Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix I: Comments from Agencies and 

Elected Officials on the Draft EIS

Public comments on the draft EIS came in the form of distinct letters, form letters and e-mails.

Over 1,250 responses were received. Each response contained comments ranging in number 

from one to several hundred. These individual comments were identified, numbered, and based 

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

in different comments. These public concerns were organized into broad categories, as follows:

1) Decisionmaking process, public involvement, and coordination

2) Draft environmental impact statement, alternatives, and analysis

3) Natural resources management

4) Transportation system management and planning

5) Recreation management

6) Socio-economic concerns

A summary of some of the main points under each of these categories, and the general agency 

response to these follows.

1 – Decisionmaking Process, Public Involvement, and Coordination

Comments in this category included the following elements:

-- The Forest should be managed for multiple use, and motorized recreation is one of the 

appropriate multiple uses of the Forest.

-- Different balances of uses were requested. Some requested motorized recreation be given 

priority over nonmotorized uses; others requested the opposite.

-- Some noted what they saw as a wide-spread pattern of public land closures to motorized uses, 

and were concerned that nonmotorized groups may be exerting more influence in the decisionmaking process. Others felt too much consideration was given to motorized recreation.

-- Some felt the National Forest Advisory Board was allowed too much influence in the decisionmaking process.

-- Some felt the original 45-day comment period should be extended for various reasons.

-- Some were confused about how early public participation efforts had contributed to the 

planning and NEPA processes.

-- There were requests for more coordination with States, counties and communities, including 

State wildlife agencies, and Tribes.

-- Requests for more involvement of businesses and motorized recreation groups were received, 

often suggesting partnerships for implementation of the decision.

-- Some asked that site-specific planning be adequate to identify routes, and that the process for 

future changes to the decision be made clear.

-- Comments were received citing what they believed were environmental justice issues with 

respect to Tribes and motorized recreation groups.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

-- Some comments requested that private property not be negatively affected by the decision.

-- Several respondents felt that, with the proposed change to Alternative C issued after the DEIS, 

private business was being allowed to sway the position of the agency.

2 – Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Alternatives, and Analysis

Comments in this category included the following elements:

-- Some respondents felt that analyzing the entire Forest may make it impossible to do a highquality job of analysis and design.

-- Comments were received stating that Alternative A (No Action) as written does not accurately 

describe the existing condition.

-- Requests were received both to allow more access, and to further restrict access.

-- Some respondents cited what they felt was a pattern of closures to motorized access on public 

lands, and requested the cumulative effects of such wide-spread closures be addressed.

-- Alternatives were proposed, including one with areas of high-, medium-, and low-density 

motorized routes.

-- Many comments were received expressing preference for one of the five alternatives described 

in detail in the DEIS.

-- Some respondents asked that the decision combine elements of two or more alternatives.

-- Others felt that none of the alternatives would meet increasing demand for motorized 

recreation opportunities.

-- Various modifications to each of the alternatives were proposed.

-- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requested that the quality of the impact analysis be 

improved in the FEIS.

-- Several respondents felt the term, concentrated motorized use areas (CMUAs) was confusing 

and should be eliminated.

-- Requests were received for corrections and improvements to the maps.

3 – Natural Resources Management

Comments in this category included the following elements:

- Concerns about the spread of invasive plants, erosion in riparian areas, and water quality.

-- Protection of botanical values, especially in eight distinct areas of the Forest.

-- Protection of water quality, especially in Rapid Creek and Pactola watersheds.

-- Concerns that management of motorized recreation not hinder management of timber and 

livestock grazing.

-- Requests for protection of a number of specific locations and areas.

-- EPA requested the Forest Service demonstrate that the selected action will comply with 

Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 and protect resources and be ecologically sustainable.

-- Requests to include local research on elk to improve the habitat effects analysis.

-- Requests to analyze the effects of climate change.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

4 – Transportation Management and Planning

Comments in this category included the following elements:

Clarify that administrative access would still be allowed for permittees and contractors.

-- Requests were received to include all existing routes, including unauthorized routes, on the 

inventory and in the decision.

-- Whether to include nonsystem roads in the decision.

-- Some respondents requested that more winter routes be opened to ATVs because ATV use in 

the winter is not as damaging.

-- Regarding mixed-use routes, many OHVs cannot be licensed as highway-legal and thus could 

not use National Forest System roads; and relying on mixed-use routes eliminates familybased motorized recreation.

-- Connecting and looping trails may provide a safer and more family-friendly experience than 

dead-end routes. Some respondents requested non-road alternatives for unlicensed riders, and 

that the Forest Service reduce the need for trailering.

-- A number of respondents requested that the trail system connect to campgrounds and local 

communities.

-- Requests were received for more trailheads close to communities. Some said campgrounds 

would make good trailheads.

-- Some were concerned about the effects to local residents of motorized use on looped trail 

systems, especially by children.

-- Respondents requested that trails be designated for motorized or nonmotorized use based on 

the use patterns, but views differed as to whether use was predominantly one or the other.

-- Some were concerned about damage to roads and trails from motorized use, especially 

increases in such use.

-- A number of area-specific route requests were received. Those receiving the greatest number 

of comments included the Centennial Trail, the Top 50 Trailhead, Route 150-1E, Tinton Trail, 

and the Camp 5/Route 171 connection.

-- Some respondents requested more trails on the Northern Hills Ranger District, and that trail 

connectivity be improved.

-- Many respondents asked for more motorized trails in the Southern and Central Black Hills, 

and were concerned that limited access would restrict access to riders under age 16.

-- There were requests for designated walk-in-only areas in several areas.

-- Limited funding could make the system unenforceable and unsustainable.

-- A minimum age for vehicle operators was supported by some citing safety, and opposed by 

others citing family-friendly recreation opportunities.

-- Some respondents requested lower noise levels, including EPA. Some asked how the Forest 

Service planned to enforce noise limits.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

5 – Recreation Management

Comments on this topic included the following elements:

-- Respondents requesting that existing motorized use be limited, reduced or totally eliminated, 

cited a variety of reasons including environmental damage, conflicts with nonmotorized use, 

damage to roads and trails, desires for more quiet recreation, and their perception that many 

motorized users fail to comply with regulations.

-- Respondents requesting that motorized use levels be preserved or expanded cited reasons such 

as family-friendly form of recreation, economic benefits to communities, and meeting the 

needs of the public.

-- Some believe that limiting access would concentrate use and increase safety issues, resource 

damage, route damage and illegal use.

-- Some motorcycle riders requested that motorcycle trails be separated from nonmotorized and 

other motorized uses.

-- Some respondents requested that SUVs be restricted but that OHVs not be because they do 

less damage.

-- Some requested more UTV access, citing what they see as increased popularity of these 

vehicles. Some requested trail width be increased to as much as 64 inches to accommodate 

UTVs.

-- More access for rock crawlers was requested, in recognition of terrain limits.

-- Many respondents requested that cross-country motorized travel not be completely eliminated, 

but that some areas be set aside for this use.

-- Motorized game retrieval and dispersed camping drew many comments, both in favor and 

opposed.

-- Access for senior citizens, disabled citizens and children was requested by some.

-- Some respondents asked that motorized access be prohibited in areas with certain ROS 

classes, to be consistent with the Forest Plan.

-- Conflicts between motorized and nonmotorized recreationists was a concern to many. Some 

requested that motorized and nonmotorized uses be separated. Several asked that each group 

have separate trailheads.

-- Some requested separate campgrounds for motorized and nonmotorized users, or limits on the 

use of OHVs in and around campgrounds.

Chapter 6 – Socio-Economic Concerns

Comments on this topic included the following elements:

-- Many respondents anticipate a large cost to implement this program and are concerned the 

costs have not been fully analyzed and considered.

-- Respondents requested an analysis of the contribution of recreation to the local economy, and 

asked the Forest Service to use accurate data in the analysis.

-- A request was received to analyze effects on Tribal reservation communities in light of 

environmental justice.

-- Respondents requested a definition of gateway communities. Many supported the concept of 

economic benefit to communities and asked that they be connected to any motorized system.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Comments from Federal, State, and Local Agencies and Elected Officials

The table below lists the Federal, State and local agencies and elected officials that commented 

on the draft EIS (FSH1909.15, Ch. 20, Sec. 24.1). Their comments, and Forest Service 

responses, are shown in the remainder of this appendix.

Table I-1. List of Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes and elected officials that commented on 

the Draft EIS

Letter Author’s 

last name

First 

name

Representing 

45, 54 Boone Dave City of Sturgis

128 Bravo Domenic WY State Trails Program

147 Stewart Robert U.S. Department of the Interior

165 Guffey Scott Pennington County Weed and Pest Board

191 Falkenburg Joe Fall River County Commissioners

241 Mallow Robert Meade County Commissioners

263 Wesley Rick Box Elder

266 Niemcyk Dennis State of Wyoming – Wyoming Honor Conservation Camp

269 Haagenson Bill WY State Forestry Division

289 Falkenburg Joe Fall River County Commissioners

290 Ganje Sue Fall River and Shannon Counties Auditor’s Office (Letter of April 

23, 2009 -- Request to extend comment period)

326 Vonk Jeffrey SD Dept. of Game, Fish and Parks

327 Junge Hiene Pennington County Highway Dept. 

346 Emmerich John WY Game and Fish Dept. 

454 Niemcyk Dennis State of Wyoming – Wyoming Honor Conservation Camp, Trades 

Specialist

471 Hughes Jim Custer Conservation District

472 Ewing Robert Lawrence County Commissioners

473 Svoboda Larry EPA – Region 8

477 Moline John Crook County Board of Commissioners

480 Garman Wayne Crook County Natural Resource District

549 His Horse 

Is Thunder Ron Standing Rock Sioux Tribe

----- Falkenburg Joe Fall River County Board of Commissioners (letter of June 2, 2009)

----- Moline John

Crook County Board of Commissioners (letter of June 29, 2009 –

letter not numbered in the comment response process due to late 

receipt)

614 Whalen Jeanne Crook County Land Use Planning and Zoning Commission
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Table I-2. Federal, State and county agencies’ comments on the draft environmental impact statement and Forest Service responses

Letter BH45 - City of Sturgis, David G. Boone, City Manager

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

45/1. The proposed plan will compress a 10,000-mile trail system into a 750-

mile system with proposed changes; by my math that is 92.5% reduction and a 

rather radical solution to a few problems that could be corrected with adequate 

law enforcement by the Forest Service.

5-33. Alternative A represents the legally open motorized opportunities. Total 

motorized trails open to use increase under Alternatives B and C. Total trail miles 

open to motorized use increase from 36 in Alternative A, to 663 and 771 miles 

under Alternatives B and C, respectively. 

45/2. With the increase in the popularity and growth of the ATV/UTV market 

the Forest Service will be concentrating a higher number of users on a smaller

trail system. We contend that the new system will increase damage on the 

trails. These old mining, logging and fire trails have been used for two 

centuries. Why close them now?

5-34. The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of motorized road and 

trail opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. Alternative C provided the 

highest concentration of motorized routes. Effects of use under each alternative are 

disclosed in the engineering and recreation sections in Chapter 3 of the EIS. 

45/3. The Black Hills is one of the last great places to ride ATVs and 

responsible ATV enthusiasts from all over the United States come here to ride 

so this is a major economic issue not only for Sturgis but for all communities in 

the Black Hills Region. Tourism is a major part of the Black Hills economy and 

closing 92.5% of the National Forest to responsible ATV enthusiasts to punish 

the few during this economic crisis is just plain irresponsible, unjust and 

unacceptable.

6-15. The purpose and need for this project is to bring the Forest into compliance 

with the 2005 Travel Management Rule and designate motorized routes. A variety 

of alternatives was analyzed for this purpose. None of the alternatives identifies 

"closing 92.5% of the National Forest" as the comment suggests. The alternatives 

do bring the Black Hills National Forest into compliance with the Travel 

Management Rule. The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of 

motorized road, trail, and trailhead opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 

3. The greatest motorized opportunities and access within the Black Hills National 

Forest are in Alternatives A, B, and C, which all propose motorized routes in the 

vicinity of Sturgis. It is difficult to project changes in recreational visits as a result 

of implementation of the various alternatives, and as a consequence, it is difficult

to estimate the net benefits of gains and losses in recreational opportunities in 

economic terms. As indicated in the recreation analysis, some motorized 

recreationists may seek other riding locations that do not restrict them to 

designated routes. Economic effects were estimated in the Social/Economic 

section in Chapter 3. The total change in jobs and income under Alternatives B 

through E is projected to be too small to accurately project or detect (see Socioeconomics section, Chapter 3).

45/4. Closing 90% of the trail system to responsible ATV enthusiasts is the 

wrong solution. Can you share what other alternatives are being considered?

2-14. It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide access for both 

motorized and nonmotorized users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. As stated in the Travel Management Rule, National Forests are 

managed by law for multiple use. However, the magnitude and intensity of motor 

vehicle use have increased to the point that soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife 

habitat are being adversely affected. A designated and actively managed system of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Letter BH45 - City of Sturgis, David G. Boone, City Manager

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use is needed. Alternative C would 

provide the largest motorized system of roads and trails. It would provide 2,878 

miles of roads and 771 miles of trails, most of which would be open to ATVs as 

well as other types of OHVs.

Letter BH54 - City of Sturgis, David G. Boone, City Manager

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

54/1. The proposed plan in its various forms will compress a 10,000-mile trail 

system into a 750-mile system with extreme changes; by my math that is 92.5% 

reduction and a rather radical solution to a few problems that could be 

corrected with adequate law enforcement by the Forest Service or possibly 

South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks.

5-33. See response to comment 45/1 above.

54/2. With the increase in the popularity and growth of the ATV/UTV market 

the Forest Service will be concentrating an increasing number of users on a 

smaller trail system. We contend that the new system will increase damage on 

the trails. These old mining, logging and fire trails have been enjoyed by 

Americans for two centuries. Why close them now?

5-34. See response to comment 45/2 above.

54/3. The Black Hills is one of the last great places to ride ATVs and 

responsible ATV enthusiasts from all over the United States come here to ride 

so this is a major economic issue not only Sturgis but for all communities in the 

Black Hills Region. It appears that the proposed plan will sever Sturgis from 

the Forest Service trail system thereby diverting tourists elsewhere directly 

damaging our economy and local businesses. At a minimum Sturgis should not 

be denied access points to all trails in proximity to the City. These trails 

connect Sturgis to other trails leading to entertainment, campground and 

recreation areas such as Deadwood, Nemo, Boondocks, Covered Wagon 

Resort, Custer Crossing and Wild Bill‟s that host tourists that want to visit 

Sturgis as a destination. Tourism is a major part of the Black Hills economy 

and closing 92.5% of the National Forest to responsible ATV enthusiasts to 

punish the few during this economic crisis is just plain irresponsible, unjust and 

unacceptable.

6-15. The Forest Service recognizes the economic importance of access for 

recreational opportunities, and has assessed the impact of motorized, 

nonmotorized, and other recreational activity (visits), on local jobs and labor 

income in Chapter 3 of the EIS, in the Socio-economics section. That analysis 

focused on the magnitude and impact of motorized and nonmotorized recreation 

specifically affiliated with the Black Hills National Forest, thereby identifying the 

impacts relevant to the travel management decisions being considered and the area 

most likely to be affected. The purpose and need for this project is to bring the 

Forest into compliance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule and designate 

motorized routes. A variety of alternatives were analyzed in the DEIS for this 

purpose. None of the alternatives identifies "closing 92.5% of the National Forest" 

as the comment suggests. The alternatives do bring the Forest into compliance 

with the Travel Management Rule. The greatest motorized opportunities and 

access within the Black Hills National Forest are in Alternatives A, B, and C, 

which all propose motorized routes in the vicinity of Sturgis. Development of 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Letter BH54 - City of Sturgis, David G. Boone, City Manager

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

motorized access opportunities to the Forest from any community located outside 

the National Forest boundary is outside the jurisdiction of the Forest Service and 

outside the scope of this project. In a formal letter dated May 7, 2009, Forest 

Supervisor Craig Bobzien contacted communities and counties to request 

information on their plans to allow access from the Forest into their jurisdictions.

The Forest Supervisor allowed an additional 30 days for these comments.

Although no such information was received from the City of Sturgis during that 

time period, the Forest Service remains open to coordination with the City to 

address mutual concerns and opportunities.

54/4. Criticism without offering constructive solutions is irresponsible so I 

offer the following suggestion. As enforcement appear to be the issue why 

wouldn‟t the Forest Service adopt a user fee to cover the additional costs of 

administration of the trail system similar to what the Forest Service has done 

with the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks partnership on the 

snowmobile trails?

