,776 3,776

Number of motorized-use trailheads 7 7

Area open to motorized cross-country use

Acres open to dispersed camping (motorized) 0 864,000

Acres open to game retrieval (motorized) 0 864,000

Acres open to cross-country travel (nongame retrieval) 0 864,000

Total area open to motorized cross-country travel (acres) 

(Note: not additive) 0 864,000 

Vehicles - This alternative would provide for motorized mixed use (meaning use by both 

highway-legal and non-highway-legal motor vehicles) on a designated system of roads 

(primarily Level 2 with some Level 3, 4 and 5 roads) in Wyoming only. South Dakota State law 

requires that only highway-legal motor vehicles may use public roads. Wyoming State law 

provides for use of both highway-legal and non-highway-legal motor vehicles on certain roads 

officially recognized (enrolled) by the State. If this alternative were selected, it would comply 

with South Dakota State law because it would allow no motorized mixed use on public roads. It 

would comply with Wyoming State law because all motorized-mixed-use roads would be 

enrolled in the Wyoming ORV program.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

16

Vehicle Operators - It is important to understand that only users with a valid state driver’s 

license (from any state) would be legally allowed to operate motor vehicles on the roaded 

portion of the motorized travel system in this alternative. Unlicensed operators could legally 

operate a motor vehicle only on the trail portion of the system. This would comply with current 

state law in both South Dakota and Wyoming. Please refer to Table 6 for more information on 

vehicle and operator requirements, and motorized-mixed-use opportunities available under this 

alternative.

Cross-country Use - No motorized cross-country travel would be allowed in this alternative, 

with certain exceptions as described earlier.

A Forest Plan amendment would be required to implement this alternative. Certain standards 

and guidelines would be updated to conform to the final rule and amended regulations, to 

provide that motorized vehicle use would be allowed on roads, trails, and areas only as shown on 

the motor vehicle use map or as contained in a Forest Travel Order. Refer to Appendix F for 

specific changes to existing Forest Plan direction proposed under this alternative. It is anticipated 

that these proposed changes would constitute a minor or nonsignificant Forest Plan amendment.

Table 6. Consistency with State traffic law, and non-highway-legal vehicle travel opportunity by 

alternative

Alternative

Non-highwaylegal vehicles 

allowed on 

SD public 

roads?*

Valid State 

operator

license 

required?

Motorized 

mixed-use

road miles 

(non-hwylegal use 

allowed)

Motorized 

trail miles 

(non-hwylegal use 

allowed)

Total nonhighway-legal 

vehicle travel 

mileage to 

designate

Alt. A No Yes 160 miles 36 miles 196 miles 

Alt. B Yes** Yes 2226 663 2889

Alt. C Yes** Yes 2878 771 3649

Alt. D Yes** Yes 580 320 900

Alt. E No Yes 160 36 196

* In Wyoming, non-highway-legal vehicles are allowed only on roads enrolled in the State program. In Alternatives B, C 

and D, non-highway-legal vehicles would be allowed on all designated roads in Wyoming because they would be 

enrolled in the State program.

** Alternatives B, C and D would pre-empt (not conform to) South Dakota State law for vehicle registration, so nonhighway-legal vehicles would be allowed on motorized-mixed-use roads. No alternative would pre-empt any State 

requirement for operator licensing.
Figure 2. Acres open to motorized cross-country use under each alternative (NOTE: Cross-country 

travel in Alternatives B and C would be for limited purposes only)

Figure 3. Miles of motorized-mixed-use routes by alternative, in terms of trails and mixed-use roads

(NOTE: High current use on unauthorized routes is not reflected in this figure, but is shown as 

cross-country use in Figure 2)
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

18

Figure 4. Trail mileage in each alternative by vehicle type

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate a range of 

reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that 

were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in response to the 

proposed action provided suggestions for alternative methods to achieve the purpose and need. 

Some of these alternatives may have duplicated the alternatives considered in detail; had high 

potential to cause unnecessary environmental harm, or may have been outside the scope of the 

purpose and need. The Forest considered these other alternatives, but dismissed them from 

detailed consideration. Those other alternatives, and the reasons they were dismissed, are 

discussed below.

1) The original proposed action was evaluated and dismissed without detailed consideration.

