Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

Document Structure

The Forest Service has prepared this final environmental impact statement (FEIS) in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. 

This FEIS discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects that would result from the 

proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized as follows:

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action: The chapter includes information on the history of the 

project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency‘s proposal for achieving the 

purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the 

proposal and how the public responded.

Chapter 2. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This chapter provides a more detailed 

description of the agency‘s proposed action as well as alternatives designed to resolve issues and 

achieve the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on significant issues raised 

internally, by the public and by other agencies. This discussion also includes design criteria. Finally, 

this section provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each 

alternative.

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter describes the 

expected environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and alternatives. This analysis 

is organized by resource area (such as wildlife and soils).

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination: This chapter provides a list of preparers and agencies 

consulted during the development of the environmental impact statement.

Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in 

the environmental impact statement.

Index: The index provides page numbers by document topic.

Additional documentation, including completed specialist reports, scientific and other sources underlying 

the analysis, and other planning documents, may be found in the project planning record located at the 

Forest Supervisor‘s Office in Custer, South Dakota.

Location

The project area consists of Federal lands managed by the Black Hills National Forest (also referred to as 

the ―Forest‖), comprising approximately 1.2 million acres in western South Dakota and eastern Wyoming 

(Figure 1). The bulk of the Forest is located in a contiguous block in western South Dakota, with parcels 

in eastern Wyoming, including the Bear Lodge Mountains. The gross area within the administrative 

boundary of the Forest depicted in Figure 1 is 1.5 million acres. Approximately 300,000 acres of lands of 

other ownerships lie within the Black Hills, and are seen in Figure 1 as white inclusions in the gray 

background. A small amount of this is in Federal ownership (just under 2,600 acres comprise Jewel Cave 

and Mount Rushmore National Monuments, and the Bureau of Land Management manages lands around 

Lead and Deadwood), but most is in State or private ownership. Most of the lands on the periphery of the 

Forest are also non-Federal land and privately owned. Much of the private land on the periphery of the 

Forest and within the Forest is prized for private subdivision development, private recreational ranches, 

and land speculation whose end purpose is generally residential development. Wildland-urban interface 

(WUI) issues played a prominent role in developing current Forest Plan direction and are a prime 

consideration in management of the Forest.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

2

Figure 1. Black Hills National Forest planning area (Source: USDA Forest Service 2004)
Background

The Black Hills National Forest is part of the 191 million acres managed for multiple uses within 

the National Forest System (NFS). Motorized vehicles are used on National Forest System lands 

for a variety of purposes, including access to private property, harvesting timber and herding 

cattle, accessing recreational opportunities such as hunting, fishing, and camping, for sport and 

simply driving for pleasure. Nearly everyone who uses National Forest System lands – even 

those seeking nonmotorized pursuits – uses motorized vehicles in some fashion.

There are many types of motorized vehicles operating on National Forest System lands. These 

include highway-legal sedans, four-wheel-drive vehicles (4x4s), and pickup truck off-highway 

vehicles (OHVs) including all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), side-by-side utility-terrain vehicles 

(UTVs), ―dirt bike‖ motorcycles, and specialized vehicles such as rock crawlers. OHV use has 

become particularly popular in the last few decades. Nationally, OHV owners and users have 

increased in numbers from about 5 million in 1972 to 51 million in 2004. OHV users account for 

11 million visitors annually to the National Forests and Grasslands (USDA Forest Service 

2004b). The West (including Wyoming) and the Midwest (including South Dakota) as regions 

rank first and second, respectively, in percentage of residents participating in OHV activities.

The states of Wyoming and South Dakota rank second- and seventh-highest in the nation, 

respectively, in percentage of residents participating in OHV recreation (USDA Forest Service 

2005c).

Management of OHV and other motorized uses currently varies throughout the National Forests 

and Grasslands nationwide. Many Forests and Grasslands restrict motorized vehicle use to 

designated routes and areas. This approach has been referred to as ―closed unless designated 

open‖. Conversely, some Forests allow for unrestricted cross-country use and travel on routes 

that are not part of the regular transportation system. This approach has been referred to as ―open 

unless designated closed‖. Roads and trails that are not part of the official transportation system 

are often referred to as nonsystem or unauthorized routes. This varying regulatory approach for 

motorized vehicle use across the many National Forests and Grasslands has lead to confusion 

among users, especially in areas where different Forests border one another. What is legal on one 

side of the boundary may be illegal on the other side.

The use of motorized vehicles on National Forests and Grasslands provides users with much 

enjoyment and varied recreational opportunities. There are issues, however, associated with 

motorized use. Unmanaged motor vehicle use can negatively affect riparian areas, wildlife 

habitat, soils, vegetation, cultural resources, and historic sites, and can contribute to the spread of 

invasive weed species. Such use can also bring about conflicts with other users of the National 

Forests and Grasslands, and adjacent private landowners, and can generate costs associated with 

route maintenance and law enforcement. In response to these issues, the Chief of the Forest 

Service in 2004 identified unmanaged recreation (including unmanaged motorized vehicle use) 

as one of four threats to the health of the nation‘s forests and grasslands (USDA Forest Service 

2004b).