4-294. As authorized by the Recreation Enhancement Act of 2005, the Black Hills 

National Forest and the Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board (NFAB) 

jointly developed a business plan to establish Special Recreation Permit Fees.

These fees are necessary to develop, manage, and sustain any motorized trail 

system in a way that is equitable to the public, as well as socially, environmentally 

and economically sustainable. The Special Recreation Permit Fees would be 

initiated in 2010, after completion of the Travel Management Plan EIS and upon 

publication of the motor vehicle use map. This user-supported revenue stream 

would likely be supplemented from other sources such as grants and volunteer 

resources.

Letter BH128 - Wyoming State Trails Program, Domenic Bravo, Wyoming State Parks, Historic Sites and Trails Administrator

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

128/1. Our [The Wyoming State Trails Program] concerns/comments lie within 

the boundaries of the State of Wyoming, which comprises 17% of the Forest. In 

comparing all of the alternatives, it is obvious that Alternative C would benefit 

our constituents and users the most by providing the greatest amount of trails 

and motorized riding areas. The massive growth of the ATV industry in 

Wyoming each year reveals to us that this recreational activity is not going to 

subside anytime soon. Most importantly, motorized users would find a planned 

travel system designed to meet their needs and the needs of their families.

2-36. Thank you for your comment.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Letter BH128 - Wyoming State Trails Program, Domenic Bravo, Wyoming State Parks, Historic Sites and Trails Administrator

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

128/2. Our [The Wyoming State Trails Program] concerns/comments lie within 

the boundaries of the State of Wyoming, which comprises 17% of the Forest. 

Through surveys and various other means of communication, our users have 

requested more trails, access and riding areas. We believe that conflict can be 

lessened by providing more opportunities. Additionally, our program has seen 

that by being proactive in managing motorized recreation, better results are 

obtained regarding compliance by the users. The Motor Vehicle Use Map will 

undoubtedly make compliance and law enforcement easier for everybody 

involved.

5-31. The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of motorized road and 

trail opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. The greatest motorized trail 

opportunities are in Alternatives B and C.

128/3. By enrolling appropriate roads in the motorized trail system, higher user 

numbers would bring more business to adjacent communities through that 

means of access.

5-36. The DEIS and FEIS Alternatives considered a range of motorized road and 

trail opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3.

128/4. Our [The Wyoming State Trails Program] concerns/comments lie within 

the boundaries of the State of Wyoming, which comprises 17% of the Forest. 

Our Program would like to extend the offer to assist with motorized trail 

creation, maintenance, equipment needs and/or funding.

1-57. We acknowledge the offer of assistance from the Wyoming State Trails 

Program, and look forward to cooperating with the State of Wyoming in 

implementing the travel management decision.

128/5. Our [The Wyoming State Trails Program] concerns/comments lie within 

the boundaries of the State of Wyoming, which comprises 17% of the Forest. 

No historic or recreation facilities managed by this Agency are near the 

proposed project so will not be impacted.

3-46. Thank you for your comment. The Forest Service has a legal mandate to 

protect cultural resources. The specific legal mandates are summarized in the 

Cultural Resources section of the EIS. An assessment of effect has been completed 

for each of the nearly 400 cultural sites that have been identified in the area of 

potential effect. Protection measures have been prescribed at those locations where 

the data demonstrate that historic properties are at risk due to activities associated 

with motor vehicle use. The protection measures prescribed are designed to ensure 

that no significant historic properties are adversely affected. 

Letter BH147 - U.S. Department of the Interior, Robert F. Stewart, Regional Environmental Officer

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

147/0. The Department of the Interior has reviewed the draft Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan, 

Black Hills National Forest, and has no comments on the document.

Thank you for your comment.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Letter BH165 - Pennington County Weed and Pest Board, Scott Guffey, Director

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

165/1. The Pennington County Weed and Pest Board has voted to support 

Alternative D. Alternative D would have the least potential spreading noxious 

weeds and pests.

2-38. Alternative D proposes the smallest motorized travel system of all 

alternatives, and would allow no motorized cross-country travel. As disclosed in 

Chapter 3 of the EIS, Invasives section, this alternative would provide the most 

benefit in reducing the spread of noxious weeds.

Letter BH191 - Fall River County Commission, Joe Falkenburg, Chairman

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

191/1. The Fall River County Commission in South Dakota hereby expresses 

its serious concern with the alternatives being considered by the United States 

Forest Service for the Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan. 

None of the proposals provide for reasonable off-road game retrieval in Fall

River County.

5-97. Only Alternative A provides an area within Fall River County for motorized 

game retrieval on the Black Hills National Forest. Alternative B provides game 

retrieval within 300 feet of designated motorized routes 

191/2. The Fall River County Commission in South Dakota hereby expresses 

its serious concern with the alternatives being considered by the United States 

Forest Service for the Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan. 

We also believe the 50 inch width limitation should be expanded to 64 inches 

for ATVs or certain narrower UTVs.

5-69. The DEIS defined a trail as a route 50 inches or less in width and proposed a 

route over 50 inches wide could be managed as a trail or a road. In the FEIS, 

motorized trails in South Dakota have been reevaluated for use by vehicles 65 

inches or less in width, while Wyoming trails remain 50 inches wide or less due to 

State law.

191/3. The Fall River County Commission in South Dakota hereby expresses 

its serious concern with the alternatives being considered by the United States 

Forest Service for the Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan. 

We do agree that there have been some significant off-road abuses of some 

trails and hills in the Black Hills area.

Thank you for your comment.

Letter BH241 - Meade County Commission, Robert Mallow, Chairman

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

241/1. Meade County finds all of the Action Alternatives (B, C, D, and E) 

unacceptable. Thus, we request that at this time the Forest Service continue 

with Alternative A, the “no action” alternative, pending further revision.

2-24. It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide access for both 

motorized and nonmotorized users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. National Forests are managed by law for multiple use. 

However, the magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have increased to the 

point that soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat are being adversely 

affected. The action alternatives B through E propose a designated and actively 

managed system of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Letter BH241 - Meade County Commission, Robert Mallow, Chairman

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

241/2. The process of plan development was unacceptable. Meade County was 

not a coordinating equal partner in the planning process as required by the 

National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). Meade County‟s Natural 

Resource Plan was provided to the Forest Service June 2006; the County‟s 

intent for coordination is stated in the first paragraph. In addition, Meade 

County provided to the Forest Service a Proposal for Motorized Recreation 

August 2004 and a Road Right-of-Way letter December 2005. Upon perusal of 

the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Black Hills National Forest 

Management Plan we can find little if any evidence that Meade County‟s 

documents were considered or any portion adopted. We insist on additional 

meetings organized under Title 36CFR212.53 where the managing agency, 

states, tribal governments, counties, municipalities, and other local 

governments coordinate on an equal basis to create a travel management plan. 

We further request that these meetings be conducted under Roberts Rules of 

Order with documented agendas and minutes, rather than through the dialogue 

to consensus or facilitated meeting process.

1-60. The Forest believes that coordination with local governments is critical to 

the success of the Forest‟s travel management planning process. To that extent, on 

July 14, 2004, the Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board held the first 

formal public meeting on Travel Management. Since that beginning, the Forest 

and the Advisory Board have conducted numerous meetings with local 

governments, community organizations and the public. Both Forest Supervisor 

Craig Bobzien and Northern Hills District Ranger Rhonda O'Byrne have met with 

Meade County. The County also was given an opportunity to comment at scoping 

for the proposed action. The County was sent a copy of the DEIS and asked to 

comment. In a formal letter dated May 7, 2009, Craig Bobzien also gave the 

County an additional 30 days to comment after the DEIS comment period closed.

241/3. The extent of non-system road closure is unacceptable and is 

incompatible with Issue 4, Social and Economic Concerns, one of the issues 

addressed in the EIS. The proposed closure of non-system roads in the four 

Action Alternatives in the EIS constitutes closure of one-half- to two-thirds of 

existing roads. The EIS does not address the loss of access to the resources of 

large sections of the National Forest for fire and emergency protection and for 

contracted multiple uses such as timber sales. Without regular use by the public 

(in addition to the exempted Forest Service and Emergency use as already 

discussed in the plan), the non-system roads will quickly become impassable 

and whole areas will be at risk of loss by fire.

4-50. This analysis evaluates user-created routes and system routes for possible 

designation into the Forest Travel System. The evaluation considered factors such 

as compatibility with existing land prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to 

the resource, wildlife objectives, safety, existing and/or potential conflicts, as well 

as information provided from the public. These routes would also need to meet 

existing objectives, standards, and specifications as identified within Forest 

Service manuals and handbooks. Routes that are determined to provide a benefit to 

the public and are consistent with the above factors could be included in the 

transportation system.

241/4. Large blocks like Swede Gulch with no recognized roads look like de 

facto wilderness designations.

4-370. It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide access for both 

motorized and nonmotorized users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. National Forests are managed by law for multiple use.

National Forests are neither reserved for the exclusive use of any one group, nor 

must every use be accommodated on every acre. It is entirely appropriate for 

different areas of the National Forests to provide different opportunities for 

recreation. An interdisciplinary process was used to identify routes suitable for 

public motorized use designation, including all identified non-system routes, in the 

range of alternatives. The analysis process included identifying natural and 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Letter BH241 - Meade County Commission, Robert Mallow, Chairman

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

cultural resource concerns, recreation, access needs, and other related 

considerations consistent with the 2005 Travel Management Rule to develop the 

range of alternatives. The effects of each of these alternatives are disclosed in 

Chapter 3 of the FEIS.

241/5. The Meade County Natural Resource Plan‟s Mission Statement can be 

summarized as protection of the custom, culture, and economic viability of the 

County residents (as mandated by NEPA). The Black Hills are rich with 

evidence of human activity. Examples are towns, ghost towns, cemeteries, 

abandoned mines, dams, trestles, railroad grades, roads, trails, and in-holdings. 

We believe that motorized access to these historic and cultural sites must 

remain available to people who wore out their limbs and joints adding value to 

Black Hills resources. 

5-142. The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of motorized road and 

trail opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. The greatest motorized 

opportunities and access are in Alternatives B and C. Persons with disabilities will 

have the same access rights as the general public.

241/6. Those who by their labor are currently adding value to the resources of 

the National Forest need sufficient motorized access to achieve the multiple use 

goals as mandated in the Multiple Use-Sustained yield Act of 1960.

5-142. The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of motorized road and 

trail opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. The greatest motorized 

opportunities and access are in Alternatives B and C. Persons with disabilities will 

have the same access rights as the general public.

Letter BH263 - Box Elder Planning and Zoning, Wesley M. Rick, Member

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

263/1. After reading the DEIS, I believe Alternative C would be a good way to 

go. It would allow enough off roads and should suffice those needs.

2-36. Thank you for your comment.

263/2. Alternative C will allow plenty of roads in the Hills for the visitors to get 

a good look at a primitive area.

2-36. Thank you for your comment.

263/3. This plan [Alternative C] should make enforcement easier than some 

other plans.

2-36. Thank you for your comment.

263/4. Cross-country needs should be restricted and Alternative C addresses 

that.

2-36. Thank you for your comment.

263/5. This plan [Alternative C] has more roads around small towns and this 

should help them.

2-36. Thank you for your comment.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Letter BH266 - Wyoming Honor Conservation Camp, Dennis Niemcyk, Trades Specialist

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

266/0. Can the comment be just an email? Or does it need to be a word 

document attached?

The Forest Service advised the public when the DEIS was issued that public 

comments “must be in writing (paper or electronic).”

Letter BH269 - Wyoming State Forestry Division, Bill Haagenson, Assistant State Forester, Forest Management

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

269/1. The Office of State Lands and Investments – Wyoming State Forestry 

Division appreciates the difficulty of travel management planning on the Black 

Hills National Forest given the diverse demands placed on the road and trail 

systems. As managers of state lands within and adjacent to the Forest, we have 

a clear interest in the outcome of the process.

The Division generally supports the selection of Alternative B, which 

implements most of the National Forest Advisory Board recommendations, 

improves travel management, reduces conflicts, and provides a road system 

sufficient to facilitate resource management. This alternative seems to be an 

attempt to balance better travel management with the needs of forest users.

2-28. Thank you for your comment. It is the intent of the Black Hills National 

Forest to provide access for both motorized and nonmotorized users in a manner 

that is environmentally sustainable over the long term. National Forests are 

managed by law for multiple use including water quality, wildlife habitat, and 

timber, grazing, mining, and outdoor recreation. 

269/2. The Division [The Office of State Lands and Investments – Wyoming 

State Forestry Division], has reviewed the map and G.I.S. data for Alternative 

B. There were no obvious situations where access to state lands would be 

negatively affected by the alternative. We are confident that the Black Hills 

National Forest will ensure that the new travel management plan does not 

impact access for non-federal landowners within and adjacent to the Forest.

4-42. The Forest Service recognizes the need for access to public and private 

lands. All current legal access rights will be maintained and the Forest will work 

with all requiring legal access.

269/3. The Division [The Office of State Lands and Investments – Wyoming 

State Forestry Division], recognizes that the Forest [Service] is well aware of 

the need for a sufficient road system for resource and fire management. We 

encourage the Forest [Service] to maintain existing roads on the system to the 

greatest extent possible for management use while closing the roads seasonally 

or year-round – where necessary – to prevent resource damage.

4-351. This analysis includes the evaluation of user-created routes and system 

routes for possible designation into the Forest Travel System. Access for 

emergency response purposes and management needs including fire suppression 

would be allowed under all alternatives. The evaluation of routes considered these 

reasonably foreseeable actions as well as compatibility with existing land 

prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the resource, wildlife objectives, 

safety, existing and/or potential conflicts, as well as information provided from the 

public. These routes will also need to meet existing objectives, standards, and 

specifications as identified within Forest Service manuals and handbooks. Routes 

that are determined to provide a benefit to the public and are consistent with the 

above factors could be included in the selected transportation system.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Letter BH289 - Fall River County Commissioners, Joe Falkenburg, Chairman; Mike Ortner, Vice Chair; Glen Reaser, Commissioner; Joe 

Allen, Commissioner; Anne Cassens, Commissioner

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

289/1. Fall River County hereby notifies you of our intent to require 

coordination with us prior to any current plans or future change to Black Hills 

National Forest land usage, restrictions or regulations. This coordination is 

required by federal regulation.

So much of our county is publicly owned that we want to be certain that 

any changes on the public segments of Fall River County be coordinated with 

our planning for land usage and economic development.

We wish to schedule a meeting with appropriate personnel about the Travel 

Management Plan. We also are requesting that a scoping meeting regarding this 

plan be held within Fall River County

1-61. The Forest believes that coordination with local governments is critical to 

the success of the Forest‟s travel management planning process. On May 5, 2009, 

Hell Canyon District Ranger Lynn Kolund and Forest Travel Management 

Planner Tom Willems met with the Fall River County Commissioners to provide 

information on the Travel Management Plan DEIS and discuss the County‟s 

related concerns. A public meeting focusing on the Travel Management Plan 

DEIS was also scheduled for May 15, 2009. The meeting was conducted from 6 –

8 p.m. at the Senior Center in the Fall River County community of Edgemont.

289/2. We were recently surprised to find that we have not been notified of the 

proposed removal of nearly 4,000 acres in the Craven Canyon area from 

mineral exploration for an extended period. Now we have received a copy of a 

travel management EIS which was completed with no input from the County 

Commission.

3-70. In response to County Commission concerns, District Ranger Lynn Kolund, 

Forest Minerals Staff Rusty Wilder, and District Archeologist Tony King met with 

the Fall River County Commissioners on May 19, 2009. At that meeting, the 

Forest representatives answered questions the County Commissioners had 

regarding the Craven Canyon Mineral Withdrawal.

Letter BH290 - Fall River and Shannon Counties Auditor’s Office, Sue Ganje, County Auditor

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Response

290/0. In regards to the Forest‟s Travel Management Plan, please use this as a 

request to extend the current comment period.

The request is acknowledged. The public comment period was extended for 14 

days, to May 18. In addition, by formal letter dated May 7, 2009, Forest 

Supervisor Craig Bobzien contacted communities and counties to request 

information on their plans to allow access from the Forest into their 

jurisdictions. The Forest Supervisor allowed an additional 30 days for these 

comments.

Letter BH326 - South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, Jeffrey R. Vonk, Department Secretary

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

326/1. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks found that many of 

our issues and concerns were spread across Alternatives B, C, and D; therefore, 

we do not support any one particular alternative but elements thereof. We do 

not support Alternative A or E.