Better data was developed and received that warranted corrections. Also, based on scoping 

comments from the public and further input from ranger district personnel, routes were added 

or deleted to better meet the NFAB recommendations. It became apparent that the original 

proposed action could be refined and improved, and for these reasons, it was dismissed. The 

modified proposed action (Alternative B) carries forward the intent of this original proposal.

2) An alternative was considered that would have allowed motorized game retrieval up to one 

mile, and dispersed camping up to 300 feet, from certain designated roads. Elements of this 

approach were suggested by several parties during scoping, including the South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish and Parks. The Forest Service found that a strict application of this 

approach would have created small isolated areas in some places that would not have been 

open to these activities. These isolated areas would be difficult for National Forest users and 

law enforcement personnel to identify, and thus would be difficult to comply with as well as 

to enforce. This alternative would also affect cultural sites. For these reasons, this alternative 

was dismissed from detailed consideration. However, this concept was partially adopted in 

Alternative C to allow motorized game retrieval in certain areas that correspond to about one 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Trail 

Miles

A B C D E

Alternatives

Trail Miles by Vehicle Type

Miles special

Miles motorcycle 

Miles 50-inch or less

Miles Open to All
mile from certain roads, and dispersed camping up to 300 feet from designated roads (see 

description of Alternative C on page 28.)

3) Several respondents to scoping requested that the Forest allow motorized cross-country travel 

on large areas. The Travel Management Rule allows this use of National Forest System lands 

subject to site-specific analysis. The Forest Service considered permitting such use on large 

areas but dismissed it from detailed consideration because current relatively unrestricted 

motorized cross-country use has begun to have effects to natural and cultural resources that 

are unacceptable in some areas. The Forest Service anticipates that an increase in such use, 

especially if concentrated in a smaller area, could cause effects to natural and cultural 

resources that could become unacceptable. This would conflict with the agency conservation 

mission and stewardship responsibilities.

As an alternative to unlimited motorized cross-country use, the Forest Service developed the 

concept of motorized trail systems (MTSs), in which high-density motorized road and trail 

opportunities would be offered. While these would not provide true cross-country 

experiences, the Forest Service believes that these areas could meet the desires of many users 

for a similar experience, without the potential for incurring off-route resource damage.

Motorized cross-country recreation opportunity is currently offered at other places in the 

Black Hills region including Railroad Buttes on the Nebraska National Forest, and several 

private facilities in the Spearfish, Rapid City, and Hermosa areas. Finally, this activity is 

included in Alternative A as part of the current condition. Limited motorized cross-country 

use would also be allowed under Alternatives B and C in the form of game retrieval and 

dispersed camping, and in Alternative C in the form of three small cross-country practice 

areas.

4) Various individuals, groups, and local governments suggested that numerous individual routes 

that are not included in any of the action alternatives be opened or remain open to motorized 

use. Existing and proposed routes were individually evaluated by ranger district and ID

Team personnel in a detailed review of routes in each district. Individual routes may have 

been dismissed from further consideration for one or several reasons, including: site-specific 

conflicts with natural or cultural resources, conflicts with other users, concerns over 

jurisdiction, insufficient funding to fully consider all proposals, or because they may not 

have fit the concept of one or more of the alternatives.

5) The Norbeck Society and other organizations suggested the original proposed action be 

modified in several ways. The Society recommended that additional “Walk-in Only Areas” be 

designated, and that any motorized trails that might affect these areas should not be 

considered for designation. The recommendation to designate additional “Walk-in Only 

Areas” was evaluated by the ID team and dismissed for several reasons. First, 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 nonmotorized routes is not the focus of 

this project. Second, the Forest Plan currently contains direction regarding nonmotorized trail 

opportunities. Regarding motorized trails that might affect these areas, the analysis in this 

document will consider the effects of motorized route designation on nonmotorized recreation 

opportunities. Finally, the Forest Service incorporated concepts in the Norbeck Society 

recommendation into Alternative D, and believes that the concern underlying this 

recommendation is addressed in that alternative.