Travel Management Rule

Heightened concern with the effects of unmanaged recreation was followed in November 2005 

by the issuance of a new Travel Management Rule (the rule; Federal Register, Vol. 70 No. 216, 

incorporated here by reference). The final Rule amended regulations at 36 CFR 212, 251 and 

261, and removed obsolete direction at 36 CFR 295. This rule specifically requires the 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

4

Definitions (36 CFR 212.1)

Road – A motor vehicle route over 50 inches 

wide, unless identified and managed as a 

trail.

Trail – A route 50 inches or less in width or a 

route over 50 inches wide that is identified 

and managed as a trail.

Forest road or trail – A road or trail wholly 

or partially within or adjacent to and serving 

the NFS that the Forest Service determines 

is necessary for the protection, 

administration, and utilization of the NFS and 

the use and development of its resources

Unauthorized Route – A route that is not a 

forest road or trail or a temporary road or trail 

and that is not included in a forest 

transportation atlas.

designation of any roads, trails, and areas that are to be open to motor vehicle use on a National 

Forest. The rule also directs that designations be made by class of vehicle and by season of use, 

where appropriate and necessary. Motor vehicle use would be prohibited on routes and areas not 

designated open to use. The rule was revised in December 2008 with respect to limited crosscountry motorized travel for the purposes of dispersed camping or big game retrieval 

(73FR74612, incorporated here by 

reference).

Presently, most (864,000 acres) of the Black 

Hills National Forest (the Forest) is open to 

cross-country motorized travel, and has been 

for many years. There are over 10,000 miles 

of authorized roads and trails, unauthorized 

routes, and other-jurisdiction routes on the 

Forest. The authorized roads are referred to 

as system roads. They have been constructed 

and are maintained to provide administrative 

and public access to the Forest. System 

roads are considered necessary for the 

proper management of the Forest. Some of 

these system roads are high-speed gravel or 

paved routes, but most are lower-standard 

―dirt‖ roads with native surface material.

Many are open on a year-round basis; others 

are restricted seasonally, typically being 

closed in the winter and early spring to 

provide undisturbed wildlife winter habitat 

and to protect the roadbeds during wet 

periods.

There are over 4,000 miles of unauthorized routes on the Forest, including both roads and trails.

Some were either constructed or used for forest management activities on a temporary basis.

Users adopted these routes over time and have used them, in some cases, for decades. Other 

routes are user-created. These routes were developed by repeated driving cross-country on the 

same path winding through the trees or across openings. User-created routes have not been 

designed by engineers and are sometimes situated in poor locations on the landscape, often 

resulting in adverse impacts to soil, water, riparian and other wildlife habitat, cultural and other 

resources. The widespread resource impacts from motorized cross-country travel and use of 

unauthorized routes; social change manifested by increasing use of off-road motorized vehicles; 

and the requirement of the 2005 rule to designate routes and areas open to motorized travel are 

primary reasons why an environmental impact statement is now being prepared.

This environmental impact statement (EIS) addresses roads, trails, and areas under jurisdiction of 

the Black Hills National Forest. This document does not address the management of routes by 

other jurisdictions, and it does not address travel by over-the-snow machines. This EIS responds 

to the Travel Management Rule and discloses the effects of five alternative approaches to 

managing motorized vehicles on the Forest. These alternatives were developed after significant 

public involvement. The EIS considers which routes should be designated as open to motorized 

use, what types (class) of vehicles should be used on various routes, which routes should be open 
yearlong and which ones seasonally, and whether limited cross-country motorized travel should 

be allowed for purposes of retrieving harvested game and/or dispersed camping.

Legal Framework

The Forest Service must comply with numerous laws, regulations, and policies in managing 

National Forest System lands. Some of the more important of these relating to travel 

management planning and implementation are as follows.

Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528) – This law states that it is the 

policy of Congress that the National Forests are established and shall be administered for 

outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes, and authorizes 

and directs the Secretary of Agriculture ―to develop and administer the renewable surface 

resources of the National Forests for the multiple use and sustained yield of the products and 

services obtained therefrom.‖

National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA; 16 U.S.C. 1600) – The National Forest 

Management Act requires the Secretary of Agriculture to assess forest lands, develop a 

management program based on multiple-use, sustained-yield principles, and implement a 

resource management plan for each unit of the National Forest System. It is the primary 

statute governing the administration of National Forests. This law primarily guides the 

development of Forest Plans, but requires also that project decisions made under this Forest

Travel Management Plan EIS must be consistent with direction in the Revised Forest Plan 

for the Black Hills National Forest, as amended.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321) – This law directs all 

Federal agencies to consider and report the potential environmental impacts of proposed 

federal actions, and established the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The CEQ 

regulations implementing NEPA are located at 40 CFR 1500-1508.

36 CFR 212, 251, 261 – Regulations at Part 212 establish requirements for the 

administration of the Forest transportation system, including roads, trails, and airfields, and 

provisions for acquisition of rights-of-way. These regulations describe a minimum road 

system and require a science-based roads analysis to plan the road system and to set funding 

priorities. Regulations at Part 261 establish prohibitions on National Forest System roads 

that are enforceable by the Forest Service and other Federal law enforcement official(s).

Collectively, regulations at these three parts govern motorized travel management, land uses,

and prohibitions. These were recently revised under the final travel management rule. The 

rule requires consideration of the effects of designating roads, trails and areas on specific 

resources and components of travel management (36 CFR 212.55(a)). The rule also contains 

specific criteria related to designating trails and roads (36 CFR 212.55(b, c)). This document 

is being prepared in direct response to the direction in this rule.