2-23. All the action alternatives will be considered in developing a selected 

alternative. The selected alternative will be based on public comments and the 

results of the effects analysis in the EIS.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Letter BH326 - South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, Jeffrey R. Vonk, Department Secretary

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

326/2. The Division of Parks and Recreation has worked closely with BHNF to 

utilize various roads for snowmobile trails. For all action alternatives (B, C, D, 

and E) and to best manage snowmobile trails, we would like to make certain 

that Forest Service road closures are in effect from December 15 through 

March 31. South Dakota Codified Law 32-20-12 makes it a misdemeanor to 

operate an off-road vehicle on a snowmobile trail maintained by the 

Department of Game, Fish, and Parks.

4-98. The Travel Planning Rule and this document do not address travel by overthe-snow machines. Seasonal closures are utilized in varying degrees in each of 

the action alternatives to address potential user conflicts.

326/3. For Alternatives B, C, D, and E: There have been numerous studies by 

various state and international snowmobile organizations on the impact of 

ATV‟s on snowmobile trails with the most recent in 2006 by the International 

Association of Snowmobile Administrators. It is no surprise when the results of 

such studies show how detrimental ATV‟s are on snowmobile trails. While 

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks supports better 

management of OHV travel in National Forests, we have concerns of the 

potential conflicts it may have with the Black Hills Snowmobile Trail System. 

The BHNF hosts a top notch snowmobile trail system with 350 miles of 

groomed trails and over 1 million acres of off trail riding. 

See response to 326/2.

326/4. Snowmobile trails utilize existing BHNF roads and trails. We would like 

to see each Forest Service District identify a seasonal road designation when 

overlapping with the snowmobile trails. The Northern Hills District has done 

this and it would add to the consistency of the map if each District would use 

the same designations. The Mystic and Hell Canyon Districts show many roads 

and trails used for snowmobile trails in Alternative B, C, D, and E open 

yearlong. As mentioned above, according the South Dakota Codified Law 32-

20-12 no person may operate an off-road vehicle on a state designated 

snowmobile trail. It is our concern there could be ATV and motor vehicle 

traffic on the snowmobile trails during the December 15 through March 31 

closure. Each District should have the file for the snowmobile trails and if not, 

we recommend BHNF contact Bonnie Jones, Northern Hills Forest Service 

District, for the information.

See response to 326/2.

326/5. Alternative B. Eliminate road 238.1B by Rochford. It dead ends on 

private property parallel to the Mickelson Trails.

Route Specific. NFS road 238.1B is open to highway legal vehicles only in 

Alternatives D and E.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Letter BH326 - South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, Jeffrey R. Vonk, Department Secretary

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

326/6. Alternative B, creating ATV parking at Nahant, Rochford, and Mystic 

trailheads will restrict the number of bicyclists that will be able to park their 

vehicles in these areas. In addition, Nahant has no designated parking area. 

Making these areas ATV parking may also increase the likelihood that ATV 

riders may use the Mickelson Trail, which is nonmotorized.

Route Specific. None of the alternatives included a trailhead at Rochford. The 

Mystic trailhead was not included in Alternative E. No OHV trailheads were 

proposed at Englewood, Nahant, Dumont or Rochford in any alternative on the 

Northern Hills District. 

326/7. Alternative C. Road 237.1L, North of Mystic, accesses private 

properties of Johnson and Maybee, and dead ends into the Mickelson Trail. 

Opening this road to ATV use may promote more wheeled vehicle travel on the 

Mickelson and these private properties. There is also a bridge missing which 

makes the old road impassable and would cause environmental damage if offroad use was allowed.

Route Specific. This route is proposed as road open to all vehicles in Alternatives 

B, C, and D and as road open to highway-legal vehicles in Alternative E. There is 

no route proposed where the bridge is out in any alternative.

326/8. Alternative C. Road 143 is accessible to Mystic land owners who live 

along the Mickelson. Trail. This road connects into the Mickelson for a brief 

period to allow homeowners access to their property. The Mickelson Trail from 

the Mystic Trailhead serves as a secondary access in case of fire. We [South 

Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks] recommend this trailhead be 

taken off all alternatives as an OHV trailhead on the ATV trail system because 

we would not be able to gate off the Mickelson Trail at this point. This areas 

needs to be open in case of fire or other emergency. The Mystic trailhead is 

also too small to park trucks and ATV trailers. It is one of the busiest 

Trailheads on the Mickelson during the summer months. There is not enough 

parking for the current Mickelson Trail users.

Route Specific. The trailhead at Mystic is not included in Alternative E. Comment 

has been evaluated and will be considered in the record of decision.

326/9. Alternative C. Road 245 in the Deerfield area allows access to the 

Mickelson Trail through the Forest Service Trail #40. We [South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish, and Parks] recommend the road 245 be closed from 

the Mickelson Trail intersection points during the summer but open for hunting 

use.

Route Specific. NFS road 245 is closed yearlong in Alternative D, and seasonally 

open to highway-legal vehicles only in Alternative E.

326/10. Alternative C. User created trail U250067, South of Hill City, could 

possibly be one of the routes to connect the Mickelson Trail with Mt. 

Rushmore. Although no decision has been made about where this connector 

trial will be located, we [South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks] 

would recommend no OHV trails overlap with Mt. Rushmore and Mickelson 

trails. Keeping OHV trails away from the final connector trail at a manageable 

distance would mitigate conflicts between the user groups.

Route Specific. U250067 is not included as a motorized route in Alternatives D or 

E.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Letter BH326 - South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, Jeffrey R. Vonk, Department Secretary

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

326/11. Alternative C. Trailheads on the Mickelson Trail are provided for 

hikers and cyclists in the following areas: Englewood, Dumont, Rochford, 

Mystic, Redfern, The Mountain, White Elephant, Pringle, and Minnekata. If 

ATV trucks and trailers start parking in these areas, there will not be room for 

the Mickelson Trail users. This would impact the user rate of the Mickelson 

Trail and also has the potential to increase motorized traffic on the trail, which

we [South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks] do not want to 

promote.

Route Specific. No OHV trailheads were proposed at Englewood, Nahant, 

Dumont or Rochford in any alternative on the Northern Hills District. On the 

Mystic District, the Mystic trailhead proposed in the DEIS has been dropped in the 

FEIS alternatives. The proposed Redfern trailhead is about one-quarter mile from 

the existing Mickelson trailhead. Motorized trail traffic using the Forest Service 

trailhead would be directed east, away from the Mickelson Trail, to access the 

Forest system. The Forest Service believes this would provide adequate separation 

of users and discourage motorized use on the Mickelson Trail.

326/12. Alternative D. There are very few trails accessing trailheads at 

Englewood, Dumont, Nahant, and Rochford Mystic. It would seem more 

prudent to place trailheads where there are more trails. Those few trails that are 

close are connected to larger circuits The use of the above trailheads will limit 

the amount of parking for bicyclists and hikers that use the Mickelson Trail. 

This would adversely affect the trail and its users. If these areas were to be used 

as trailheads for the ATV system it would create confusion in use of the 

Mickelson Trail. Even though the trail is signed, there is the distinct possibility 

that motorized vehicles will use these sections of trail. We [South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish, and Parks] do not want to promote or even hint at 

motorized vehicles on the nonmotorized Mickelson Trail.

Route Specific. The Forest Service acknowledges the State‟s concern that 

motorized trail users might try to use the nonmotorized Mickelson Trail and State 

trailheads. It is not our intent to promote such use, and the Forest Service believes 

motorized users will largely comply with the motor vehicle use map. If this 

becomes a problem, the Forest Service is willing to consider means to address it 

including signage or other means.

326/13. Alternative D. For further clarification, the Mickelson Trail Right-ofWay (ROW) varies in distance from the trail center line and is not consistent 

along the Mickelson Trail. We [South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and 

Parks] would like to reiterate the fact that any dispersed camping in the ROW 

of the Mickelson trail is prohibited.

Route Specific. The Forest Service respects the State‟s jurisdiction on the 

Mickelson Trail. No dispersed camping is proposed in that ROW under any 

alternative, and would not be allowed on the motor vehicle use map.

326/14. Dispersed camping and Parking. (SDGFP 2007 Issue #12). We [South 

Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks] support 100 foot fixed limit for 

dispersed camping and parking in Alternative B with modifications to avoid the 

Mickelson Trails, streams, and other sensitive habitats. Inconsistency between 

fixed distances could be confusing to the forest user to distinguish between 

which use allows 100‟ versus 300‟ (game retrieval) in Alternative B, and lead 

to enforcement issues.

(SDGFP 2007 Issue #13). We support motorized game retrieval areas 

similar to Alternative C, but for elk only. We do not support 300‟ retrieval in 

Alternative B for numerous reasons. To avoid duplicate comments, we 

reference and incorporate herein our November 12, 2007, letter and supporting 

reasons. 

Route Specific. Dispersed camping is discouraged within a minimum of 100 feet 

of lakes and streams per guideline 5301. Other limitations to avoid dispersed 

camping within 100 feet of the Mickelson Trail and other sensitive habitats will be 

difficult to depict on the motor vehicle use map, but may appear as limitations 

described in narrative text on the map. This is not proposed in any alternative.

We share your concern regarding the potential confusion and enforcement 

challenge posed by having different distances allowed off-road for dispersed 

camping versus big game retrieval in Alternative B. Motorized retrieval of 

harvested big game presents a variety of management considerations. We 

appreciate your comments and look forward to continuing our productive 

partnership in addressing this issue. 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Letter BH326 - South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, Jeffrey R. Vonk, Department Secretary

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

326/15. Motorized Elk Retrieval in Designated Areas. We [South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish, and Parks] offer addition information that was 

vague in the DEIS (p. 110). Deer hunting licenses include over 9,000 resident 

and non-resident successful applicants and the season could extend over four 

months from end of September through January. Comparatively, elk licenses 

could include a high of 1,500 successful resident only applicants and could 

extend for 75 days from September through December. As proposed in the 

DEIS, Alternative C would allow for 5 months of cross-country motorized use 

for over 10,000 potential retrievals, which could invite management concerns 

beyond soil disturbance that the DEIS did not anticipate.

5-106. The analysis of the DEIS in the recreation section , page 48, does lead the 

reader to believe that the entire hunt areas for either State only incorporates 

National Forest lands and that the harvested animals are only occurring on 

National Forest lands. However, there are private and other public lands within 

these hunt areas. The FEIS will be corrected to clarify this information.

326/16. Motorized Elk Retrieval in Designated Areas. In 2008, more deer 

hunters commented there were too many roads, too many ATV‟s, too many 

motorized disturbances compared to complaints about lack of motorized access 

on BHNF (Gigliotti, L. 2008 BH Deer Hunter Survey Report Appendix B. HD2-09. AMS. SDGFP, Pierre, SD). Several hunters were not aware of seasonal 

road closures after December 15.

5-103. The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of motorized 

opportunities for game retrieval and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. Some 

alternatives provide motorized game retrieval, while others do not provide any.

326/17. Wildlife Disturbances and Habitat Impacts. (SDGFP 2007 Issue ID 

#4). Alternative D causes the least wildlife disturbance and weed proliferation

due to roads, trails, and respective uses.

2-38. Development of all the action alternatives specifically included considering 

effects of trails with the objective of minimizing damage to soil, watershed, 

vegetation, other forest resources, harassment of wildlife, disruption of wildlife 

habitats, and conflicts between motorized trail use and existing uses. Alternative D 

does propose the smallest motorized travel system.

326/18. Wildlife Disturbances and Habitat Impacts. Recreation use of public 

lands could be described as unintentional harassment of wildlife, but with 

increasing year-round use of public lands, wildlife will find it increasingly 

difficult to secure high quality habitat, which includes solitude. Effects of road 

types and motorized uses to wildlife and fisheries habitats are not a new 

subject. Numerous studies in western states, many funded by the USFS, 

published findings 40 years ago on the effect to elk, including road 

maintenance levels and economics (Gardner 1971), reduction in elk habitat 

effectiveness (Lyon 1979A), excessive creation of edge habitat (Ebert 1972) 

which attracts many wildlife species to roads and increases vulnerability to 

disturbance, poaching and disproportionate spatial harvesting (Sundstrom and 

Norberg 1972) and the need for screening cover or line-of-sight barriers 

adjacent to secondary and primitive roads (Lyon 1979B, USDA Forest Service 

1975). Elk could be classified as the poster candidate for monitoring effects of 

altered movements and behavior due to roads and motorized use.

3-113. The Wildlife Section in Chapter 3 of the FEIS discloses the effects of yearround and seasonal motorized use on many wildlife species, including elk.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Letter BH326 - South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, Jeffrey R. Vonk, Department Secretary

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

326/19, 20. Wildlife Disturbances and Habitat Impacts. The DEIS uses wildlife 

disturbance as the primary measure for wildlife impacts yet could have been 

strengthened by using western and local studies, which have confirmed the 

disturbance to elk is a logical barometer for other wildlife species, especially 

those harder to study or track. Elk, a Forest Plan Demand Species, is an ideal 

species to better understand road effects. Studies indicate the following:

Elk movements and habitat use in the Black Hills is largely dictated by 

human activities (vs. weather or habitat modifications) including motorized use 

of roads and trails (Millspaugh et al. 2000) and pulses of human intrusion are 

evident in the daily movements of elk (Rumble et al. 2005). Not all roads are 

created equal. Elk response to roads differs by season, time of day, and road 

type (Millspaugh 1999).One behavior was evident; elk compensate their 

normal movements by waiting to become more active during periods when 

human use is lowest (Millspaugh et al. 2000). Roads create edge and elk will 

forage roadsides more at night, making elk more vulnerable to poaching.

When human disturbances cause elk to use meadows less in the fall and 

winter, physiological stress effects (Millspaugh 1999) are compounded by a 

nutritional deficit, resulting in elk spending more time in habitats with less 

forage availability (Rumble et al. 2005). One trade off is that in areas on public 

land with dwindling quality elk habitat, we have witnessed increased conflicts 

with private lands, a direct contradiction to Forest Plan direction in MA 5.4, 

Big Game Winter Range.

After elk forage becomes less than 50% digestible, elk are in nutritional 

deficit and additional energy expenditures are additive meaning that some elk 

may winter in poor condition due to constant movement to avoid roads and/or 

to find quality habitat (Rumble et al. In Press). On summer range, cows may 

enter spring with a nutritional deficit from the previous 7-9 months and there 

can be added stress from humans during lactation, despite better forage quality 

during summer.

Bull and cow elk respond differently to roads and trails. In general, bull elk 

are more sensitive to roads and trails than cows. Secondary and tertiary roads 

displaced elk in fall, which might be related to hunter activity along these roads 

(Millspaugh et al. 2000). Rumble et al. (2005) found that elk were always 

further from primitive roads than on average during the fall, and usually further 

from secondary and primary roads and in areas of high road densities. The 

effect of roads on elk decreases as distance from roads increase. However, in 

the Southern Black Hills, elk cannot move more than 150m from a primitive 

3-103. Thank you for your comments. The elk discussion was edited in the final 

EIS to include relevant and local studies on elk and effects of roads.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Letter BH326 - South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, Jeffrey R. Vonk, Department Secretary

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

road without crossing another road. Road impacts result in larger home ranges, 

meaning elk need more area to fulfill habitat requirements.

326/21. Wildlife Disturbances and Habitat Impacts. We [South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish, and Parks] suggest that the DEIS effects analysis 

could have been strengthened by including indicators of direct habitat and 

vegetation loss due to roads and trials. The DEIS (p. 144) states “analysis 

effects on wildlife species was conducted using existing data and the habitat 

requirements for each species...and impacts of disturbance to wildlife...but 

that habitat lost to different types of roads is subjective and not standardized.” 

Statements pertaining to subjectivity and standardization as reasons not to 

conduct habitat impacts, alarm us because there is an abundance of objective, 

scientific, peer-reviewed literature that supports direct and indirect effects to 

habitats due to roads, trails, and uses.

Many land management issues pertaining to wildlife habitat are not 

standardized, and never will be, but that does not lessen public land 

management responsibility or NEPA requirements to estimate adverse impacts. 

BHNF Forest Plan has few wildlife habitat standardizations and the recent 

Forest Plan revision emphasized that more management options, not standards, 

were needed for flexibility. This travel DEIS seems contradictory to the Forest 

Plan by stating analysis cannot be conducted due to lack of standardization. 

The DEIS lists indicators of road impacts (p. 13-16) such as botanical, soils, 

noxious weeds, and hydrology, i.e.: wildlife habitats and some assumptions and 

estimates to habitat could have been derived from this information. We support 

inventory of stream crossings, which could be used to indicate water quality 

and effects to wildlife, fisheries, and habitats.