6) The Blue Ribbon Coalition and other organizations asked the Forest Service to formulate and 

consider an alternative that would maximize motorized recreation opportunities. Alternative C 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

20

was developed to provide a high level of motorized recreation. The Forest Service considered 

other routes that would provide even higher levels of motorized recreation opportunity. These 

were evaluated by the interdisciplinary team and dismissed from further consideration for 

several reasons. First, it was found that motorized recreation at higher levels than shown in 

Alternative C violated Forest Plan standards for protection of resources. Second, it was found 

that many additional motorized routes that were considered did not enhance or fit with the 

concept of Alternative C. Specifically, many of these routes did not provide looped route 

opportunities or did not connect looped routes to form a coherent, manageable travel system.

Third, some routes evaluated were found to cross other jurisdictions that would have required 

additional work and NEPA analysis in order to acquire easements or rights-of-way to allow 

public use. And finally, the addition of some proposed routes would continue or increase high 

sound or noise levels from motorized use near adjacent private lands.

Comparison of Alternatives

Table 7 provides information related to indicators listed for the issues in Chapter 1. This 

information is provided to give readers a sense of the alternatives. Not all indicators analyzed for 

each resource are shown here. For more information on how the alternatives address the 

indicators, please refer to the individual resource sections in Chapter 3. Following this table is a 

summary narrative comparison of the alternatives that interprets information shown here.
Table 7. Comparison of indicator measures for the alternatives

Indicator Measure

Alternative

A B C D E

ISSUE 1 – Effects on Natural and Cultural Resources

Botanical Resources

Total miles of open NFS motorized routes 3,776 4,129 4,353 3,197 3,776

Number of motorized use trailheads 7 31 34 23 7

Miles/acres of routes within spruce habitat 100 100 97 83 100

Miles of motorized routes in hardwood habitat 179 208 225 154 179

Wildlife Habitat Resources

Total miles of open NFS motorized routes 3,776 4,129 4,353 3,197 3,776

Acres open to dispersed camping (motorized) 864,000 63,500 184,000 0 0

Acres open to game retrieval (motorized) 864,000 179,000

(elk only)

385,500

(deer and elk) 0 0

Acres open to cross-country travel 

(nongame retrieval – includes beginner practice areas)

864,000 0 10 0 0

Total area open to motorized cross-country travel (acres) 

(Note: acres not additive) 864,000 179,000 485,500 0 0

Miles of motorized routes in ponderosa pine habitat 2,661 2,968 3,156 2,266 2,661

Miles of motorized routes in spruce habitat 100 100 97 83 100

Miles of motorized routes in hardwood habitat 179 208 225 154 179

Miles of routes within 400 feet of riparian areas 2,050 2,186 2,271 1,739 2,050

Miles of motorized routes in grass cover type 647 673 684 562 647

Miles/sq. mile of winter open route density in MAs 5.4/5.43 1.22/0.99 1.35/0.95 1.38/0.95 1.09/0.95 1.22/0.99

Hydrology and Fisheries

Number of motorized road and trail crossings on perennial streams 1,778 547 536 455 547

Miles of road/trail within 30 feet of a perennial stream 59 20 20 16 17

Miles of road/trail within 119 feet of a perennial stream 285 125 125 100 110

Soils

Acres open to dispersed camping (motorized) 864,000 63,500 184,000 0 0

Acres open to game retrieval (motorized) 864,000 179,000

(elk only)

385,500

deer and elk) 0 0

Acres open to cross-country travel (nongame retrieval) 864,000 0 0 0 0

Total area open to motorized cross-country travel (acres) (Note: not 

additive) 864,000 179,000 485,500 0 0
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

22

Table 7. Comparison of indicator measures for the alternatives

Indicator Measure

Alternative

A B C D E

Range and Noxious Weeds

Total miles of open NFS motorized routes 3,776 4,129 4,353 3,197 3,776

Acres open to dispersed camping (motorized) 864,000 63,500 184,000 0 0

Acres open to game retrieval (motorized) 864,000 179,000 385,500 0 0

ISSUE 2 – Effects on Recreation Opportunities

Forest Roads (ML 2-5)

Miles of road open to all vehicles (motorized-mixed-use) [NOTE: For all 

indicators numbers in parentheses show seasonal mileages]

160 (12)

(WY only)

2,226 (588)

(SD and WY)

2,878 (922)

(SD and WY)

580 (265)

(SD and WY)

160 (12)

(WY only)

Miles of road open to highway-legal vehicles only (not mixed-use) 3,580 (656) 1,240 (249) 704 (70) 2,297 (361) 3,580 (656)