Executive Order 11644 as Amended by E.O. 11989 – Executive Order (E.O.) 11644 

requires Federal land management agencies to establish policies and procedures for 

managing motorized vehicles on public lands to protect resources, promote safety of users, 

and minimize conflicts among users. E.O. 11989 amended E.O. 11644 with additional 

guidance to protect resources when establishing policies related to motorized travel on 

public lands. The 2005 Final Travel Management Rule is the agency‘s method of 

implementing these executive orders.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

6

Motorized Mixed Use – The 

use of both highway-legal 

and non-highway-legal 

vehicles on a NFS road.

Executive Order 13443 – This Order requires Federal land management agencies to 

consider the effects of agency actions on hunting, hunter participation, and wildlife habitat; 

to work cooperatively with state and tribal entities on wildlife management; and to consider 

programs and recommendations of comprehensive wildlife planning efforts. Chapter 3 

discloses the effects of the alternatives on hunting, hunting participation, and wildlife 

habitat, and on compliance with applicable species specific and other wildlife management 

plans.

Revised Statute (R.S.) 2477 Rights-of-Way – The 2005 Travel Management Rule 

exemption for legally documented rights-of-way held by State, county or other local public 

road authorities covers rights-of-way under R.S. 2477 that have been adjudicated through the 

Federal court system or otherwise formally established. However, Congress has placed a 

moratorium on rulemaking concerning recognition of any unresolved R.S. 2477 rights-ofway claims. Identification of unresolved R.S.2477 rights-of-way in this document would be 

contrary to the Congressional moratorium and will not be further discussed here.

Forest Highways Act of 1958 (23 U.S.C. Chapter 200) – Requires that funds available for 

forest development roads and trails be used by the Secretary of Agriculture to pay for the 

costs of construction and maintenance thereof, including roads and trails on experimental 

and other areas under Forest Service administration, or for adjacent vehicular parking areas 

and sanitary, water, and fire control facilities. Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to 

enter into contracts with a State or civil subdivision thereof, and issue such regulations as he 

deems desirable.

National Highway Safety Act of 1966 (23 U.S.C. 402) – Authorizes State and local 

governments and participating Federal agencies to design, construct, and maintain roads in 

accordance with safety standards; to apply sound traffic control principles and standards; and 

to promote pedestrian safety. Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between 

the Forest Service and the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA), maintenance level 3, 

4, and 5 roads are subject to ―open to public travel‖ regulations.

This EIS is tiered to the Final EIS for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the 

Black Hills National Forest (USDA Forest Service 1996a); and the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Phase II Amendment to the 1997 Revised Land and Resource Management 

Plan for the Black Hills National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2005a). This analysis 

incorporates by reference the 1997 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) 

for the Black Hills National Forest, as amended by the Phase II Amendment (USDA Forest 

Service 2006a), and the associated project record; the Final Environmental Assessment for the 

Jasper and Elk Mountain Complex Fire Areas Travel Management Strategy, April 2004, 

(developed by the Hell Canyon Ranger District) and associated project record; and, the entire

record for this current project.

Consistency between Federal Management and State Law

The Forest Service generally defers to state laws regarding the operation of motor vehicles on 

roads. The rule allows designations on Forest roads that pre-empt, or vary from state law (36 

CFR 212.5(a)(1, 2)). It is the intent of the Forest Service to 

comply with state laws while providing for a reasonable and 

safe range of travel and recreation options. However, in 

case it is desirable to allow a road designation that varies 

from state designation, a road-use analysis has been 
completed as part of this analysis to inform the decisionmaker of the safety implications.

A potential point of conflict between state law and any decision on this project could involve 

motorized mixed use on public roads. Motorized mixed use is defined for purposes of this 

analysis as the designation of a National Forest System road for use by both highway-legal and 

non-highway-legal motor vehicles (USDA Forest Service 2005d). The concept of motorized 

mixed use pertains entirely to the licensing and registration of vehicles under state law. The 

concept is independent of the licensing of 

vehicle operators. This FEIS does not consider

alternatives to current state law regarding 

operator licensing.

South Dakota State laws related to roads fall 

under South Dakota Codified Laws Title 32, 

Motor Vehicles (SDCL 32-20). South Dakota 

law requires that motor vehicles operated on 

public roads within the state be highway-legal.

This means the vehicle must be properly 

equipped and must be registered with a valid 

license plate. The State of South Dakota has 

interpreted this requirement to apply to all 

Forest Service maintenance level 2, 3, 4, and 5 

roads. The law also requires that the operator 

possess a valid state driver‘s license.

Wyoming State law allows the mixed use of 

properly outfitted, licensed, highway-legal 

multipurpose vehicles (MPVs) with nonhighway-legal vehicles on public highways 

under the State ORV (off-road vehicle) 

Program. Roads designated under this 

program are referred to as ―enrolled roads‖.

The law also requires that motor vehicle 

operators possess a valid state driver‘s license 

while operating on roads.

A motorized-mixed-use analysis is a systematic process that determines the safety and liability 

when allowing both licensed and unlicensed vehicle use on the same public road at the same 

time. Because the Forest Service is a public road management agency, allowing the use of 

unlicensed vehicles on Forest Service roads open to the public must be analyzed. The decision to 

allow motorized mixed use must be documented and approved by a Forest Service 

decisionmaker. A motorized mixed-use analysis has been completed as part of this analysis, and 

will be considered when deciding what network of roads will be open to OHV use.

Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose of this action is to improve management of motorized vehicle use on National 

Forest System lands within the Black Hills National Forest in accordance with regulations at 36 

CFR Parts 212, 251, 261, and 295, and as described in Travel Management; Designated Routes 

and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use; Final Rule (Federal Register, Vol. 70 No. 216). This action is 

needed to:

Maintenance level – This concept 

defines system roads by the level of 

service they provide and the 

maintenance they require.

Maintenance level 1 (ML1) – Roads 

closed to vehicular traffic; may be open 

and suitable for nonmotorized uses.

Maintenance level 2 (ML2) – Roads 

open for use by high-clearance vehicles 

but not passenger cars. Typically involve 

low traffic volume and low speed.

Maintenance level 3 (ML3) – Roads 

open for travel by prudent drivers in a 

standard passenger car. User comfort 

and convenience are low priorities.

Typically single-lane, low-speed routes.

Maintenance level 4 (ML4) – Roads 

providing a moderate degree of user 

comfort and convenience. Typically 

double-lane and aggregate-surfaced, 

with moderate traffic volume and 

speed.

Maintenance level 5 (ML5) – Roads 

providing a high degree of user comfort 

and convenience. Typically doublelane, paved, with the highest traffic 

volume and speeds.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

8

Identify an official travel system and update the Forest travel map. The National 

direction requires Forests to clearly designate their motorized transportation system by class 

of vehicle and season of use. Current Forest travel maps do not meet this direction. Updated 

travel maps are required to communicate the required direction to the public.

Develop 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. Recreational use, including motorized travel, on the Forest has increased since the

1997 Forest Plan was published. The rapid increase of recreational activity on the Forest is 

partially in response to population growth, private land development, events such as the 

Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, and attractions including Mt. Rushmore National Memorial, 

Custer State Park, and Wind Cave National Park. Individuals drawn to these events and 

destinations often enjoy recreational opportunities on the Forest, including hiking, camping, 

fishing, hunting and motorized travel (USDA Forest Service 2005).

Increased recreational use on the Forest has also contributed to the overuse of recreational 

facilities, resource impacts, and increased conflicts between owners of private property and 

Forest recreational users. In response to Forest Plan Goal 4, the Forest strives to provide a 

range of quality recreation experiences to the public within the capability of the Forest‘s 

resources. It is timely to review the Forest‘s capability to provide a variety of recreational 

opportunities given the change in demand.

Reduce adverse impacts caused by unmanaged cross-country and road and trail usage 

in order to maintain and conserve the condition of ecosystems and watersheds. Effects 

to resources have increased as travel on the Forest has increased. Legal and stewardship 

mandates require the Forest Service to maintain and restore ecosystems and watersheds.

Forest managers and the public have expressed concern about the capability to maintain an 

increasingly large network of roads and trails. Roads and trails in disrepair can prevent the 

Forest from meeting resource protection goals. There are also concerns about maintenance 

and resource damage on roads and trails that are no longer needed to meet public or agency 

needs. Legally, road and trail funding on National Forests can only be used for authorized 

routes. Currently, there is no way to pay for maintenance or corrective measures such as road 

and trail structures on unauthorized routes.

Specify roads, trails, and areas open to motorized use. The Travel Management Rule 

requires the Forest to designate roads, trails, and areas open to motorized use and to specify 

the type of vehicle and season of use for each (Federal Register 2005:70FR68264). Current 

Forest travel maps display roads, trails, and areas that are open or closed to motorized use, 

but do not officially designate routes and areas open to motorized use. Under the authority of 

the rule, these maps do not create a legal basis for law enforcement.

Closely align travel and recreation opportunities offered to the public with the Forest’s 

management capability. Unmanaged recreation has been identified by the Forest Service as 

one of the Four Threats to the Health of the Nation‘s Forests and Grasslands (USDA Forest 

Service 2004). The Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR 212.55) requires the responsible 

official to consider the need for maintenance and administration of roads, trails, and areas 

that would arise if the uses under consideration are designated and the resources for that 

maintenance and administration are available. Proactively designating and actively 

managing system roads, trails, and areas could help reduce management cost and focus 

limited resources.
Decision Framework

Given the purpose and need, the Forest Supervisor will review the proposed action and 

alternatives, significant issues, the environmental consequences of each alternative, and public 

comments, and will make the following decisions concerning the management of motorized 

travel on the lands in the project area:

Whether to designate certain routes, trailheads and other facilities as open to the public 

for motorized use.

Whether to authorize improvements to certain routes to allow their use, and if so, the 

nature of those improvements.

Whether to allow motorized game retrieval and motorized dispersed camping or off-road 

parking.

The season or types of public motorized use allowed for those routes open to motorized 

travel.

Whether to amend existing Forest Plan direction to allow implementation of the selected 

travel management alternative.

Site-specific analysis is incorporated into this document to support the authorization of 

construction and reconstruction of trails. However, interdisciplinary (ID) team specialists did not 

evaluate the effects of physically decommissioning roads or trails, thus no decision to physically 

close and decommission roads or trails will be made based on the analysis in this document.

These actions would be evaluated and decided in subsequent project analyses.