3-127. The FEIS was edited to include more discussion on the change in habitat 

quantity. As mentioned under methodology and general effects to wildlife, habitat 

loss from roads is estimated at 5 acres per mile. Rather than doing this calculation, 

the miles of routes were used as an indicator of habitat alteration. The total miles 

of routes are included in the figures for wildlife habitat as an indicator of 

cumulative effects from past activities

326/22, 23. Wildlife Disturbances and Habitat Impacts. The DEIS states that 

“the amount of habitat gained or lost by closing or opening roads, trails or areas 

would be minimal and immeasurable at a Forest Scale...the primary impact of 

the project on wildlife is expected to be disturbance, not habitat alteration.” The 

DEIS suggests that habitat alteration due to a road is not a necessary metric 

because roads were either constructed years ago or new roads would be 

minimal. Loss of habitat is loss, no matter when it occurred and there should 

have been some relevant scale or degree of loss or habitat fragmentation 

indicated in the DEIS. For example there is an objective, pure linear 

relationship that more roads equate to more lost habitat. One hundred miles of 

roads are more acres of lost habitat than 10 miles of road, or ten times a greater 

3-129. The FEIS was edited to include more discussion on the change in habitat 

quantity. As mentioned under the headings “Methodology” and “General Effects 

to Wildlife”, habitat loss from roads is estimated at 5 acres per mile. Rather than 

doing this calculation, the miles of routes were used as an indicator of habitat 

alteration. The total miles of routes are included in the figures for wildlife habitat 

as an indicator of cumulative effects from past activities.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Letter BH326 - South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, Jeffrey R. Vonk, Department Secretary

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

loss in habitat. This could be quantified by actually estimating habitat loss by 

road maintenance levels (ML). The DEIS estimated road widths of 12-16 feet 

(p. 81, 257) and new trail construction of 50” or less. Of 5 MLs for roads, only 

ML 2 and 3 vary by alternative (Table 7) which suggests the direct loss of 

habitat acres certainly can be estimated. Therefore, existing and new 

construction could calculate acres of habitat converted from native vegetation 

(Table 30-32) to dirt or gravel.

Road Densities are one quantifiable metric BHNF can use as an index to 

disturbance levels as well as direct habitat loss across landscapes. An index of 

acres lost would create a Forest Plan baseline, or objective for miles of roads 

and trails. Project level analysis would then be assessed against that baseline, 

similar to other forest-wide targets. Without a baseline estimate, BHNF has no 

point of reference for cumulative and foreseeable future (5-15 years DEIS p. 

88) habitat loss and fragmentation. This should be discussed in the final EIS.

The DEIS states (p. 145) that analysis to wildlife and wildlife habitat relies 

instead on assumptions of direct effects to wildlife (collisions) and 

disturbances, yet BHNF manages very few roads where high speed vehicles 

traverse. Secondly, assumption by definition includes broad, non-specific or 

subjective elements, not standards. Therefore, it seems illogical that 

assumptions were made on disturbances (which were not quantified) and not on 

measurable habitat loss. The DEIS would have been much stronger and 

informative if it had attempted to include wildlife disturbance as well as habitat 

loss and fragmentation.

326/24. Wildlife Disturbances and Habitat Impacts. Local elk research by 

Rumble, et al. indicated that in addition to direct loss of habitat, roads also 

impose a known, objective, zone of influence on either side of a road, i.e.: 

disturbance. This local research appeared to be missing in the DEIS for elk, a 

BHNF Forest Plan demand species. A Region 1 Forest used disturbances to elk 

by motorized vehicles and road densities an indicator of possible effects to 

other species such as deer.

3-104. Thank you for your comments. The elk discussion was edited in the final 

EIS to include relevant and local study on elk and effects of roads.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Letter BH326 - South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, Jeffrey R. Vonk, Department Secretary

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

326/25. Wildlife Disturbances and Habitat Impacts. The DEIS set a precedent 

by not conducting habitat effect analysis. If disturbances to wildlife was the 

primary analysis for detrimental impact analysis, the DEIS could have 

discussed the deer and elk retrieval information and how “concentrated 

motorized use areas” will also disturb wildlife.

3-127. The FEIS was edited to include more discussion on the change in habitat 

quantity. As mentioned under “Methodology” and “General Effects to Wildlife”,

habitat loss from roads is estimated at 5 acres per mile. Rather than doing this 

calculation, the miles of routes were used as an indicator of habitat alteration. The 

total miles of routes are included in the figures for wildlife habitat as an indicator 

of cumulative effects from past activities. The FEIS states that more disturbance 

can be expected in areas with higher motorized route densities.

326/26. Wildlife Disturbances and Habitat Impacts. The DEIS states (p. 145) 

that design criteria (Appendix B) were developed to protect and conserve 

wildlife species and their habitats. However, only goshawk is mentioned. We 

suggest listing specific dates and areas for seasonal closures.

3-18. Most wildlife issues were designed into the alternatives to be consistent with 

the Forest Plan. Only those items that require specific considerations during 

implementation are listed for wildlife in Appendix B. The trailhead has yet to be 

designed on the ground and goshawks would be considered (nest nearby) during 

design and implementation. The routes listed for goshawk seasonal closures are 

different from the standard closure dates for other routes and therefore potentially 

forgotten during implementation. The list serves as a reminder during 

implementation.

326/27. Wildlife Disturbances and Habitat Impacts. The DEIS appeared to be 

thorough for aquatic resources, including fisheries, stream crossings, wetlands, 

and mitigation measures.

3-144. Thank you for your comment.

326/28. Designation of Motorized Routes to Create Non-Motorized Areas 

(Walk-in Areas). (SDGFP 2007, Issue #11). Designation of motorized routes 

by default create areas with less or no motorized disturbances for a myriad of 

forest users, as best illustrated in Alternative D. Seasonal closures that begin 

December 15 are too late to create walk-in areas for hunting seasons that begin 

in September and go through winter. Therefore, we [South Dakota Department 

of Game, Fish, and Parks] suggest the following area avoid motorized routes 

for the reasons and map we submitted in 2007. Walk-in Areas approximate 

closures of the following roads:

Pleasant Valley Walk-In Area: A 3 mile x 2 mile year-round nonmotorized

east of South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks properties. The 

South Project created this area but we noted on some of the alternative, the 

South Decision and Order could be rescinded and would defeat the purposes of 

the South Analysis and designation. Elk use our state land and find refuge to 

the east in the Forest Service forested landscapes. Elk use is annual and we 

have identified that elk come here from the Wind Cave area to calve. The herd

of about 100 head generally stays in the surrounding area and then head back 

east in the late fall. Our conservation officer has also identified this area for 

Route Specific. The Pleasant Valley walk-in area you suggest adding has been 

reviewed and will be considered by the decisionmaker.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Letter BH326 - South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, Jeffrey R. Vonk, Department Secretary

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

prime archery deer. The recent prescribed fires will enhance native vegetation 

and a nonmotorized area would assure recovery and a place for humans to 

simply enjoy the views. We ask that all roads be closed except to 

administrative uses. Road numbers with the Hell Canyon South Project Maps 

and the proposed BHNF Route Map do not jive so we list all possible 

combinations: all user-created trails in addition to 715.3D, South 077, 316.1M, 

316.1N, U420010, U420017, U420009, CZ-3236, 316.1H, 315.1U, 315.1R, 

315.JQ, South 076.

326/29. Designation of Motorized Routes to Create Non-Motorized Areas 

(Walk-in Areas). (SDGFP 2007, Issue #11). Designation of motorized routes 

by default create areas with less or no motorized disturbances for a myriad of 

forest users, as best illustrated in Alternative D. Seasonal closures that begin 

December 15 are too late to create walk-in areas for hunting seasons that begin 

in September and go through winter. Therefore, we [South Dakota Department 

of Game, Fish, and Parks] suggest the following area avoid motorized routes 

for the reasons and map we submitted in 2007. Walk-in Areas approximate 

closures of the following roads:

Roger‟s Shack Fire Walk-in Area: Open views, deer and elk habitat, 

grasshopper sparrows, woodpeckers, native vegetation has responded well to 

the fire, falling trees will naturally aid in road closures. Close 307, 307.1A, 

307.1D, 307.1F, 307.1C, 307.1E, 307.1G, 402, 402.1C, 420.1B, 402.1F, 

402.1D, 409, 445, 715.3J, 275, 275.1C, 275.1D, 715.3I, 715.3E, 715.3M, 

715.3L, 310.1H, 310.1G, 310.1D, 507, 715.3E, 715.3K, 275.1A, 275.1B, 

715.3P, 715.3O, 715.3N, 409.1A, U350143, 310.1E.

Route Specific. The Roger's Shack Fire walk-in area you suggest adding has been 

reviewed and will be considered by the decisionmaker.

326/30. Designation of Motorized Routes to Create Non-Motorized Areas 

(Walk-in Areas). (SDGFP 2007, Issue #11). Designation of motorized routes 

by default create areas with less or no motorized disturbances for a myriad of 

forest users, as best illustrated in Alternative D. Seasonal closures that begin 

December 15 are too late to create walk-in areas for hunting seasons that begin 

in September and go through winter. Therefore, we [South Dakota Department 

of Game, Fish, and Parks] suggest the following area avoid motorized routes 

for the reasons and map we submitted in 2007. Walk-in Areas approximate 

closures of the following roads:

Jasper Fire – Hell Canyon Walk-in Area: Views, deer and elk habitat, 

seasonal seeps and springs in canyons, mt. lion habitat, and canyon wren. Close 

284.2K, 282.1A, 282.1F, 284.2G, 284.2F, 284.2D, 284.2A, 284.2B, 284.2A, 

Route Specific. The Jasper Fire-Hell Canyon walk-in area you suggest adding has 

been reviewed and will be considered by the decisionmaker.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Letter BH326 - South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, Jeffrey R. Vonk, Department Secretary

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

284.2J, 284.2F, 284.2J, 284.2T, 681, 680.1A, 680.1B, 680, 681, 680.1D,

284.2C.

326/31. Designation of Motorized Routes to Create Non-Motorized Areas 

(Walk-in Areas). (SDGFP 2007, Issue #11). Designation of motorized routes 

by default create areas with less or no motorized disturbances for a myriad of 

forest users, as best illustrated in Alternative D. Seasonal closures that begin 

December 15 are too late to create walk-in areas for hunting seasons that begin 

in September and go through winter. Therefore, we [South Dakota Department 

of Game, Fish, and Parks] suggest the following area avoid motorized routes 

for the reasons and map we submitted in 2007. Walk-in Areas approximate 

closures of the following roads:

Park Complex and French Creek Walk-in Areas: Along the boundaries of 

Custer State Park, Norbeck Wildlife Preserve, and Wind Cave National Park:

Protection of buffer to state and federal parks, Norbeck Wildlife Preserve, 

Meeker Creek. Wildlife is more likely to move freely across boundaries if not 

disturbed by roads and vehicles. Meeker Creek purchased by Rocky Mountain 

Elk Foundation and conveyed to BHNF in part to retain the solitude and 

habitats adjacent to Norbeck. Close 373.1B, 435, 340, 337.1D, 342.1Q, (and 

adjacent southern spur too short to see number on BHNF map), 339.1B, 343.1J, 

343.1F, 345.1A, 349.1A, 349.1D, 349.1E.

Route Specific. The Park Complex and French Creek walk-in areas you suggest 

adding have been reviewed and will be considered by the decisionmaker.

326/32. Designation of Motorized Routes to Create Non-Motorized Areas 

(Walk-in Areas). (SDGFP 2007, Issue #11). Designation of motorized routes 

by default create areas with less or no motorized disturbances for a myriad of 

forest users, as best illustrated in Alternative D. Seasonal closures that begin 

December 15 are too late to create walk-in areas for hunting seasons that begin 

in September and go through winter. Therefore, we [South Dakota Department 

of Game, Fish, and Parks] suggest the following area avoid motorized routes 

for the reasons and map we submitted in 2007. Walk-in Areas approximate 

closures of the following roads:

Roger‟s Shack Spring Walk-in Area: Close 272.2I, 272.2H, 272.2D, 

272.2C, 272.2E, 272.2F, 276.1T, 276.1D, U410011, CZ3942, 276.1F, 272.2B.

Route Specific. The Roger's Shack Spring walk-in area you suggest adding has 

been reviewed and will be considered by the decisionmaker.

326/33. Designation of Motorized Routes to Create Non-Motorized Areas 

(Walk-in Areas). (SDGFP 2007, Issue #11). Designation of motorized routes by 

default create areas with less or no motorized disturbances for a myriad of 

forest users, as best illustrated in Alternative D. Seasonal closures that begin 

December 15 are too late to create walk-in areas for hunting seasons that begin 

Route Specific. NFS road 606 is open seasonally in Alternatives C, D, and E as it 

provides access to the Deerfield Trail at Flannigan's Cabin. This comment has 

been evaluated and will be considered in the record of decision.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Letter BH326 - South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, Jeffrey R. Vonk, Department Secretary

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

in September and go through winter. Therefore, we [South Dakota Department 

of Game, Fish, and Parks] suggest the following area avoid motorized routes for 

the reasons and map we submitted in 2007. Walk-in Areas approximate 

closures of the following roads:

McVey Burn – Silver City Walk-in Area: One of the most traditional 

sought-after areas for big game hunting. Close U190001, 142.1B, 142, 436, 

251.1G, 249.3A, 249.2H, 249.2G, 606 (or 909?).

326/34. Designation of Motorized Routes to Create Non-Motorized Areas 

(Walk-in Areas). (SDGFP 2007, Issue #11). Designation of motorized routes by 

default create areas with less or no motorized disturbances for a myriad of 

forest users, as best illustrated in Alternative D. Seasonal closures that begin 

December 15 are too late to create walk-in areas for hunting seasons that begin 

in September and go through winter. Therefore, we [South Dakota Department 

of Game, Fish, and Parks] suggest the following area avoid motorized routes for 

the reasons and map we submitted in 2007. Walk-in Areas approximate 

closures of the following roads:

Silver Mountain Walk-in Area: Hiking through mixed conifers and 

hardwoods, big game area. Close U260047, 358.1B, DE, 674.

Route Specific. This comment has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

record of decision.

326/35. Designation of Motorized Routes to Create Non-Motorized Areas 

(Walk-in Areas). (SDGFP 2007, Issue #11). Designation of motorized routes by 

default create areas with less or no motorized disturbances for a myriad of 

forest users, as best illustrated in Alternative D. Seasonal closures that begin 

December 15 are too late to create walk-in areas for hunting seasons that begin 

in September and go through winter. Therefore, we [South Dakota Department 

of Game, Fish, and Parks] suggest the following area avoid motorized routes for 

the reasons and map we submitted in 2007. Walk-in Areas approximate 

closures of the following roads:

Horse Creek Walk-in Area: Close 257.1A, 257, 257.1B, 257.1C, 710, 

710.1A, U190099.

Route Specific. This comment has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

record of decision.

326/36. Designation of Motorized Routes to Create Non-Motorized Areas 

(Walk-in Areas). (SDGFP 2007, Issue #11). Designation of motorized routes by 

default create areas with less or no motorized disturbances for a myriad of 

forest users, as best illustrated in Alternative D. Seasonal closures that begin 

December 15 are too late to create walk-in areas for hunting seasons that begin 

in September and go through winter. Therefore, we [South Dakota Department 

of Game, Fish, and Parks] suggest the following area avoid motorized routes for 

Route Specific. NFS road 231.4B accesses recreation cabins that are under special 

use permit. This road was analyzed to remain open in all alternatives to provide 

access. NFS road 234.1 and 231.5J (referred to as unnumbered spur) are open 

system roads that are not within the Swede Gulch nonmotorized area. It was 

analyzed to remain open in Alternatives B, C, and E and was removed from 

Alternative D. NFS roads 206.1G, 206.1D and 206.1E are open system roads that 

were analyzed in all alternatives to remain open. Any decision about selected 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Letter BH326 - South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, Jeffrey R. Vonk, Department Secretary

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

the reasons and map we submitted in 2007. Walk-in Areas approximate 

closures of the following roads:

Swede Gulch Walk-in Area: Close 231.4B, 234.1, un-numbered spur in 

Section 33 off 206.1, 206.1G, 206.1D, 206.1E.

routes will be documented in the record of decision.

326/37. Designation of Motorized Routes to Create Non-Motorized Areas 

(Walk-in Areas). (SDGFP 2007, Issue #11). Designation of motorized routes by

default create areas with less or no motorized disturbances for a myriad of 

forest users, as best illustrated in Alternative D. Seasonal closures that begin 

December 15 are too late to create walk-in areas for hunting seasons that begin 

in September and go through winter. Therefore, we [South Dakota Department 

of Game, Fish, and Parks] suggest the following area avoid motorized routes for 

the reasons and map we submitted in 2007. Walk-in Areas approximate 

closures of the following roads:

Black Fox Botanical Walk-in Area: Close 233.3A, 190.1R, 125, 125.1D, 

191.1B, 190.1J.