Total miles of open NFS roads (Maintenance Levels 2-5) 3,740

(668)

3,466

(837)

3,582

(992)

2,877

(626)

3,740

(668)

Forest Trails

Miles of trail open to all vehicles (now includes rock crawler miles) 0 173 (65) 176 (76) 118 (48) 0

Miles of trail open to vehicles with width limitation 36 414 460 181 36

50 inches or less in WY

65 inches or less in SD (special vehicle designation)

95 (95)

319 (177)

80 (73)

380 (196)

31 (31)

150 (62)

24

12

Miles of motorcycle trail 0 76 (1) 134 (25) 21 (0) 0

Total miles of open NFS trails 36 (24) 663 (338) 771 (370) 320 (141) 36 (24)

Total miles of open NFS roads and trails 3,776

(692)

4,129

(1,175)

4,353

(1,362)

3,197

(767)

3,776

(692)

Number of motorized-use trailheads 7 31 34 23 7

Acres open to motorized dispersed camping 864,000 63,500 184,000 0 0

Acres open to motorized game retrieval 864,000 179,000

(elk only)

385,500

(deer and elk) 0 0

Acres open to cross-country travel (nongame retrieval) 864,000 0 10 0 0

Total area open to motorized cross-country travel (acres) 

(Note: not additive)

864,000 179,000 

(limited use)

485,500 

(limited use) 0 0

Beginner practice areas ( cross-country areas) less than 5 acres 0

3 areas; 10 

acres total 0 0

Effects to nonmotorized opportunities

Miles of NFS motorized routes within 1⁄2-mile of a nonmotorized trail 318 358 382 211 318

Miles of road / trail closed to motorized use in SPNM or RNNM ROS 

classes 72 / 333 70 / 331 70 / 311 84 / 363 72 / 333
Table 7. Comparison of indicator measures for the alternatives

Indicator Measure

Alternative

A B C D E

ISSUE 3 – Effects of Transportation System Design on 

Management Capabilities

Miles of road converted to trail (may incur higher maintenance costs) 0 207 205 146 0

Miles of ML 2 roads with motorized mixed use 49 1,914 2,537 461 48

Miles of ML 3, 4 and 5 roads with motorized mixed use 111 312 340 118 112

Total miles of ML 2, 3, 4, and 5 roads with motorized mixed use 

(expect higher maintenance costs from higher use levels) 160 2,226 2,878 580 160

Number of motorized trailheads (would incur costs to maintain, and to 

rehabilitate if vandalized) 7 31 34 23 7

Number of dead-end spurs less than or equal to one mile in length/miles 

of these spurs (may require more vigilant law enforcement patrol)

1,739 /

774 miles

1,301 /

597 miles

1,318 /

612 miles

1,035 /

463 miles

1,739 /

774 miles

Miles of NFS roads by maintenance level (ML):

ML 1 1,316 1,358 1,260 2,062 1,316

ML 2 3,083 2,827 2,939 2,241 3,083

ML 3 510 493 497 490 510

ML 4 143 142 142 142 143

ML 5 4 4 4 4 4

Total miles of NFS roads 5,056 4,824 4,842 4,939 5,056

Total miles of Forest trails 36 663 771 320 36

Total NFS road and trail miles to maintain 5,092 5,487 5,613 5,259 5,092

Number of unauthorized routes used on NFS lands (not maintained, but 

may need rehabilitation) 4,109 0 0 0 0

ISSUE 4 – Social and Economic Concerns A B C D E

Miles of NFS motorized routes within 1⁄2-mile of a nonmotorized trail 318 358 382 211 318

Miles of designated NFS motorized routes through or within 300 feet of 

lands of other ownerships 504 490 500 423 504

Number trailheads within 3 miles of a potential gateway community 0 10 11 7 0

Total miles of proposed routes open to motorized use 3,776 4,129 4,353 3,197 3,776

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Comparison of Alternatives by Issue

This section briefly compares the five alternatives studied in detail in this FEIS. The alternatives 

are described and compared in terms of the effects each would have on the key issues described 

in Chapter 1. The preceding table displays comparative summaries of the effects of each 

alternative as well. The environmental consequences that could be expected from implementing 

each of the alternatives are more fully described in Chapter 3 of this document and information 

contained in the project file.