Proposed Action

Early development of the proposed action involved extensive consultation with many individuals 

and groups. Some of this work was conducted by the National Forest Advisory Board. Other 

efforts were conducted by the Forest Service. The following section summarizes these efforts.

National Forest Advisory Board Efforts

The Forest conducted preliminary public involvement from April 2003 to November 2007 

through the work of the Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board (NFAB). This board was 

chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) in 2003. In March 2005, the Board 

established the Travel Management Subcommittee (the Subcommittee) to develop 

recommendations to the larger NFAB for travel management on the Forest. It was intended that 

advice provided by the NFAB would be used by the Forest Service to develop a proposed action 

or alternatives to be considered in the EIS. Members appointed to the Subcommittee represented 

a wide variety of interests, including both motorized and nonmotorized recreationists.

To assist their efforts in evaluating the potential for establishing a designated OHV trail system 

on the Forest, the Subcommittee distributed a User Needs Questionnaire to solicit input from 

both OHV and non-OHV users. By December 2005, some 559 responses had been received. To 

supplement the information received from this effort, the Subcommittee also conducted four 

public meetings in South Dakota and Wyoming in which they listened to ideas, suggestions and 

concerns from off-highway vehicle users, outdoor recreationists, interested stakeholders and 

community members.

NFAB Recommendations - Based on public input solicited and received, the Subcommittee 

issued a report on June 8, 2006 (Blair et al. 2006). The report contained eleven core 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

10

recommendations regarding design and management of a designated system of roads, trails, and 

areas. The report made it clear that these recommendations ―are intended to be general in 

nature.‖ The eleven recommendations offered by the Travel Subcommittee to the NFAB are 

incorporated by reference in this analysis, and are summarized as follows:

1. Our Setting/Niche – ―The Subcommittee recognizes that motorized vehicle use 

including OHVs is an important part of the recreation experience on the Black Hills. The 

Subcommittee recommends that an OHV trail system be developed, within the context 

of overall motorized uses, which provides for a variety of opportunities but does not 

dominate or unreasonably interfere with other multiple uses on the Forest.‖

2. Active or a Passive System? ―The Subcommittee recommends an  ̳active‘ system 

versus a passive one. A passive system is similar to what we have today—routes and 

areas are designated as open or closed, and people use these routes/areas as desired. An 

active system is one that is specifically designed, maintained, and enforced to provide 

for specific uses. The Subcommittee recognizes that funding would play a large role in 

the size and nature of the system.‖ (Emphasis added.)

3. What are the economic and funding issues? ―The Subcommittee recognizes that the 

size and nature of an OHV system will depend substantially on the funding sources 

available. The Subcommittee supports pursuing all possible funding options.‖

4. What would be the role of the States and local communities in developing and 

managing an OHV trail system? ―The Subcommittee recommends that OHV 

management on the Black Hills National Forest be a cooperative effort between the 

Forest Service, the States of South Dakota and Wyoming, and local counties. The Forest 

Service would have primary responsibility for an OHV trail system (as well as other 

transportation systems) on National Forest System lands.‖

5. What should the system look like/consist of? ―The group likes the concept of 

―Gateway Communities‖ or of at least connecting/tying in communities in some fashion.

In general, the system should consist of a main arterial system extending throughout the 

Black Hills and a network of routes branching off the main system. The focus would be 

on multiple scale loops as opposed to dead-end spurs. Many of the routes would be 

shared by multiple users... The group recognizes that, for the most part, there are 

already an adequate number of routes on the Forest that could be developed into a 

system [and that] some current, nonsystem routes may need to be included in the 

system.‖ The Subcommittee stated that they did not envision that a large number of new 

routes would be developed, and that the development of new connections or ―limited 

new routes...should be off-set by the removal of other existing routes. In the end, there 

should be less  ̳tracks on the ground‘ than currently exists.‖

6. How do we address populated areas? ―General consensus was that it is important to 

limit the amount of noise and potential conflicts adjacent to communities/ subdivisions, 

and that an OHV trail system should focus more on areas away from populated areas.‖

The Subcommittee recognized that concentrating motorized use near populated areas 

―can be a nuisance for some and cause conflicts‖ and that efforts should be made to 

reduce this nuisance and conflicts. The Subcommittee noted that providing motorized 

access from these areas while reducing conflicts could be ―the most difficult aspect of 

the entire process.‖
7. Game Retrieval – ―The Subcommittee recommends that allowances be made for game 

retrieval as part of the motorized use designation process.‖ The Subcommittee 

recommended further that the program on the Forest should be consistent with other 

Federal and State agencies, notably Custer State Park, and that ―No unacceptable 

resource damage, as defined by the Forest Service, will occur as part of retrieval 

operations.‖

8. Firewood Collecting – The Subcommittee recognized that many residents collect 

firewood on the Forest to heat their homes, and recommended ―that motorized use to 

collect firewood:

a. Require a firewood permit.

b. Be limited to areas designated by the Forest Service which can be modified as 

needed.‖

9. Dispersed Camping – ―The Subcommittee recommends that dispersed camping using 

motorized vehicles off designated routes be allowed, but motorized vehicles be restricted 

to within 300 feet of an open, designated route using the most direct route to the camp 

site.‖

10. Cross-Country Motorized OHV Use – ―The Subcommittee recommends that crosscountry motorized OHV travel be allowed only within designated areas. Exceptions to 

this would be for administrative and permitted uses, public safety, fire suppression, and 

search and rescue.‖ The Subcommittee offered no recommendation as to the size and 

nature of these designated areas.