Route Specific. This comment has been evaluated and will be considered in the 

record of decision. 

326/38. Besant Park Walk-in Area: Closure of U100073, 209.3B. Rocky 

Mountain Elk Foundation Purchase (in part) and conveyed to the BHNF for elk 

and riparian habitats. We [South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks] 

highly object to designating an ATV trail immediately adjacent to and 

surrounding this area for big game since that defeats the purpose of the 

conveyance and BHNF should already be on board with managing the 

surrounding area to meet the objectives of Besant Park. Proposed trail in 

forested site will disturb big game moving from meadows into security cover of 

forest.

Custer Crossing (Gonzales) Walk-in Area: Currently no roads proposed in 

area or new trails around it and we [South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, 

and Parks] ask it stay that way for the same reasons as other Rocky Mountain 

Elk Foundation purchased lands.

Route Specific. NFS road 209.3B and U100073 were analyzed in Alternative B to 

be open and were removed from Alternatives C, D, and E. Any decision about 

selected routes will be documented in the record of decision.

326/39. Beaver Park Inventoried Roadless Area: We [South Dakota Department 

of Game, Fish, and Parks] object to a user created or citizen route (U080156) 

proposed through Management Area (MA) 4.1 Limited Motorized Use and 

adjacent to and possibly encompassing MA 3.32 Backcountry Non-Motorized 

Recreation (and Inventoried Roadless Area Beaver Park). Illegal user-created 

routes through drainages should not become a system trail or road by rewarding 

the public that created these inappropriate routes. These two MA‟s are a very 

small percent of the Forest and should be managed to retain the characteristics 

Route Specific. U080156 was analyzed in Alternatives B and C and removed from 

Alternatives D and E. This route is in management area 4.1 and not within 

management area 3.32. This route was not illegally created as it used to be a 

Forest Service system route as indicated on old Forest Service maps from the 

1960s, „70s and „80s. Any decision about selected routes will be documented in 

the record of decision.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Letter BH326 - South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, Jeffrey R. Vonk, Department Secretary

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

and desired conditions in which they were classified.

326/40. Mixed-use Roads. According to the DEIS, a decision on whether to 

designate roads for motorized mixed traffic will be informed by a motorizedmixed-use analysis performed by a qualified engineer. We strongly encourage 

and support this analysis before designating any road motorized-mixed-use.

Mixed use roads are proposed in all action alternatives, and we feel there 

must be balance between the number of miles of mixed use road and trails to 

encourage users to purchase a Recreation Enhancement Act permit. 

4-374. In 2009, motorized mixed-use analyses (professional engineering studies) 

were conducted on selected ML 2 – ML 5 roads by professional engineers. These 

roads are the Forest‟s arterials and collectors and the main access routes that the 

public uses to get to the Forest. Professional engineering analysis and judgment 

was used to evaluate the potential for a crash as well as the severity of an accident 

should a crash occur. The crash potential rating is based on roadway factors such 

as traffic volume and type, surface type and condition, sight distances, driving 

speeds, and roadway alignment (horizontal and vertical curves). Crash severity 

ratings were based on roadside conditions (natural ground slopes, slope/height of 

embankments, and large unyielding features next to the road), speed, and traffic 

types (the larger the difference in size of vehicles, the greater the severity). The 

final decision on designation of motorized mixed-use roads will be informed by 

these studies.

326/41. Map Information. We asked in our 2007 comments and request again 

that maps include actual seasonal dates, nonmotorized trails and other use 

areas. The final Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) and Atlas need to be more 

informational because the Black Hills are a recreational destination. BHNF in 

particular, will offer more motorized recreation than any other National Forest. 

Many time the DEIS stated the MVUM will be the main tool used to determine 

compliance and enforcement of motorized use. Therefore, we are greatly 

concerned that BHNF could choose to not provide forest users a multi-color

MVUM. We understand a multi-color map would add printing expense but a 

multi-color map would improve public compliance and better ensure resource 

protection, especially when the different road and trail categories could be 

signed according to color on designated routes. A multi-color MVUM would 

be more user-friendly than a monochromatic map, which would be difficult to 

read given the multiple types of recreational opportunities.

4-341. The motor vehicle use map will follow national direction and symbology to 

be consistent with the overall program nationwide. It will not likely contain any 

nonmotorized trails. Nonmotorized trail brochures are currently available for all 

designated trail systems on the Black Hills. Other multi-media information may be 

developed in response to evolving needs.

326/42. Signing. BHNF has always provided great recreational opportunities 

for both motorized and nonmotorized enthusiasts. South Dakota and Wyoming 

residents are privileged to have such an opportunity and to ensure residents and 

non-residents are able to comply with South Dakota and Wyoming law; steps 

should be taken to provide this information to users on the forest floor where 

trails and roads traverse into both Wyoming and South Dakota.

Interpretive signs, kiosks, and other informative methods could be utilized 

to mitigate problems that could arise from confusion of trail and road locations 

4-334. Forest roads will be signed with the appropriate road number to match the 

motorized vehicle use map produced for the designated motorized system.

Marking of the trail system is not a requirement of the decision for designation of 

a motorized travel system for the DEIS or FEIS.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Letter BH326 - South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, Jeffrey R. Vonk, Department Secretary

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

crossing through Wyoming and South Dakota, making the trail system more 

user friendly.

326/43. Signing. We feel a great approach to elude any confusion on the forest 

floor is to avoid using the color orange during the signing process. The 

International Association of Snowmobile Administrators has developed signing 

guidelines, which are nationally recognized on snowmobile trails. The color 

orange to a snowmobiler means this is a designated trail, which makes the trail 

safe to ride. We feel if an OHV trail is signed with the color orange, OHV 

enthusiasts will see the orange blazers on a snowmobile trail and think this 

must also be an OHV designated trail.

4-336. See response 4-334 above.

326/44. “Concentrated Motorized Use Areas” (CMUA) Terminology. Prior to 

the DEIS, we do not recall this terminology in public communications. The 

good intention of alerting motorized users to trail loops and so forth, may very 

well have the unintended consequence of implying that cross-country travel is 

allowed. Introduction of CMUA‟s was not identified as an issue. Some yellow 

areas have few motorized routes and other non-yellow areas, such as in Jasper 

Fire and west of Pleasant Valley (R3E, T5S), have much higher road densities. 

We fail to see the purpose of this terminology and highlighted areas other than 

a DEIS reviewing aid. We suggest they be omitted on the final Motor Vehicle 

Use Map. Further, CMUA‟s did not vary by Alternative and a concentration of 

motorized uses on trails and in areas means more sound and disturbances to 

wildlife, soils, water, plants, and cultural resources, which was not a separate 

discussion issue in the DEIS (Final Travel Rule at 212.55(b)).

4-144. The term "concentrated motorized use areas" has been removed from the 

FEIS language and replaced with the term, “motorized trail system” (MTS). The 

concept behind the new term is the same as for the CMUAs in the DEIS. As 

before, it is a defined area featuring smaller-scale loop routes and other motorized 

travel opportunities. No off-route cross-country opportunity is meant to be implied 

by this term, and it was not intended in the DEIS under the term CMUA.

326/45. Southern Hills Management Area 5.4 not meeting Forest Plan.

Alternative D offers a reduction in roads, which would better meet Forest Plan 

directives for Big Game Winter Range, Management Area (MA) 5.4. Other 

action alternatives move the MA away from Forest Plan directives but no 

documentation was given to support selection of an alternative that is not Plan 

compliant. The Forest Plan (Chapter 111-2), states that where there is conflict, 

the most site-specific direction applies, either forest wide or MA Direction. 

While MA 5.4 9102 Guideline to restrict motorized travel is used on a seasonal 

basis starting December 15, it misses most of the hunting seasons where traffic 

and disturbances are greater. Guideline 5.4-5101 gives authority to prohibit any 

activities when needed to mitigate adverse impacts on wildlife and we believe 

better road analysis should have been conducted. The Jasper and Roger‟s Shack 

Fire Areas have ineffective habitat requirements due to high road densities 

3-130. The analysis of how each alternative contributes to achieving the winter 

road density objective (objective 5.4-207) in management area 5.4 was shown on 

page 192 of the DEIS. The analysis was not done for specific areas such as Jasper 

and Roger's Shack Fires. The effects analysis was done for MA 5.4 Forestwide 

and included areas like Jasper and Roger's Shack Fires. In the action alternatives, 

guidelines 5.4-9102 and 5.4-5101 were used in different amounts to contribute to 

objective 5.4-207, depending on the emphasis of each alternative. Alternatives B 

and C would move away from the objective in an effort to provide more motorized 

recreation opportunities for the public. Alternative D would move winter route 

density in MA 5.4 towards objective 5.4-207 in an effort to limit the level and 

likelihood of effects on natural and cultural resources, including wildlife, through 

a smaller motorized travel system. Alternative E would have winter route densities 

similar to Alternative A (existing condition). (See also DEIS and FEIS Chapter 2 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Letter BH326 - South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, Jeffrey R. Vonk, Department Secretary

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

(DEIS 176, 191) which cause habitat fragmentation and loss of cover due to 

stand-replacement fire. The Jasper Travel DEIS (2004) demonstrated a 

proliferation of roads nearly every quarter mile. In the past, project level road 

and travel analysis were conducted but recently, that process has been deferred 

until after the forest-wide travel plan is in place. Therefore, we propose that this 

DEIS and roads within the Jasper/Roger‟s Shack Fire complex (such as the 

proposed Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn project) be analyzed for effects of 

roads to wildlife and wildlife habitat.

for descriptions, intent and design of alternatives). This rationale and explanation 

was added to the route density analysis in the FEIS. The amount of routes, winter 

and yearlong, included in MA 5.4 and in Jasper and Roger's Shack Fires will be 

considered in the final decision.

326/46. Southern Hills Management Area 5.45 not meeting Forest Plan.

Roadsides create SS1[Structural Stage 1 (Grass/Forb)] and edge effects. Those 

few species that use roads or set up home ranges associated with road edge 

effects, are far outweighed by species that are displaced isolated, and survive 

on less quality habitat due to roads. Those species that use SS1 or tolerate 

roadsides, do not lack for those conditions within the Jasper/Roger‟s Shack fire 

complex. There simply are no compelling needs to provide additional roadside 

habitat or to maintain high road densities. Therefore, we [South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish, and Parks] suggest that effective habitat and Forest 

Plan MA directives could be better met with road closures, which was lacking 

in the DEIS. Lyon (1979A), a Forest Service Research Biologist, stated that 

road management is a powerful means of manipulating elk habitat and that 

effect of roads on habitat should be considered with other factors such as the 

array of cover and forage and that this information should be used in forest 

management decisions.

Habitat effectiveness is a tool to express the expected actual habitat 

utilization and is influenced by motorized disturbances and changes in habitat 

associated with roads. Lyon (1979A) developed an elk habitat effectiveness 

model, which has since been specifically calibrated for Black Hills National 

Forest (Benkobi et al. 2004, Juntti and Rumble 2006). The DEIS expressed a 

concern for subjective information. In land management, if the assumptions are 

reasonable and metrics are known, predictions will have much less variability 

and higher confidence levels. Conducting the BHNF modified Habitat 

Capability (HABCAP) simulation forest-wide or within fire complexes at a 

minimum, would provide useful information towards that end. 

3-12. The effects of roads on wildlife, including elk, are discussed in Chapter 3 of 

the FEIS. Alternative D proposed closing some roads for various reasons, 

including wildlife. This information along with your comment will be considered 

in the final decision.

The ArcHSI model was not used in the elk and deer analysis. Route mileage 

was used as the indicator of habitat effects and disturbance effects.

326/47. Attachment 1. Literature Cited or Offered as Resources. NA
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Letter BH327 - Pennington County Highway Department, Hiene H. Junge, Superintendent

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

327/1. In review of the plan it appears difficult to follow and more difficult to 

understand how enforcement of Alternatives B, C, D, and E will be 

accomplished.

4-250. The Forest is committed to using whatever funds it has available to 

accomplish the purposes of the final decision in a targeted, efficient manner.

Funding could include appropriations, cooperative relationships with other 

government entities, volunteer agreements, and user fees. Agency law 

enforcement personnel play a critical role in ensuring compliance with laws and 

regulations, protecting public safety, and protecting national forest resources. The 

Forest Service also maintains cooperative relationships with many State and local 

law enforcement agencies that provide mutual support across jurisdictional 

boundaries. Education and cooperative relationships with users will support 

enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary compliance.

327/2. The draft analysis does a poor job of measuring problems with dust and 

soil erosion. Accepted Environmental Protection Agency standards for fugitive 

dust emissions were not used. Miles of roads, native and aggregate surfaced, 

were rutting, and soil erosion problems caused from recreation use is sketchy at 

best.

3-138. Dust is generally an effect of various levels of use on designated Forest 

transportation systems. Dust is generally not an issue in the Black Hills when 

Forest Plan standards and guidelines are implemented. Dust was addressed within 

the Engineering and Transportation section of the DEIS. Dust emissions are 

discussed in the air quality portion of the Engineering section in the FEIS. All 

action alternatives would restrict off-road motorized use and reduce soil erosion 

currently caused by such use.

327/3. Alternative A allows 864,000 acres open to public use. All other 

alternatives will restrict use of three-quarters (3/4) of the National Forest. The 

Pennington County Highway Department would support Alternative A.

2-24. It is the intent of the Black Hills National Forest to provide access for both 

motorized and nonmotorized users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable 

over the long term. National Forests are managed by law for multiple use. 

However, the magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have increased to the 

point that soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat are being adversely 

affected. The alternatives would allow motorized cross-country use in varying 

levels.

327/4. The plan intends to designate Off Road Vehicle (ORV) trails where only 

these vehicles may be used. ORVs are classified as vehicles 50” in width or 

less. It appears these trails will not be considered as public roads, therefore they 

would be open to non-licensed drivers and non-license vehicles.

No Pennington County maintained roads should be designated as ORV 

trails. If trailheads are constructed adjacent to a Pennington County road, 

guidelines need to be approved for access onto the roads from these sites. 

Construction of the trailheads should also allow for continued maintenance of 

the existing road ,without limiting drainage or clear zones.

4-159. The Forest designated system of motorized travel routes will not include 

any roads that are County or other government entity jurisdiction. Decisions will 

only be made on routes under Forest Service jurisdiction.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Letter BH327 - Pennington County Highway Department, Hiene H. Junge, Superintendent

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

327/5.The problems appear to be created by a low percentage of people. In 

general, people care about the environment and the damage that is caused to it. 

The minority of users who abuse the road/trail sides and Forest should be dealt 

with. Restricting use of 75% of the Black Hills National Forest to control this 

minority is unacceptable.

4-262. The 2005 Travel Management Rule requires the designation of any roads, 

trails and areas that are to be open to motor vehicle use on the National Forest, and 

is the motivation for this travel planning effort. The Travel Rule supports the idea 

that National Forests should provide access for both motorized and nonmotorized 

users in a manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long term. The 

proposal to restrict cross-country use was developed to respond to conditions on 

the Forest. Varying levels of cross-country use would be allowed under the 

alternatives.

Letter BH346 - Wyoming Game and Fish Department, John Emmerich, Deputy Director

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

346/1. Rather than selecting a single alternative as currently presented in the 

DEIS, we [Wyoming Game and Fish Department] encourage the BHNF to 

consider adopting proposals from the variety of alternatives presented. This 

will allow development of a final travel management plan that best protects 

forest and wildlife resources, while allowing a reasonable level of motorized 

access.

In contrast to all alternatives presented, we believe the BHNF can better 

balance resource concerns with vehicle use on the Forest by delineating a 

patchwork of areas that generally support either low, moderate, or high open 

road densities. That is, an effort should be made to create a few blocks of forest 

with simplified regulations leading to low, moderate, or high open road 

densities for all vehicle types, while limiting provisions for off-road travel. This 

would allow forest users who are seeking a certain type of motorized or 

nonmotorized experience to access a part of the forest that best supports the 

specific quantity and quality of motorized use in which they wish to engage. By 

blocking off such areas in contiguous parcels, the BHNF can also simplify 

regulation and map development. We support a similar approach to BHNF 

lands in both Wyoming and South Dakota, rather than using the State line to 

segregate high and low open road densities, as is currently proposed under all 

alternatives.

2-20. All the alternatives will be considered in developing a selected alternative. 

The project is very complex, and the decisionmaker may adopt points from 

different alternatives. The decision will be based on public comments and the 

results of the effects analysis in the EIS.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Letter BH346 - Wyoming Game and Fish Department, John Emmerich, Deputy Director

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

346/2. We [Wyoming Game and Fish Department] find it odd the Bearlodge 

Ranger District proposes much lower open road densities than the remainder of 

the Forest without some type of justification. Please provide a justification for 

such if it is carried forward in the Final EIS.