Issue 1 – Effects on Natural and Cultural Resources

The soil resource would see the most risk of disturbance from cross-country motorized use 

under Alternative A, followed by Alternatives C, B, D, and E. Reducing the area open to 

motorized cross-country use would also give the greatest benefit to retaining or improving 

vegetative productivity of the soil resource. Levels of road and trail miles open to motorized use 

could indirectly affect soils through more OHV parking on the edge of the road or trail, more 

route maintenance needed, and more time needed for recovery. Alternatives C, B, and A would 

have the greatest effects, with Alternatives D and E less.

Concerning hydrology and fisheries, the alternatives with the most stream crossings and roads 

close to streams would contribute the most sediment, but generally, all action alternatives are 

similar in effects to each other and would have less adverse effects than the current situation 

(Alternative A). Alternatives B, C, and E reduce the number of water crossings by almost 70 

percent, and Alternative D by 75 percent. With respect to miles of roads and trails within 30 and 

119 feet of perennial streams, Alternatives B and C reduce the mileage by over 50 percent, and 

Alternatives D and E by over 60 percent.

Designation of new trailheads, game retrieval, and dispersed camping would not be likely to 

have adverse effects on the water resource if design criteria are followed. Alternatives with more 

acreage open to some form of cross-country use would potentially have more effects on 

wetlands, with Alternative A having the most acreage open to this use. Alternatives C and B have 

less acreage open, respectively, and both would limit motorized cross-country use to game 

retrieval and dispersed camping only. Alternatives D and E would have by far the least acreage 

open to this use.

Wildlife habitat and species would see a net benefit from implementing any of the action 

alternatives due to restrictions on motorized cross-country travel. Alternative D would be the 

most beneficial, followed by Alternatives E, B, and C. The effects of motorized game retrieval in 

Alternatives B and C could be expected to be minor. Of the action alternatives, Alternative C 

would have the most road and trail miles open to motorized use, and would be expected to 

displace wildlife more than any other alternative, followed by Alternatives B, E, and D.

Regarding effects to botanical and rare plant values, implementation of any of the action 

alternatives would be expected to have a net positive effect on native plant species in several 

habitat types due to the amount of area that would be closed to motorized cross-country travel.

The effects of motorized cross-country game retrieval on plant species in Alternatives B and C is 

expected to be minor since the use would occur outside the reproductive season for most species.

Alternative D would have the lowest number of route miles in hardwood habitat and within 400 

feet of riparian areas, and thus show the greatest benefit; Alternatives B and C would have the 

highest number of route miles and show the least benefit; and Alternatives A and E would be 

between these. In spruce habitat, Alternative D would have the lowest number of route miles, 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

26

decreasing about 17 percent from current levels; Alternatives A, B, C and E would be about 

equal in route mileage. All species of sensitive plants would be expected to persist in the project 

area if design criteria are implemented to avoid known occurrences. The action alternatives 

would provide a net benefit to these species by reducing or eliminating motorized cross-country 

travel.

With respect to effects on the range resource, livestock grazing, and the potential for 

noxious weed spread, the main indicators are total miles of road and consequent route density, 

and acreage open to motorized cross-country use. Alternative A contains the highest 

concentration of routes, including unauthorized routes, and allows unrestricted access to the 

greatest acreage. This contributes to matting down or removing area of vegetation, harassment of 

livestock, and potential for weed spread. The number and mileage of motorized routes and 

acreage open to motorized cross-country use would be reduced in Alternatives C, B, E and D, in 

that order, with the least mileage in Alternative D. Alternatives D and E would show the greatest 

benefits due in large part to their restrictions on motorized cross-country use.

Alternative A would have the most effects to cultural resources by potentially allowing 

motorized cross-country travel to occur on cultural resource sites without any site protection.

Alternatives C and B would see less area open to cross-country travel and effects to resources, 

with Alternatives D and E having no area open to this use. Alternatives B, C, and D would 

concentrate motorized use on routes within corridors, which could increase the potential severity 

of impacts to resources in these areas, but this potential could be reduced by site-specific 

protection measures. Alternative D would have the least impacts overall by reducing the 

motorized route mileage and eliminating cross-country travel.