11. Mud-Bogging – ―The Subcommittee recommends that no mud-bogging be allowed on 

National Forest System lands,‖ noting the resource damage that accompanies such use.

Forest Service Efforts

The Forest Service also conducted work outside the framework of the NFAB. During this 

preliminary public involvement stage, Forest leadership met with Indian tribal leadership to 

consider the travel planning process. The Forest Service also sponsored and conducted 

workshops. The Forest, in cooperation with the National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation 

Council (NOHVCC) conducted an OHV Route Designation Workshop in October 2006 for 

agency personnel and the public. The purpose of this workshop was to acquaint agency 

personnel and the public with the Travel Management Rule and its implementation. In November 

2006, the Forest conducted four ―Travelways‖ workshops. The purpose of these workshops was 

to gather public input and ideas for developing a proposed action. Individuals attending these 

workshops identified routes they felt should remain open for public use on Forest lands, and 

suggested changes or additions to the travel system. Participants at these workshops contributed 

site-specific information that was used to develop the proposed action.

The Forest then convened decisionmakers and resource specialists from the Supervisor‘s Office 

and all four Ranger Districts, to design and display a motorized travel system that would follow 

the NFAB recommendations and meet public desires expressed up to that time. The aim was to 

develop a system that would also reduce or minimize potential resource damage, and be practical 

to implement.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

12

Motor vehicle use map (MVUM): 

A map reflecting designated 

roads, trails, and areas on an 

administrative unit or a Ranger 

District of the NFS (36 CFR 212.1).

Proposed Action

To meet the purpose and need, the Forest Service proposes to designate certain roads and trails 

open to motorized-vehicle travel on lands administered by the Forest. The agency believes it is 

appropriate and necessary to assign a class of vehicle and season of use to these designated roads 

or trails. The agency also believes that the proposed, 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 

nonmotorized recreation needs and desires while reducing effects of motorized recreation on 

natural resources and neighbors.

Specifically, the action proposed by the Forest Service 

would greatly increase the miles of motorized trails 

from the current 36 miles to 663 miles. This would 

provide over 400 miles of trails for vehicles 65 inches 

or less in width in South Dakota (50 inches or less in 

Wyoming), and 76 miles of motorcycle trails. This 

proposal would further designate 2,226 miles of road to fill out the system for motorized mixed 

use by both highway-legal and non-highway-legal vehicles. An additional 1,242 miles of road 

would be open to highway-legal vehicles only. These routes open to public use would be 

officially designated on a Forest motor vehicle use map. Routes not shown would not be 

available for motorized use. Map display would make it easier for recreationists to comply with 

the system, and for the agency to enforce it. Finally, cross-country travel would be allowed on 

177,000 acres of National Forest System land for the purposes of retrieving harvested game and 

dispersed camping. This would reduce cross-country travel from the current 864,000 acres with 

the intent to improve natural resource conditions. This proposal is further described in Chapter 2, 

Alternatives, under Alternative B.

By implementing this proposal, the Forest would comply with requirements of the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule (36 CFR Part 212) as revised (hereafter referred to simply as, the rule). As a 

result of these travel management decisions, the Forest would produce a motor vehicle use map 

depicting those routes and areas on the Forest that would be open to motorized travel. The motor 

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

motorized travel designations on the ground. All other routes, including existing Forest routes 

and user-created routes not designated open on the motor vehicle use map, would not be 

available for motorized travel by the public. This would represent a major change from the 

current situation in which routes and areas are generally considered open to motorized travel 

unless specifically closed.

Public Involvement

This section of the EIS describes public involvement efforts that occurred in the formal analysis 

process. Public involvement occurring prior to that point was described in the Proposed Action 

section.

Scoping

Initial contact with the public at the beginning of the formal analysis process is referred to as 

scoping. The intent of scoping is to better define the bounds of the proposal and to identify 

concerns the public may have with it. The Notice of Intent (NOI) initiating the scoping process 

was published in the Federal Register on September 11, 2007 (72FR51772). The NOI requested 

public comment over a 60-day period ending November 13, 2007. As part of the scoping process 
in September 2007, the Forest hosted four public meetings in Wyoming and South Dakota. These 

meetings were attended by over 700 people. The purpose of the public meetings was to introduce 

the Travel Management Plan process and solicit additional comments. Open houses were also 

held in October 2007 at the four Forest ranger district locations, at which the district rangers 

were present. The public provided additional site-specific route input at these open houses.

Several of the comments obtained at the open houses provided specific information concerning 

the current inventory of nonsystem (unauthorized) roads, trails, and areas. Information pertaining 

to the current inventory of nonsystem roads, trails, and areas was used to update the 

computerized inventory base layers.

The Forest received more than 700 emails and letters during the public scoping period. The 

interdisciplinary team analyzed over 2,000 comments derived from these emails and letters using 

an established analytical process known as content analysis. Comments were sorted and 

categorized in a database, and individually evaluated. The interdisciplinary team used the 

comments from the public and other agencies to develop a list of issues that would be addressed 

in the Travel Management Plan. The issues are introduced below and are discussed in detail in 

Chapter 3 of this document.