4-242. The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives for motorized 

opportunities. While Alternative C offered the greatest opportunity for motorized 

access on the Bearlodge District, Alternative D offers the least amount of 

motorized access. Each alternative was analyzed in detail and effects on natural 

resources and other elements are documented in Chapter 3.

346/3. The DEIS may have set a precedent by not including a habitat effect 

analysis. It omits considering lost habitat and vegetation production resulting 

from roads and trails. In the DEIS it is stated, “analysis effects on wildlife 

species was conducted using existing data and the habitat requirements for 

each species...and impacts of disturbance to wildlife...but that habitat lost to 

difference types of roads is subjective and not standardized.” Relying on 

subjective reasoning and measures rather than quantifying habitat impacts is a 

concern. This is because objective, scientific, and peer-reviewed literature 

reveals direct and indirect effects on habitat from roads and trails, as well as 

their use. We [Wyoming Game and Fish Department] believe NEPA requires 

the USFS to at least attempt to estimate such adverse impacts. The Phase II 

amendment to the BHNF Forest Plan emphasized management options, not 

standards, were needed for flexibility. Therefore, the DEIS seems to contradict 

the revised Forest Plan by asserting analysis could not be conducted due to lack 

of standardization. Some indicators of impacts from roads are given (p. 13-16). 

As such, a more in depth and objective analysis of impacts to wildlife habitat 

could and should be performed.

3-127. The FEIS was revised to include more discussion on the change in habitat 

quantity. As mentioned under methodology and general effects to wildlife, habitat 

loss from roads is estimated at 5 acres per mile. Rather than doing this calculation, 

the miles of routes were used as an indicator of habitat alteration. The total miles 

of routes are included in the figures for wildlife habitat as an indicator of 

cumulative effects from past activities.

346/4. The DEIS states, “the amount of habitat gained or lost by closing or 

opening roads, trails or areas would be minimal and immeasurable at a Forest 

Scale...the primary impact of the project on wildlife is expected to be 

disturbance, not habitat alteration.” This suggests it is possible to ignore 

habitat alteration and fragmentation resulting from changes to roads from 

construction, use, or decommissioning. Changes in habitat quantity and quality 

are changes, no matter how or when they occur. Consequently, some relevant 

scale or degree of loss and habitat fragmentation should be indicated in the 

DEIS for all alternatives. Given the information presented in the DEIS, we 

[Wyoming Game and Fish Department] suggest direct loss of changes in type 

of habitat can be estimated and compared between alternatives. In addition, 

some measure of fragmentation could be applied. At minimum a baseline 

estimate of current habitat loss and changes due to roads should be calculated. 

3-129. See response 3-127 above.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Letter BH346 - Wyoming Game and Fish Department, John Emmerich, Deputy Director

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

The BHNF does not seem to have a reference point that can be used to estimate 

cumulative and foreseeable future habitat loss, changes, and fragmentation. 

This should be addressed in the FEIS, and would also be a valuable reference 

tool when it is time for creating a new Forest Plan. The FEIS will be much 

stronger and informative if it better considers wildlife disturbance, habitat loss, 

and fragmentation.

346/5. It is not clear looking at the travel maps for all alternatives why it is 

proposed to have some roads open to all vehicles that connect to dead-end spur 

roads open to street legal vehicles only. This does not seem to make sense, as a 

person on a non-street legal OHV would have to stop at the junction of one of 

these spur roads, but someone in a pickup or plated OHV could continue. 

Please consider keeping such spur roads open to all vehicle types, or better yet 

closing them to prevent pioneering of new trails from dead-ends.

4-116. Thank you for your comment. The final decision will take into account 

specific purpose and use for spur and dead-end routes.

346/6. The National Forest Advisory Board (NFAB) of the BHNF did not 

directly consult the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) as they 

moved through their process of formulating recommendations on the travel 

management plan. We [Wyoming Game and Fish Department] consider this a 

serious oversight because hunters represent the largest single group of forest 

users on the Wyoming side of the BHNF. Neither the Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department, nor Wyoming hunters were consulted by the NFAB. Instead, it 

appears their recommendations were driven more by advocates of off-highway 

motor vehicle recreation. We sincerely hope the weight and consideration given 

to NFAB recommendations and advocates for motorized recreation are similar 

to that given to our comments.

1-58. The Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGF) had a representative 

serving as an alternate member on the NFAB when that Board's recommendations 

were drafted. The primary member representing Wyoming State government was 

from the Wyoming Department of Agriculture. The South Dakota State 

government position on the Board was then held by a representative from the 

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. The NFAB recommendations 

were broad statements intended to guide the development of a travel management 

plan on the Forest. Forest personnel subsequently met with WGF and solicited and 

considered comments from WGF at scoping and at the Draft EIS stages, to 

understand the Department's views. We believe these have been incorporated into 

the range of alternatives.

346/7. We [Wyoming Game and Fish Department] are concerned with the 

current, overall disturbance to wildlife due to unlimited off-road travel 

presently legal on much of the Forest. We fully support the proposed change 

under all alternatives which move the entire forest from “an open unless 

closed” designation to “closed unless opened” for motorized travel. Such action 

will better protect wildlife and their habitats, as well as enhance the motoring 

public‟s understanding of where various motor vehicles can be legally 

operated.

4-68. The “closed-unless-marked-open” policy is now national direction as 

outlined in the 2005 Travel Management Rule. This policy was developed to 

prevent resource damage from occurring across National Forest System lands 

from "unmanaged" recreation use. The policy allows for the Forest Service to 

establish and maintain a system of travel routes across the Forest for management, 

recreation and legal access needs.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Letter BH346 - Wyoming Game and Fish Department, John Emmerich, Deputy Director

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

346/8. Due to damage caused to stream banks and increased sediment loading 

of waterways by vehicles traversing streams, we [Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department] strongly support minimizing the number of roads crossing through 

streambeds. This approach is best represented in Alternative D.

3-33. The number of road and trail crossings on perennial streams was used as an 

indicator of potential effects to water quality and fish habitat. Alternative D 

proposes the lowest number of crossings on perennial streams. Bridges are 

identified as a possible measure to mitigate adverse effects from routes crossing 

perennial streams.

346/9. Tied to streams, riparian habitats are the most species rich and important 

wildlife habitat type on the BHNF. Unfortunately, the majority of alternatives

presented offer no real chance to improve this habitat type by removing or 

reducing the miles of roads impacting it. The miles of proposed open road in 

riparian habitat vary from 562 to 684 miles under all alternatives (mean 643 

mi.). Removing Alternative D, which best minimizes this type of impact from 

the above analyses, reveals the paucity of choices to address this problem in the 

remaining alternatives. The mean number of miles of open road in riparian 

areas in the remaining alternatives is 663 miles. Essentially, there is no real 

difference between them. With regard to riparian habitats or areas, we 

encourage the BHNF to adopt a philosophy similar to that found in Alternative 

D.

2-38. Consistent with the 2005 Travel Management Rule, development of all the 

action alternatives specifically included considering effects of trails with the 

objective of minimizing damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, other forest 

resources, harassment of wildlife, disruption of wildlife habitats, and conflicts 

between motorized trail use and existing uses. Alternative D proposes the smallest 

motorized travel system.

346/10. The DEIS does not use relevant scientific research and findings to 

quantify potential impacts to wildlife. For example, elk (a demand species on 

the BHNF) have been widely studied in relation to the impacts roads and motor 

vehicles have on their biology. At a minimum, studies on the effects of various 

road densities and motor vehicle disturbance on elk should have been 

referenced. The effects of roads on elk have been documented for some time, 

including road maintenance levels and economics (Gardner 1971), reduction in 

elk habitat effectiveness (Lyon1979A), excessive creation of edge habitat 

(Ebert 1972), which attracts many wildlife species to roads and increases 

vulnerability to disturbance, poaching and disproportionate spatial harvesting 

(Sundstrom and Norberg 1972), and the need for screening cover or line-ofsight barriers adjacent to secondary and primitive roads (Lyon 1979B, USDA

Forest Service 1975).

3-103. Thank you for your comments. The elk discussion was edited in the final 

EIS to include relevant and local studies on elk and effects of roads.

346/11, 12, 13. The DEIS primarily uses disturbance as the measure to quantify 

impacts to wildlife. However, this effort would be strengthened by using 

recent, western and local studies that have quantified disturbance to elk and 

their habitat from roads and motor vehicles; and might be used as an index for 

other wildlife species. Research on elk has shown:

3-103. Thank you for your comments. The elk discussion was revised in the final 

EIS to include relevant and local studies on elk and effects of roads.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Letter BH346 - Wyoming Game and Fish Department, John Emmerich, Deputy Director

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

Elk movement and habitat use in the Black Hills is largely dictated by 

human activities, versus weather or habitat modifications, including 

motorized use of roads and trails (Millspaugh et al. 2000) and pulses of 

human intrusion are evident in the daily movements of elk (Rumble et al. 

2005).

Not all roads disturb elk equally. Elk response to roads differs by season, 

time of day and road type (Millspaugh 1999). One behavior is consistently 

evident; elk change their normal movement patterns by waiting to become 

more active during periods when human use is lowest (Millspaugh et al. 

2000). Further, roads create cover/forage edges, and elk will forage 

roadsides more at night making them more vulnerable to poaching and 

collisions with motor vehicles.

When human disturbances cause elk to use meadows less in the fall and 

winter, physiological stress effects (Millspaugh 1999) are compounded by 

a nutritional deficit, resulting in elk spending more time in habitats with 

less forage availability (Rumble et al. 2005). As such, elk must forage over 

17 hours per day to met energetic demands. This often does not happen 

when elk are regularly displaced. Consequently, they are forced into a 

negative energy balance beginning in early fall (Rumble, Personal 

Communication).

Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) data indicates there has 

been a significant reduction in elk productivity over the past decade. The 

percentage of yearling cows in the harvest can be used to gauge 

productivity the preceding year. Since 1987 this figure has averaged119% 

(std. dev. 7%), suggesting about 20 yearling bulls and 20 yearling cows are 

added per 100 adult cows to this population annually. Therefore, given an 

average of 20% yearling cows in the female segment of the harvest, and 

15% mortality of elk calves after the hunting season and through the 

following summer, the data suggest an average preseason calf:cow ratio of 

47:100, which is similar to observed values in SD and those few data 

collected in Wyoming. Of course, productivity can be significantly 

influenced by drought, demographics, and physiological energy balance, 

and it fluctuates annually. However, productivity appears to have declined 

since 2000. Productivity was significantly higher between 1987 and 1999 

(absent 1990 data) when tooth age data yielded an average of 19.8% 1

yearlings in the female harvest, versus an average of 13.4% since 2000, 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Letter BH346 - Wyoming Game and Fish Department, John Emmerich, Deputy Director

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

p=0.001 (see figure below). Because the bulk of tooth age data in 

Wyoming is returned from hunt areas 1 and 117, any ascribed decrease in 

productivity is more likely substantive south of I-90 only; and while the 

cause is unknown, increased disturbance from expanded OHV use over the 

past decade could be a contributing factor.

After elk forage becomes less than 50% digestible, elk are in nutritional 

deficit and additional energy expenditures are additive, meaning some elk 

may winter in poor condition due to constant movement to avoid roads 

and/or to find quality habitat (Rumble et al. In Press). On summer range, 

cows may enter spring with a nutritional deficit from the previous 7-9 

months and there can be added stress from humans during lactation, 

despite better forage quality during summer. See above for possible 

implications to productivity.

Bull and cow elk respond differently to roads and trails. In general, bull elk 

are more sensitive to roads and trails than cows. Secondary and tertiary 

roads displace elk in fall, which might be related to hunter activity along 

these roads (Millspaugh et al. 2000). Rumble et al. (2005) found that elk 

were always further from primitive roads than on average during the fall, 

and usually further from secondary and primary roads and in areas of high 

road densities. The effect of roads on elk decreases as distance from roads 

increase. However, in the Southern Black Hills, elk cannot move more than 

150m from a primitive road without crossing another road. Road impacts 

result in larger home ranges, meaning elk need more area to fulfill habitat 

requirements, or elk may be displaced on to private property where they 

can cause damage to crops and improvements.

Local elk research by Rumble, et al. (2007) indicated that in addition to 

direct loss of habitat, roads also impose a known, objective zone of 

influence, i.e. disturbance on either side of a given road. This research 

appeared to be missing in the DEIS for elk. Other National Forests have 

used disturbances to elk by motorized vehicles and road densities as an 

indicator of possible effects to other species such as deer. We suggest the 

same be applied on the BHNF.

1Omitting 1990 data reduces this average to 17% with a std.dev. 5%.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Letter BH346 - Wyoming Game and Fish Department, John Emmerich, Deputy Director

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

346/14. Table showing percentage of yearlings in the female elk harvest from 

the Black Hills DAU 1987-2008.

Attachment. Thank you for this information.

346/15. It is asserted several times in the DEIS (e.g. pages 60 and 64), “There 

is no data available to determine how many Black Hills hunters are motorized 

users, and it is possible that (focusing off road retrieval of game more heavily 

in some areas would create) the potential for an increase in hunting accidents.”

This statement concerns us. Almost every hunter accessing the BHNF does so 

via some type of motor vehicle. Very few hunters walk, or ride bikes or horses 

on to the BHNF to hunt. Whether or not the BHNF allows off road travel to 

pick up harvested game will neither change the number of hunters driving to 

access the forest as hunting grounds, nor will it likely increase hunting accident 

rates – which are exceedingly low, as statistically hunting is one of the safest 

pursuits in which one may participate.

5-105. Pages 3 and 50 of the DEIS acknowledge that all visitors to the Black Hills 

National Forest utilize some form of motorized vehicle to access the woods, 

including hunters. The effects analysis for game retrieval in the recreation section 

was an analysis on motorized game retrieval. How many licensed hunters actually 

utilize a form of motorized vehicle to retrieve their down animal is uncertain due 

to lack of information. It is known that many hunters of the Black Hills have 

ATVs in their camps and utilize them to access the woods from their camps. It is 

reasonable, therefore, to assume that they may be using these vehicles to retrieve 

their down game. Reducing the area for motorized game retrieval under 

Alternatives B and C or eliminating motorized game retrieval under Alternatives 

D and E will impact those hunters that utilize motorized vehicles to retrieve down 

game. The FEIS will correct the statement to clarify this information.

346/16. Under several of the proposed alternatives, some degree of off road 

travel is permitted for various types of harvested game retrieval (for elk, or deer 

and elk) and dispersed camping, in various areas. Under other alternatives these 

activities are prohibited. With respect to motorized retrieval of game, we 

[Wyoming Game and Fish Department] do not encourage or support this 

activity because it has the potential for pioneering new roads and resource 

damage. While we realize some hunters may not be physically able to remove 

whole, field dressed deer or elk from the kill site to a nearby road, most can 

quarter or debone meat from harvested game and pack it in several trips, or 

recruit help to move such to awaiting transportation on open roads.

5-112. Alternatives D and E do not allow cross-country motorized travel to 

retrieve harvested game. The alternatives, associated effects, and related 

comments will be considered in the final decision.

346/17. The DEIS cites Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) 

personnel as being concerned with our ability to attain desired harvest rate if 

off road travel by motor vehicles is prohibited for game retrieval. During prescoping meetings between local WGFD personnel and the Bearlodge Ranger 

District, and in scoping comments2, our concerns relative to attaining adequate 

harvest rates stemmed from the proposed preponderance of closed roads on the 

Wyoming side of the BHNF rather than allowing a few hundred feet of off road 

travel to pick up harvested game. We do not see motorized retrieval of big 

game as a significant hindering block to garnering adequate harvest rates, if 

some areas of the BHNF in Wyoming have moderate or high open road 

5-104. The FEIS sections on elk and deer were revised to read that game retrieval 

and/or road densities may affect harvest rates and patterns.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Letter BH346 - Wyoming Game and Fish Department, John Emmerich, Deputy Director

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

densities during the hunting season.

2

“We are concerned that the proposed changes would significantly reduce hunter access 

for much of the National Forest, in part by more tightly regulating the type of vehicle 

permitted on various rods. Regulated hunting is the primary management tool used by 

the State of Wyoming to affect animal population size. Without adequate vehicle access, 

hunter’s ability to legally take game will be reduced. By “adequate access” we mean 

providing hunters the ability to reasonably find, kill, and retrieve game from most of the 

forest. It is not reasonable to expect the majority of hunters to walk extended distances 

over rough terrain. The average hunter is over 45 years of age, and unfortunately many 

of them cannot physically handle hunting afoot over long distances in rugged county, or 

have physical handicaps that prevent them from hunting far from vehicles. There are 

hunters who can and do prefer to hunt far and wide afoot and having portions of the 

Forest set aside for this type of hunting is desirable.” – WGFD scoping comments, 

November 8, 2007.