Under all alternatives, access would be provided as needed for timber and forest fuels 

management, fire suppression, and mineral exploration. Access for prospecting and mineral 

development would be provided as appropriate and necessary.

Issue 2 – Effects on Recreation Opportunities

Recreation opportunity in terms of route miles available for licensed drivers on motorizedmixed-use roads and trails, with or without vehicle registration, would be greatest under 

Alternative C, then B, with much less route mileage under Alternative D. Route opportunity 

available to unlicensed drivers (trails only) with or without vehicle registration would be greatest 

under Alternative C, then B, with much less mileage under Alternative D, and less yet under 

Alternative E.

Motorized cross-country use for any purpose would be available only under Alternative A.

Motorized cross-country use for the limited purposes of game retrieval and dispersed camping 

only would be allowed on the most area in Alternative A, with less area in Alternative C and then 

B. Alternatives D and E would allow no motorized cross-country use for any purpose.

The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is used in the Forest Plan to describe recreation 

opportunities available in different areas of the Forest. Nonmotorized recreation opportunities 

are offered in areas with ROS classes of primitive (P), semi-primitive nonmotorized (SPNM), 

and roaded-natural nonmotorized (RNNM). Under all alternatives, 10 percent of the Forest area 

would continue to provide these opportunities; primitive ROS designation would be unaffected

in the Black Elk Wilderness and Inyan Kara Inventoried Roadless Area; and the ROS standard in 

research natural areas (RNAs) would be met. The miles of road or trail closed to motorized use 

in areas of SPNM and RNNM classes would decrease from current levels in Alternatives B and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

C, representing less potential for nonmotorized route opportunity in these areas; and would 

increase in Alternative D, representing more potential nonmotorized route opportunity.

Nonmotorized 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. However, based on the number of miles of motorized trail 

within 1⁄2-mile of a nonmotorized trail, Alternative D would have by far the lowest potential for 

noise disturbance to nearby nonmotorized users, followed by Alternatives A and E, with 

Alternatives B and C about equal in higher potential to disturb nearby nonmotorized users.

Issue 3 – Effects of Transportation System Design on Management Capabilities

Travel management under any of the action alternatives would be more easily enforced by law 

enforcement personnel, because users not complying with the motor vehicle use map could be 

cited.

Many factors must be considered to estimate system costs. Alternative E would not create a 

motorized trail system beyond the existing roads and would be the most supportable with current 

funding levels. Concerning Alternatives B, C, and D, the miles of trails, number of trailheads and 

miles of roads to be closed would be the factors having the largest effect on long-term costs.

Based on these, Alternative D would have the lowest costs, with Alternative C the greatest, 

followed by Alternative B.

Based on the total number of trailheads and system road and trail miles, and other deferred 

maintenance costs, Alternative C would be the most costly to implement, followed by 

Alternatives B and D. Alternatives A and E would cost the least. Annual maintenance costs of the 

alternatives would follow the same order, with Alternative C the highest. Increased costs of 

vandalism could be expected with higher numbers of trailheads. Alternatives B and C have the 

highest number, with Alternative D less and Alternatives A and E the lowest number.

Based on the number of miles of roads open to motorized mixed use by both highway-legal and 

non-highway-legal vehicles, Alternative D would provide the greatest emphasis on user safety, 

followed by Alternatives B, E, and C.

Issue 4 – Social and Economic Concerns

Alternatives B and C are roughly equal as having the most trailheads located within 3 miles of a 

potential gateway community, followed by Alternative D. Alternatives A and E have no 

trailheads located within 3 miles of a potential gateway community. Based on the number of 

miles of trail within 300 feet of adjacent private land, Alternative D would have the lowest 

potential for noise disturbance and increased road and trail dust to neighbors. The other 

alternatives would all have higher potential, at about the same level.