Issues

During the public involvement process, the Forest identified public concerns that should be 

analyzed in detail in the EIS (40 CFR 1501.7). These concerns are summarized below as issues.

Issues serve to highlight effects or unintended consequences that may occur from the proposed 

action and alternatives, giving opportunities during the analysis to reduce adverse effects and to 

compare trade-offs for the decisionmaker and public to understand.

These issues were separated into two groups: significant and nonsignificant issues. Issues were 

determined to be significant if an effect or conflict would result from implementing the proposed 

action. The significant issues become the focus of the analysis and guide alternative 

development. On the other hand, issues were determined to be nonsignificant if they were found 

to be: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest 

Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural 

and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. All public scoping comments were 

considered by the interdisciplinary team and the responsible official, and are documented in the 

project record. Comments and their disposition are summarized in Appendix D.

Significant Issues and Indicator Measures

After reviewing and analyzing agency and public responses, the following significant issues 

were identified. The Forest focused on articulating the significant issues identified by the public 

that guided the development of a range of alternatives to the proposed action. These issues are 

analyzed in detail in Chapter 3. Indicators were developed for each issue to help define the issue, 

and to evaluate the effects of the proposed action and the alternatives. The issues and their 

associated indicators are described below.

Issue 1: Effects on natural and cultural resources

The alternatives considered in this FEIS may have effects on natural and cultural resources.

Natural resources of most concern include certain plant and wildlife species, soil and water, and 

the threat of invasive species. Effects to these resources will vary between alternatives and are 

mostly dependent on the miles of roads and trails open to motorized use. Restricting motorized 

use to a managed system of designated roads and trails, identifying specific seasons of use, and 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

14

identifying authorized types of vehicle use, would improve protection for these natural and 

cultural resources. Effects to natural and cultural resources between alternatives are identified in 

detail in the effects analysis in Chapter 3. The following are the primary indicators used to 

measure the effects to natural and cultural resources. Additional indicators are addressed in the 

individual resource discussions in Chapter 3.

Indicators

Botanical indicators

Miles of motorized routes, including through suitable plant habitat

Acres open to motorized cross-country travel

Routes intersecting known occurrences of certain plant species, habitat types or 

botanical areas

Miles of new proposed routes

Number of proposed trailheads

Wildlife

Miles of motorized routes

Acres open to cross-country use

Acres open to game retrieval

Acres open to dispersed camping

Miles of routes in certain habitat components

Miles of routes in species-specific habitat or use areas

Routes identified with relative risk to American dipper

Winter open route density in Management Areas 5.4 and 5.43.

Fisheries and Hydrology

Number of route crossings on perennial streams

Miles of routes within 30 feet of a perennial stream (floodplain)

Miles of routes within 119 feet of a perennial stream (WIZ)

Soils

Acres open to unlimited cross-country travel

Acres open to motorized game retrieval and dispersed camping

Cultural Resources

Number of historic properties within unauthorized routes at risk from ongoing use

Degree to which the integrity of historic property values are diminished

Range and Noxious Weeds

Miles of motorized routes

Acres of the Forest with unrestricted access
Issue 2: Effects on recreational opportunities

The alternatives considered in this FEIS may have effects on the amount of available recreational 

opportunities provided on the Forest, including motorized use on roads and trails, motorizedmixed-use roads, dispersed camping, big game retrieval, motorized trailheads and nonmotorized 

opportunities. Effects to the recreational opportunities by alternative are identified in detail in the 

effects analysis in Chapter 3. The following indicators were used to measure the effects on 

recreational opportunities. While most describe components of a motorized system, lesser 

numbers or mileages could indicate increased nonmotorized opportunity.

Indicators

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

Miles of road open to highway-legal vehicles only

Miles of trail open to all vehicles (includes vehicles wider than 65 inches in South 

Dakota, 50 inches in Wyoming)

Miles of trail open to vehicles 65 inches wide or less in South Dakota, 50 inches or less 

in Wyoming)

Miles of motorcycle trail

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

Acres open to game retrieval and/or dispersed camping

Number of motorized trailheads

Miles of roads converted to trail

Miles of designated motorized routes within 300 feet of lands of other ownerships

Number of trailheads within 3 miles of a potential gateway community

Issue 3: Effects of transportation system design on management capabilities

The alternatives considered in this FEIS may have effects on the Forest‘s ability to proactively 

designate and manage system roads and trails, while also optimizing recreation experiences. The 

alternatives considered will have different effects on how the transportation system is able to 

address management concerns (such as law enforcement, user education, signing, and 

maintenance) while reducing management costs and focusing limited resources. Addressing 

many of the management concerns will be dependent on available funding sources, which will 

most likely be limited. The transportation system design can also affect public safety depending 

on the miles of motorized-mixed-use roads. Roads identified for motorized mixed use have been 

reviewed in a Mixed Use Roads Analysis that includes mitigation to make reasonable 

accommodations for the public‘s safety. The following are the indicators used to analyze this 

issue.

Indicators

Miles of road open to all vehicles

Miles of road open to highway legal vehicles only

Miles of trail open to all vehicles

Miles of trail open to vehicles 65 inches wide or less in South Dakota, 50 inches or less 

in Wyoming

Miles of motorcycle trail

Number of trailheads
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

16

Number of perennial stream crossings

Miles of open roads to be closed

Miles of closed roads to be reopened

Miles of road converted to trails

Miles of new routes to be converted from unauthorized.