346/18. The limited amount of off road travel proposed under all alternatives 

for motorized retrieval of big game does not gain hunters much ground for 

removing carcasses, but simply adds layers of complexity to the regulations, 

which will confuse people. This is especially the case when restrictions on the 

number of vehicles or weapons transportation are added to requirements for 

retrieving game off road with a motor vehicle. By having areas of the BHNF 

dedicated to low, moderate, and high open road densities, hunters can select an 

area in which to hunt that will let them legally get a vehicle closer in proximity 

to downed game, or further away – if that is the hunting experience they seek. 

Overall, we [Wyoming Game and Fish Department] feel simply restricting this 

type of off road vehicle use, combined with varied open road densities, offers 

the best and simplest solution. Such action would also keep regulation similar 

to the nearby Thunder Basin National Grasslands. We strongly recommend 

against implementing any proposals for motorized retrieval of game only in 

certain areas of the BHNF, for only certain species, within certain distance 

limits, and subject to a host of other restrictions. The confusion and inadvertent 

law breaking this will create is not balanced by the small gain hunters would 

enjoy.

5-112. Alternatives D and E do not allow cross-country motorized travel to 

retrieve harvested game. The alternatives, associated effects, and related 

comments will be considered in the final decision.

346/19. On page 54 of the DEIS it is stated that hunters “drive or chase game 

for a better shot...” However, Wyoming law strictly prohibits pursuing game 

with any motor vehicle. While this illegal activity may occasionally occur, the 

wording suggests it is common and accepted, which it is not.

5-99. The recreation analysis of the DEIS and FEIS did not intend to state that 

illegal pursuit of game by motorized means is common or accepted. The analysis 

merely identifies, whether legal or illegal, how motorized users, particularly crosscountry travel, can impact the hunting experience of others.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Letter BH346 - Wyoming Game and Fish Department, John Emmerich, Deputy Director

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

346/20. With regards to off road travel for dispersed camping, we [Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department] encourage the BHNF to limit off road vehicle 

travel to 100 feet or less for this purpose forest-wide, except in designated 

“roadless” or environmentally sensitive areas where it should be prohibited 

entirely. This course of action would have minimal impact on hunters, provide 

more forest-wide consistency, and minimize the potential for resource damage.

5-117. The DEIS and FEIS provide opportunities for dispersed camping to 

varying degrees in Alternatives A, B, and C. Effects of these alternatives on 

natural resources are disclosed in Chapter 3. Forest Plan guideline discourages 

dispersed recreation within 100 feet of streams and lakes. This guideline is 

incorporated into all the Alternatives.

346/21. License sales and harvest statistics presented for elk and deer on page 

48 of the DEIS are incorrect, and misapplied. Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department (WGFD) neither issues licenses valid only on the BHNF, nor 

determines harvest levels for any animal specific to the BHNF. Rather, license 

and harvest total are managed on a hunt area basis. Portions of the BHNF in 

Wyoming overlap elk hunt areas 1, 116 and 117. Portions of deer hunt areas 2, 

4, 6 and 9 also fall within the boundary of the BHNF in Wyoming. The figures 

in the DEIS mistakenly represent license sales and harvest as particular to the 

BHNF. This is not the case. The data presented also neglect elk harvest from 

hunt area 117, and deer harvest from portions of deer areas 6 and 9. In addition, 

with respect to deer hunting, only General deer licenses have been valid on the 

BHNF in Wyoming since the early 1990s, with all doe/fawn licenses and take 

being restricted to private land only. These same general licenses are valid 

statewide in areas open to General license hunting for residents, and in hunt 

areas 1 through 6 for non-residents. Thus, we cannot determine how the license 

sale or harvest figures were calculated. It is also unclear why there is a row of 

data for “Deer” and one for “Mule Deer,” rather than white-tailed deer and 

mule deer.

5-106. The analysis of the DEIS in the recreation section, page 48, does lead the 

reader to believe that the entire hunt areas for either State only incorporates 

National Forest lands and that the harvested animals are only occurring on 

National Forest lands. However, there are private and other public lands within 

these hunt areas. The FEIS clarifies this information.

346/22. We [Wyoming Game and Fish Department] are concerned that specific 

dates for roads proposed to be open seasonally are lacking. We recommend 

roads designated “open seasonally” allow motor vehicle travel between April 

1

st and December 15th. These dates would include the earliest opening date for 

spring turkey hunting and latest season date for elk hunting on the BHNF. 

However, we fully expect weather conditions to prevent vehicle travel on some 

of these roads at times, and do not encourage snow removal or other activities 

to assure travel between these dates. Likewise, restricting use of wet roads to 

prevent severe damage and erosion should be implemented via proper signage. 

Having a variety of open and closed dates greatly adds to regulatory 

complexity and reduces compliance.

4-89. Seasonal closure dates will be defined in a route specific table on the 

motorized vehicle use map.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Letter BH346 - Wyoming Game and Fish Department, John Emmerich, Deputy Director

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

346/23. While some individuals own off-highway vehicles (OHV), there are 

many who cannot afford them, or choose not to hunt or recreate with them. 

Restricting portions of the forest to this type of travel only, as is proposed for 

several areas in various alternatives, discriminates against persons of limited 

income, or of a certain ethical position.

6-15. While the focus of this proposal is to designate routes and areas for 

motorized travel, the Forest is implementing broad Forest Plan direction to 

provide for a mix of recreation experiences, including nonmotorized experiences.

The alternatives in this travel management EIS considered a range of motorized 

road, trail, and trailhead opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. The 

greatest motorized opportunities and access within the Black Hills National Forest 

are in Alternatives A, B, and C. Lower levels of motorized use would be offered 

in Alternatives D and E. 

346/24.Based on our [Wyoming Game and Fish Department] observations, we 

are very concerned about increasing the amount of area open to only OHV use, 

as this will result in increased pioneering of “4-wheeler roads” and resource 

damage. We believe the best balance is to provide a few areas dedicated to this 

mode of travel similar to Alternative E.

5-17. Alternative D provides the greatest limitation on the number of OHV-only 

areas and the amount of motorized access to the Forest. The natural resource 

effects and effects on recreation are disclosed in Chapter 3.

346/25. Alternative B represents a situation whereby much more of the central 

Bearlodge will be accessible only via OHV. This restricts access to some State 

lands, by requiring this same mode of travel.

4-42. The Forest Service recognizes the need for access to public lands and lands 

of other ownerships. All current legal access rights will be maintained and the 

Forest will work with all those who are entitled to legal access.

346/26. Alternative B represents a situation whereby much more of the central 

Bearlodge will be accessible only via OHV. It is well documented from 

research done at the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range, and in other 

areas, that OHV operation disturbs game animals at greater distances than 

traditional motor vehicles or nonmotorized travel.

4-241. The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives for motorized 

opportunities. While Alternative C offered the greatest opportunity for motorized 

access on the Bearlodge District, Alternative D offers the least amount of 

motorized access. Each alternative was analyzed in detail and effects on natural 

resources including big game habitat were documented in Chapter 3.

346/27. Alternative B represents a situation whereby much more of the central 

Bearlodge will be accessible only via OHV. Such designation will assuredly 

result in increased creation of illegal roads and resource damage.

4-241. The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives for motorized 

opportunities. While Alternative C offered the greatest opportunity for motorized 

access on the Bearlodge District, Alternative D offers the least amount of 

motorized access. Each alternative was analyzed in detail and effects on natural 

resources, recreation opportunities and management capabilities were documented 

in Chapter 3.

346/28. We [Wyoming Game and Fish Department] generally support the 

proposed travel plan under all alternatives on the North Bearlodge, i.e., north of 

Highway 24 along USFS Rd #830. In all alternatives, this area is not proposed 

to significantly change compared to the current situation, which provides a 

large (approximately 25 mi2) area for walk-in hunting and other forms of 

recreation. This area offers some of the best hunting on the BHNF and is 

heavily used. Most of the current road closures here are effective and well 

Route Specific. The Blue Ridge road (NFS road 830.4) was closed due to damage 

caused by motorized access on sensitive resources. This route was not considered 

for motorized access under any Alternative of the DEIS and FEIS to protect these 

resources.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Letter BH346 - Wyoming Game and Fish Department, John Emmerich, Deputy Director

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

followed by the public. In the past, USFS Rd #830.4 was open all the way to its 

terminus at the extreme northeast end of the forest boundary (Section 6 of 

Township 55, Range 62). In all the proposed alternatives it is indicated this 

road would be closed approximately where it runs into Section 11, Township 

55, Range 63. We suggest this road be opened to the forest boundary, as was 

previously the case. This allows better access for hunters, and does not give 

people coming on to the BHNF from adjoining private land an unfair access 

advantage.

346/29. In the central portion of the Bearlodge (between Highway 24 and 

Interstate 90), we [Wyoming Game and Fish Department] fully support 

retaining walk-in access only to the Wood Canyon, Cook Lake, Rednose, and 

Sundance areas currently closed to motorized wheeled vehicles – except on 

existing open roads. This keeps another approximately 15 square miles 

designated for walk-in access.

4-246. The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives for motorized game 

retrieval opportunities. Under all alternatives, the currently established walk-in 

only areas of Wood Canyon, Cook Lake, Rednose, and Sundance Burn have been 

retained as nonmotorized areas. Each alternative was analyzed in detail and effects 

on natural resources documented in Chapter 3.

346/30. We [Wyoming Game and Fish Department] would encourage opening 

up more roads in the central Bearlodge to motorized travel, as it seems much of 

the Bearlodge Ranger District has proposed open road densities much lower 

than the remainder of the BHNF. Here, something along the lines of 

Alternative C, but with the majority of roads open to all legal vehicles, seems 

to present the best course of action. This would then create low, moderate, and 

high open road densities in this portion of the BHNF.

4-243. The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives for motorized 

opportunities. Alternative C offered the greatest opportunity for motorized access 

on the Bearlodge District. Each alternative was analyzed in detail and effects on 

natural resources documented in Chapter 3.

346/31. In the southern portion of the Bearlodge Ranger District, south of 

Interstate 90, we strongly support and commend the USFS for closing the 

Scott-Hardy Spring area to all motor vehicles under all alternatives. This is 

because this area provides some of the best big game and wild turkey habitat on 

the BHNF. Additionally the area abuts private land and has the ability to hold 

game animals on the BHNF if they are not heavily disturbed in the winter, 

preventing damage to private property.

4-248. The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives for motorized

opportunities. No motorized opportunities were considered under any alternative 

for the Scott-Hardy Springs area. Each alternative was analyzed in detail and 

effects on natural resources documented in Chapter 3.

346/32. We [Wyoming Game and Fish Department] encourage the continuation 

of walk-in only access to the Dugout, North Sand Creek, Hamilton, Sand Creek 

Roadless, and upper Sand Creek Botanical Areas. These areas, taken together 

with the Scott-Hardy [Spring Area} and recommendations made concerning the 

BHNF north of I-90, would bring the total area on the Bearlodge Ranger 

District allocated to walk-in only access to about 50 mi2. This is more than a 

4-247. The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives for motorized game 

retrieval opportunities. Under all Alternatives, the currently established walk-in 

only areas of Dugout, North Sand Creek, Hamilton, Sand Creek Roadless, and 

Upper Sand Creek have been retained as nonmotorized areas. Each alternative was 

analyzed in detail and effects on natural resources documented in Chapter 3.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Letter BH346 - Wyoming Game and Fish Department, John Emmerich, Deputy Director

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

reasonable amount, and should allow for increased open road densities in other 

areas of the District.

346/33. We [Wyoming Game and Fish Department] adamantly suggest the 

BHNF not implement the proposed OHV route in Dugout Gulch found in 

Alternatives B and C. Such action would add noticeably to disturbance of 

wildlife in this currently protected area, and invite pioneering of new roads and 

resource damage. Granting a quick and easy east-west connector route to OHV 

users at the expense of losing an area of crucial deer winter range currently 

closed to motor vehicles is not worth the trade-off. This is one case in which 

the needs of wildlife should outweigh the desires of recreationists.

4-177. The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives for Dugout Gulch.

Alternatives A, D, and E do not propose any public motorized use within the area.

346/34. We [Wyoming Game and Fish Department] support an area in the 

southern Bearlodge designated for OHV travel only (that portion of the BHNF 

in Sections 14, 21, 22, 23, 25 and 26 of Township 50, Range 61). However, 

overall motor vehicle travel is unreasonably restricted in all but Alternative C 

in those portions of the southern Bearlodge not discussed above. We are very 

concerned the majority of the Alternatives unnecessarily decrease hunter access 

in this area. The southern portion of the Bearlodge Ranger District currently 

has a large number of closed roads. However, many of these roads, while 

closed on paper, are neither effectively gated nor signed, and are frequently 

used by the public. We recommend the roads currently accessible and regularly 

driven, regardless of their current closure status be opened, while current,

effective closures are retained. This would legalize and allow the level and type 

of vehicle access presently seen. Most of the recreational use in this area is by 

hunters , and they are actively pursuing game during the fall when disturbance 

probably has less impact to most wildlife species, and some disturbance of big 

game is expected.

4-245. The DEIS and FEIS considered a range of alternatives for motorized 

opportunities. Each alternative was analyzed in detail and effects on natural 

resources documented in Chapter 3.

346/35. To best manage vehicle use on the BHNF and encourage widespread 

compliance, we strongly encourage the BHNF to ensure adopted regulations 

and maps are simple, straightforward, and easy to understand. Therefore, we 

suggest minimizing to the greatest extent possible the number of off-road areas; 

roads and trails open to different, specific vehicles; and/or seasons and types of 

use.

4-340. It is anticipated that the Black Hills National Forest will be displayed on

three motor vehicle use maps to provide clearly defined routes. A single map 

showing the whole Forest view would also be provided.

346/36. Literature Cited. Attachment. Thank you for this information.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Letter BH454 - Wyoming Honor Conservation Camp, Dennis Niemcyk, Trades Specialist

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

454/1. Road closure in Thomson Canyon. Road #816, Section #33: This is a 

good gravel road in the bottom of Thomson Canyon that we have been using 

for 50 years. The Canyon is landlocked and recently the landowner on the west 

side had denied access. BHNF seems to have no interest in gaining access for 

the public. I am going through the State to try and gain access by prescriptive 

right. There is still access from the east through BLM land. So I don‟t think this 

road should be closed. The road is in the bottom of a steep canyon, therefore 

there is little resource damage that could be done., It this road is closed the 

whole canyon will become the “private” backyard of the west landowner, as he 

will have the right to control access to this land. He already claims it as his and 

this will make it impossible.

Route Specific. Thompson Canyon access. Although NFS road 816 provides 

access into Thompson Canyon, it must cross other ownership, and therefore 

cannot be designated as a trail. The Forest Service does not have the authority to 

designate a trail that crosses or enters other private ownership.

454/2. Closing of road #726 in section #8. This is a nice road that we have been 

using for years. It is mostly graveled and goes into a beautiful valley. I do not 

see any reason to close this road to motor vehicles.

Route Specific. Portions of this road are designated as a trail open to vehicles 65

inches or less in Alternatives B and C on the South Dakota side. On the Wyoming 

side, Stots Canyon lies on private land.

454/3. Closing of road 818.1A, 818.1B, 818.1F, and 818.1R on Elk Mountain, 

Section #10, and the main road to Elk Mountain Lookout Tower. These roads 

are well graveled roads and provide good access to an area that is great for 

hunting. I have been using them for years and do not see any reason to deny 

motor vehicle access to this area.

Route Specific. Portions of this road cross onto private land. The Forest Service 

does not have the authority to designate any travel routes onto or through private 

land.

454/4. Closing of road #189.4B in section #1. This is a major graveled road that 

provides access to the old Crooks Lookout Tower. This road is in between 2 

roads that are open and it provides a more direct access to the area. I do not see 

any reason to close this road. 

Route Specific. This road was closed in order to protect wildlife security and 

habitat needs in this area. This decision was made in a previous NEPA analysis 

and decision.

454/5. Closing of road #117.5C in section #32. This is a good gravel road that 

is on flat ground and in good condition. I do not understand any reason for 

closing this road.

Route Specific. This road is designated as open to highway-legal vehicles in all 

alternatives.

Letter BH471 - Custer Conservation District, Jim Hughes, Chairman

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

471/1. We [Custer Conservation District] noted and support that the DEIS 

ensures administrative, contractor, and permittee access to Nation Forest 

System land to continue land stewardship activities like forest thinning, timber 

4-80. This decision will not impact any current or existing legal rights of access to 

National Forest System lands.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Letter BH471 - Custer Conservation District, Jim Hughes, Chairman

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

sales, weed treatment, rangeland management and grazing, and wildlife habitat 

improvement among others (DEIS page 19).