The population in the Black Hills region, and recreational use of the Forest, would continue to 

grow under all alternatives. It is expected that user expectations for recreational experiences will 

continue to be diverse. The loss of OHV recreational opportunities from limiting or prohibiting 

cross-country motorized travel would be at least partially offset by the enhanced OHV trail 

system opportunities under Alternatives B, C, and to a limited extent Alternative D. Commercial 

opportunities could develop on adjacent private properties to provide cross-country areas for 

OHV users seeking opportunities for activities such as hill-climb, motocross, mud-bogging, or 

rock-crawling. None of the alternatives would be expected to create any measurable social or 

economic consequences on the Black Hills region.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

28
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Implementation

The Forest would use the following management strategies to implement the Travel Management 

Rule:

Motor vehicle use map production. The motor vehicle use map would display 

designated routes open to motorized vehicle use. The routes would be designated open to 

the public by vehicle type and season of use. The map would be available to the public at 

no cost. The motor vehicle use map would be published annually. Based on any issues 

including resource impacts or enforcement changes could be made to the motor vehicle 

use map after its initial publication. The regulations at 36 CFR 212.57, 212.54 recognize 

that the designations of roads, trails and areas for motorized vehicle use are not 

permanent and that environmental impacts, changes in demand, route construction, and 

monitoring conducted under the final rule may lead responsible officials to considering 

revising designations. Any signage implemented on the ground would coincide with the 

motor vehicle use map but legal enforcement would be based on the motor vehicle use 

map, not on on-site signage. Publishing a motor vehicle use map is the only legal 

requirement that must be met to establish and enforce the rule.

On-the-ground implementation. The Forest would retain the authority to implement 

emergency and project level travel planning, either of which could revise designations.

Phased implementation. Any alternative selected based on the analysis in this 

document would likely require that certain design criteria or mitigating measures be put 

in place prior to full implementation. As these measures identified in the analysis are 

completed, the associated routes would be designated on the motor vehicle use map and

opened for use as appropriate.

Enforcement. The Forest recognizes that enforcement would be critical to the 

successful implementation of the Travel Management Rule. The Forest is currently 

enhancing the available law enforcement staff by increasing field presence of uniformed 

Forest employees, Forest Protection Officers, and coordinating with other agency 

enforcement personnel. All Forest personnel have been directed to observe, record, and 

report violations of our regulations.

Partnerships. The Forest would rely on partnerships to collaboratively work with 

Federal, State, county, and tribal agencies. The Forest would also collaborate with 

motorized and nonmotorized recreation user groups, conservationists and others to 

provide access to National Forest System lands on routes and in areas that are 

environmentally and socially sustainable. Currently, many of the Forest’s motorized 

routes and areas are maintained and improved through cooperative relationships.

Public education. The public would be provided with tools to help them access and 

appropriately use the designated system, including but not limited to the Travel 

Management home page of the Forest Internet website; the motor vehicle use map in 

easily usable form, hardcopy and electronic; appropriate route signing; interpretive signs 

on routes and at trailheads; advertisements and notices in newspapers of record; and 

other tools as appropriate.

Volunteer group participation. The Forest would establish a trail ranger program in 

which volunteer groups might participate. Participating volunteer groups would (1) 

engage users in the management of their National Forest, (2) promote safe and 

responsible riding, (3) inform and educate riders about trail rules and proper land use, (4) 

monitor trail activity and reporting unsafe trail conditions or illegal activities, (5) 

perform light trail maintenance, and (6) respond to and assist trail emergencies.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

30

Recreation Enhancement Act. Through a separate action under the Recreation 

Enhancement Act, user fees would be collected for the operation and maintenance of the 

off-highway vehicle system.

Monitoring

The Travel Management Plan would be tiered to the Forest Plan desired conditions, goals and 

objectives and would follow (or amend) standards and guidelines. The Forest Plan monitoring 

strategy is designed to evaluate the achievement of desired conditions, goals, objectives, and the 

effectiveness of standards and guidelines.

Some monitoring questions that pertain to travel management are listed in the Forest Plan 

monitoring strategy (objectives 309 and 407-422). These questions would be used to determine 

whether travel management is being effectively managed on the Forest. Monitoring motorized 

use as part of the Forest Plan is required in 36 CFR 212.57. The Forest would reference the 

Forest Plan monitoring strategy where appropriate. The ID team also has compiled additional 

monitoring needs in the project area, which are needed to validate assumptions used in this 

planning process, and to verify that the plan is being implemented as intended. Monitoring items 

would be prioritized by the responsible official if funding is not available to implement all 

objectives or items listed or referenced in the monitoring plan. Specific monitoring items include 

completion of the stream crossing protocol, needed to identify stream crossings not meeting 

standards and to prescribe rehabilitation measures; and monitoring of plant occurrences, which is 

assumed in the effects analysis.