Number of dead-end spurs

Miles of motorized-mixed-use roads open yearlong

Miles of motorized-mixed-use roads open seasonally

Total miles of motorized-mixed-use roads

Miles of roads at maintenance levels 3, 4 and 5

Issue 4: Social and economic concerns

The alternatives considered in this FEIS may affect the economic sustainability of local 

businesses and communities. Effects may be related to sound level (noise), dust (air quality), 

trespass and access to private property, distance from motorized routes to private land, traffic 

levels, and miles of routes open to motorized use. The following are the indicators used to 

analyze this issue.

Indicators

Miles of motorized routes within 0.5 miles of a nonmotorized trail

Miles of National Forest System motorized routes through or within 300 feet of lands of 

other ownerships

Number of motorized trailheads within 3 miles of a potential gateway community

Miles of motorized routes

Public Review and Comment on the DEIS

The draft environmental impact statement was issued for public comment during a 45-day 

comment period that began March 20, 2009. By public request, it was extended another 14 days, 

to May 18, 2009. In addition to the broader public comment period, the Forest Supervisor 

provided another 30 days to local communities and counties to comment on their intentions to 

connect to any designated motorized system. This action was in line with the NFAB 

recommendations with respect to gateway communities and in an effort to give these entities 

further voice in the development of a system that could be mutually beneficial.

Public comment came in the form of distinct letters, form letters, and e-mails. Over 1,250 

individual responses were received, each containing comments ranging in number from one to 

several hundred. These individual comments were identified, uniquely numbered, and, based on 

their content, grouped into larger public concern statements, which captured similar concerns in 

different comments. A summary of some of the main points under each of these categories, and 

the general agency response to these, is available in Appendix I. Individual comments and 

responses to all public concerns are available electronically on the Forest website at 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/blackhills. All comments, analysis, and responses are incorporated by 

reference in this analysis.

The Forest Service responded to each public concern in one of several ways. Some warranted a 

change in one or more alternatives. Others pointed out a need for correction in the DEIS 
analysis. Still others pointed out concerns that had already been addressed in the DEIS. Though 

these may not have been cause to make a change in this Final EIS, they, along with all 

comments, will be considered by the Forest Supervisor in arriving at the final decision on this 

project.

Changes between the Draft and Final EIS

Specifically, the Forest Service made the following changes based on comments on the DEIS:

Added design criteria for the Engineering/Transportation section 

In response to public questions, the Forest clarified the concept of gateway communities. 

The Forest‘s intention is that, as communities determine appropriate ways to tie into the 

motorized travel system in the future, they could then be referred to as gateway 

communities. This would be more appropriate since such communities would at that point 

actually provide entrance points onto the motorized travel system.

Numerous comments pointed out that manufacturers have been increasing the width of some 

OHV models to meet multiple purposes, and requested the Forest Service consider allowing 

wider OHVs on the motorized travel system. The Forest reviewed data on a number of wider 

OHVs currently available, and included use of OHVs as wide as 65 inches on roads and 

trails, and for the purpose of limited game retrieval and dispersed camping. The effects 

analysis has been modified accordingly.

The Forest Service has added 12,000 acres that would be open to game retrieval in 

Alternative C only, consistent with the conditions of that alternative. The added area follows 

major roads and highways, and is contained largely in two areas in the South Dakota portion 

of the northern and central Black Hills. This was done in response to internal (Forest 

Service) review comments. The Forest expects that, if this alternative were selected, these 

additions would make it easier for the public to identify and stay within the area in which 

game retrieval is allowed, and would make it easier for the agency to enforce the provision.

The Forest received comments indicating the public was confused by the term, CMUA, in 

the DEIS. Some felt it implied motorized cross-country use. In the FEIS, the Forest Service 

has kept the original concept of areas with high densities of motorized roads and trails, but 

has changed the name to ―motorized trail system‖ (MTS). These individual areas will be 

uniquely identified on the FEIS maps.

The Forest Service has added additional material to the analysis of social and economic 

effects, and it was determined that a rewritten section would best incorporate this material. 

The cultural resources section was also rewritten to better portray that analysis.

The Forest has added a short section addressing climate change.

The Forest Service identified several routes on the Mystic and Hell Canyon Ranger Districts 

that were either shown incorrectly on DEIS maps, or not at all. These routes have been 

shown in the FEIS maps as open trails, and included in the analysis.

Immediately upon release of the DEIS it was discovered that a short trail segment had been 

inadvertently omitted from the map and description of Alternative C. An erratum to the DEIS 

was issued for public comment. This route has been added to the map and description of 

Alternative C in the FEIS.

The Forest Service identified several roads and trails which, though not proposed for use in 

this analysis, may be proposed for public use in the near future. These routes, on the 

Bearlodge, Northern Hills, and Mystic Ranger Districts, have been included in the FEIS 

analysis as reasonably foreseeable actions.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

18

The Forest has identified opportunity for rock crawler use under ―miles of trail open to all 

vehicles.‖

The Forest Service has revised the list of issue indicators shown in Chapters 1 and 2 to be 

consistent with those actually used by resource specialists in the analysis in the FEIS.

Based partly on public comment and partly on further internal review, specialists made 

minor changes including corrections to the resource sections in Chapter 3, and added some 

citations to the list of literature cited in Appendix C.