We note that some routes will be closed under some alternatives. Be sure 

to retain any existing ROWs for those routes to ensure long-term access for 

administrative, contractor or permittee access for land management projects.

471/2. We [Custer Conservation District] suggest the Forest Service include in 

the FEIS a requirement that all off-highway vehicles have an approved spark 

arresting muffler to prevent any chance of the OHVs starting a fire. That may 

already be a Forest Service requirement, but should be included in your final 

decision. We suggest adding to page 22 as a “feature common to all 

alternatives” to ensure its inclusion in closure orders and proper enforcement.

4-289. Approved spark arrestors are already required by Forest Service regulation.

471/3. We [Custer Conservation District] do not support Alternative A – No 

Action. The rapidly increasing level of cross country travel is affecting natural 

resources on the Black Hills National Forest, e.g. increasing weed infestations, 

soil and water damage, and potential user conflicts.

2-25. We agree. The magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have increased 

to the point that the purpose and need cannot be met while still allowing the 

unrestricted cross-country travel that currently exists, as reflected in the no action 

alternative - Alternative A. The Forest's inability to actively manage the existing 

transportation system and enforce current travel rules have likely contributed to 

increased road and area use violations, user conflicts, and resource damage. A 

designated and actively managed system of roads, trails, and areas for motor 

vehicle use as reflected in the action alternatives is needed.

471/4. We [Custer Conservation District] generally support the least miles of 

road and trail and cross-country travel (Alternative D) because of the direct link 

to soil and water erosion affecting downstream water quality, and weed 

infestation. However, we recognize the needs of varied users, and that a mix of 

attributes from each alternative may be appropriate for your final decision.

2-38. Consistent with the 2005 Travel Management Rule, development of all the

action alternatives specifically included considering effects of trails with the 

objective of minimizing effects related to damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, 

other forest resources, harassment of wildlife, disruption of wildlife habitats, and 

conflicts between motorized trail use and existing uses. Alternative D proposes the 

smallest motorized travel system.

471/5. Motorized game retrieval and dispersed camping is authorized in several 

alternatives. Such use could lead to increased weed infestations and resource 

problems. However, given the historic use some degree of limited motorized 

use is acceptable. We [Custer Conservation District] believe that big game (elk 

only) retrieval within 300 feet and dispersed camping within 100 feet of 

designated roads (179,000 acres anticipated) under Alternative B would seem 

reasonable. Under Alternative C, elk and deer retrieval within large areas and 

camping within 300‟ of designated routes is more than is needed to provide that 

experience; the 473,500 acres is additional land subject to weed infestation and 

soil/water erosion.

5-87. The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of motorized 

opportunities for game retrieval and dispersed camping. Alternatives D and E do 

not provide motorized access for dispersed camping. Alternatives B and C provide 

varying degrees of motorized game retrieval. The natural resource effects analysis 

for these alternatives are in Chapter 3.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Letter BH471 - Custer Conservation District, Jim Hughes, Chairman

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

471/6. The design criteria for Hydrology/Fisheries and Range and Weeds 

(pages 308-311) seem appropriate and we support them.

3-17. Thank you for your comment.

471/7. We [Custer Conservation District] are concerned that inadequate 

funding would limit Forest Service ability to manage the system. We support 

some sort of reasoned user fee system with collected funds used specifically for 

trail system construction, rehabilitation, monitoring, maintenance, user 

education and law enforcement.

4-294. As authorized by the Recreation Enhancement Act of 2005, the Black Hills 

National Forest and the Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board (NFAB), 

acting as the Recreation Resource Advisory Council, established Special 

Recreation Permit Fees. These fees are necessary to develop, manage, and sustain 

any motorized trail system in a way that is equitable to the public, as well as 

socially, environmentally and economically sustainable. The Special Recreation 

Permit Fees would be initiated in 2010, after completion of the Travel 

Management Plan EIS and upon publication of the motor vehicle use map. This 

user-supported revenue stream would likely be supplemented from other sources 

such as grants and volunteer resources.

471/8. The Forest Service needs to remain highly aware of the expected 

increase in motorized travel, no matter how it is directed. The selected plan 

must strongly consider conflicts with private land management and other forest 

users.

5-189. The DEIS disclosed the increase in sales of OHVs nationwide and the 

estimated number of motorized visitors to the Forest, on pages 50-51 (now p. 52

of the FEIS). Chapter 3 discloses the effects of the alternatives on natural 

resources and considers factors affecting adjacent landowners and other Forest 

users.

Letter BH472 - Lawrence County Commissioners, Robert E. Ewing, Chair

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

472/1. U.S. Forest Service projects are very important to Lawrence County, our 

communities, businesses and our residents. Over half of the land area of 

Lawrence County is National Forest lands and many roads located in the Forest 

are county roads or Forest Service roads that we maintain. We [Lawrence 

County Commissioners] and our staff, have reviewed the DEIS, maps, and your 

letter outlining some of the jurisdictional issues contemplated when designating 

routes to be used in the motorized travel management plan.

As a general statement, we recognize that all publicly dedicated roads, 

county roads included, are open to any licensed vehicle subject to South Dakota 

statutes. The Lawrence County commissioners have been, and will continue to 

be, very active participants in Forest Service land management decisions. With 

the increasing numbers of participants in motorized recreation in the Black 

Hills National Forest, we know how important it is that all government 

agencies work together to promote access and trails for motorized recreation.

1-62. The Forest Supervisor met with representatives from counties containing 

National Forest System lands managed by the Black Hills National Forest at the 

scoping stage of the project. Copies of the DEIS were mailed to county 

commissioners for the counties of Crook, Weston and Campbell counties in 

Wyoming; and Lawrence, Meade, Pennington, Custer and Fall River counties in 

South Dakota. As the comment period ended, the Forest Supervisor contacted 

counties, cities, and towns in the Black Hills by letter to request information on 

their plans to allow access from the Forest into their jurisdictions. The Forest 

Supervisor allowed another 30 days for these comments. The Forest Service will 

consider comments received from these entities, and they will be considered in the 

decision.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Letter BH472 - Lawrence County Commissioners, Robert E. Ewing, Chair

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

472/2. Deadwood to Galena to Camp 5 to Boulder Park Area. We [Lawrence 

County Commissioners] recognize this area as a popular recreation area. We 

[Lawrence County Commissioners] support using U07031 to connect NFS road

567.1 and NFS road 172.4 to Galena. We support using U070032 to connect 

NFS road 170.4 to Galena. Utilizing previously traveled trails in the Forest 

makes more sense than trying to gain access across private property. We also 

strongly support using connector routes through BLM lands to connect to the 

Deadwood/Lead areas. Those routes will get ATV traffic off paved highways, 

such as SD Hwy 14A.

Route Specific. U07031, U07032 are currently existing roads over which the 

Forest Service has no jurisdiction. The Forest Service would continue to work 

with other local governments to provide access into surrounding communities.

472/3. Deadwood to Galena to Camp 5 to Boulder Park Area. We [Lawrence 

County Commissioners] recognize this area as a popular recreation area. We 

[Lawrence County commissioners] disagree with the comment that NFS road

535.1 is not under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service. We believe that road is 

under your jurisdiction because of your intention to close it last year. That road 

is used as the emergency access connecting the Two Bit Road with the Upper 

Two Bit Road (which is ultimately a connector of SD Hwy 385 and SD Hwy 

14A). We requested, and again request, that you leave that road open for 

emergency access in case of fire or other catastrophic event. We aren‟t asking 

for any improvements or designation in the trail system, just left open for 

emergency purposes.

Route Specific. The Forest Service portion of NFS road 535.1 was analyzed as a 

road open to highway-legal vehicles in Alternatives B, D, and E and as road open 

to all in Alternative C. The Forest Service would continue to work with other local 

governments to provide access into the surrounding communities. Any decision 

about routes selected will be documented in the record of decision.

472/4. Deadwood to Galena to Camp 5 to Boulder Park Area. We [Lawrence 

County Commissioners] recognize this area as a popular recreation area. We 

[Lawrence County Commissioners] have no problem using that portion of the 

Yellow Creek Road under county jurisdiction as this could be a connector to

Lead. Permission to cross BLM land may also be needed.

Route Specific. The Forest Service would continue to work with other agencies 

and local governments to provide access to surrounding communities including the 

connector into Yellow Creek Road.

472/5. Deadwood to Galena to Camp 5 to Boulder Park Area. We [Lawrence 

County Commissioners] recognize this area as a popular recreation area. We 

[Lawrence County Commissioners] support the use of NHY7 (snowmobile 

trail) to make the connection to the Steel Wheel and the Hwy 385 corridor.

Route Specific. The route from Steele Wheel to the Highway 385 corridor was 

analyzed in various portions from road open to all to trail open to all to trail less 

than 50 inches. The Forest Service would continue to work with other local 

governments to provide access into the surrounding communities.

472/6. Deadwood to Galena to Camp 5 to Boulder Park Area. We [Lawrence 

County Commissioners] recognize this area as a popular recreation area. We 

[Lawrence County Commissioners] have no problem using the portion of the 

road north out of Deadwood Denver Street that is under county jurisdiction. 

This would have to be coordinated with the BLM also.

Route Specific. NFS road 133.1 to Denver Street was analyzed in alternatives as 

being under other jurisdiction. The Forest Service will continue to work with other 

local governments to provide access to the Mt. Roosevelt area from Deadwood.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Letter BH472 - Lawrence County Commissioners, Robert E. Ewing, Chair

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

472/7. Deadwood to Galena to Camp 5 to Boulder Park Area. We [Lawrence 

County Commissioners] recognize this area as a popular recreation area. We 

[Lawrence County Commissioners] strongly do not want Maitland Road out of 

Central City used in the trail system. This road has too much traffic already and 

we don‟t see the benefit of OHV traffic directed that way when there aren‟t 

many trails to access. 

Route Specific. Maitland road was analyzed as other jurisdiction.

472/8. Sturgis Area (portion located in Lawrence County). We [Lawrence 

County Commissioners] agree with both of your comments about Vanocker 

Canyon/Hwy 14A and the Galena Road. We urge you to find an alternate route 

in Vanocker Canyon for the OHV traffic.

Route Specific. Vanocker Canyon and Galena Road were analyzed as other 

jurisdiction.

472/9. Brownsville. We [Lawrence County Commissioners] agree that SD Hwy 

385 ditches are used by businesses along the highway to gain access to the 

forest. We also recognize these businesses along this highway are heavily 

reliant on OHV business. As there are both resource issues and safety issues in 

the ditch, we urge coordination with the State in alleviating those risks.

Route Specific. The Forest Service will continue to work with other local 

governments to provide access to these locations as appropriate.

472/10. Brownsville. We [Lawrence County Commissioners] advise no OHV 

travel designation on the Nemo Road. This road is a paved forest highway with 

county maintenance and the traffic already is heavy.

Route Specific. Nemo Road was analyzed as other jurisdiction.

472/11. Brownsville. We [Lawrence County Commissioners] could support a 

crossing on County Road 44 (Elk Creek) to access the Galena area.

Route Specific. The Forest Service would continue to work with other local 

governments to provide access into the surrounding communities as appropriate.

472/12. Brownsville. We [Lawrence County Commissioners] do not support 

the use of the Englewood Road as an access from Brownsville to Englewood 

area as we do not see any connecting trails.

Route Specific. Englewood road was analyzed as other jurisdiction.

472/13. Brownsville. We [Lawrence County Commissioners] could support use 

of the Custer Peak Road as an access to Custer Peak area and Minnesota Ridge 

area.

Route Specific. The Custer Peak road was analyzed as other jurisdiction and the 

connection roads (NFS road 516) to Custer Peak were analyzed in Alternative C as 

a road open to all and Alternatives B, D and E as a road open to highway legal.

The Forest Service will continue to work with other local governments to provide 

access into the surrounding communities.

472/14. Brownsville. We [Lawrence County Commissioners] do not support 

any use of the Custer Crossing Road as this is the main cut-across road from 

SD Hwy 385 to the Rochford Road. This road is heavily traveled already.

Route Specific. The Custer Crossing road was analyzed in all alternatives as other 

jurisdiction.

472/15. Brownsville. We [Lawrence County Commissioners] do not support 

using the Rochford Road as this is a forest highway with county maintenance 

and a heavily traveled road already.

Route Specific. The Rochford Road was analyzed in all alternatives as other 

jurisdiction.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Letter BH472 - Lawrence County Commissioners, Robert E. Ewing, Chair

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

472/16. Rochford (portion located in Lawrence County). We [Lawrence 

County Commissioners] support usage of the Merritt Estes Road to gain access 

to the Centennial Trail only. We realize there are parking issues at the Pilot 

Knob parking area and overflow parking is at the Sugar Shack. We urge you to 

find an alternate access to continue to Nemo. We could support South Boxelder 

Forks road usage to connect Nemo to the Centennial Trail and the Nemo area.

Route Specific. Merritt Estes road was analyzed as other jurisdiction. The 

Centennial trail was analyzed as a trail less than 50 inches in Alternatives B, C, 

and E. It was removed from Alternative D. The portion of the South Boxelder road 

that connects to the Centennial trail was analyzed as other jurisdiction. The Forest

Service will continue to work with other local governments to provide access into 

the surrounding communities.

472/17. Spearfish. We [Lawrence County Commissioners] do not support 

usage of NFS road 134Tinton Road (the portion under county maintenance) as 

an access to Spearfish as this is a residential area and would enter into 

Spearfish residential areas.

Route Specific. NFS road 134 Tinton Road was analyzed in all alternatives as 

open to highway legal vehicles only.

472/18. Spearfish. We [Lawrence County Commissioners] urge coordination 

with South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks through lands owned 

by them for access from Spearfish to the Spearfish Peak area.

5-183. The Forest Service coordinated throughout the development of this project 

with State and local officials to provide the best information for motorized access 

to the Forest.

472/19. Spearfish. We [Lawrence County Commissioners] urge you to 

designate the Big Hill Trailhead as a motorized trailhead. We realize Big Hill 

trail is a nonmotorized trail, but there are parking issues for motorized vehicles 

who wish to travel to the Iron Creek/Higgins Gulch areas.

Route Specific. Big Hill trailhead was analyzed in all Alternatives as an existing 

facility. Any decision about trailheads selections will be documented in the record 

of decision.

Letter BH473 - Environmental Protection Agency – Region 8; Larry Svoboda, Director, NEPA Program. Ecosystems Protection and 

Remediation; Jody Ostendorf, NEPA Lead Reviewer

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

473/1. EPA is primarily concerned about impacts to water quality, aquatic 

resources and wildlife habitat from new road construction We are concerned 

that the transportation system is being expanded when currently the existing 

system and non-system roads are damaging water, soil and habitat resources, as 

documented in the DEIS.

4-5. Consistent with the 2005 Travel Management Rule, development of all the 

action alternatives specifically included considering effects of trails with the 

objective of minimizing effects related to damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, 

other forest resources, harassment of wildlife, disruption of wildlife habitats, and 

conflicts between motorized trail use and existing uses. Alternative D proposes the 

smallest motorized travel system. Little new road construction is proposed under 

any of the action alternatives. The potential increase in the total miles of Forest 

Service roads and trails as described in Chapter 2 of the EIS is primarily a 

reflection of the miles of existing, unauthorized routes proposed for designation 

on the motor vehicle use map. It is expected that designation of any of these 

existing, unauthorized routes would lead to increased monitoring and maintenance 

to detect and mitigate any resource damage that may occur.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Letter BH473 - Environmental Protection Agency – Region 8; Larry Svoboda, Director, NEPA Program. Ecosystems Protection and 

Remediation; Jody Ostendorf, NEPA Lead Reviewer

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

473/2. The DEIS does not describe how the proposed closure of unclassified 

roads will be implemented and enforced while residential development adjacent 

to the national forest and off-highway vehicle use is increasing.

4-55. Agree. This proposal does not include closing or decommissioning of routes 

not designated for travel. However, the reduction of use on routes not designated 

was considered as a reasonably foreseeable action in the cumulative effects 

analysis. The analysis assumes that the public would largely comply with the 

motor vehicle use map, but recognizes that law enforcement would have a role to 

play.

473/3. Display of the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) would make it easier 

for recreationists to comply with the system, and for the Agency to enforce it.

4-340. It is anticipated that the Black Hills National Forest would be displayed on

three motor vehicle use maps for the Forest to provide clearly defined routes. A 

single whole Forest view map would also be provided.

473/4. EPA believes that Alternative D is the environmentally preferable 

alternative. 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 only for emergency and administrative 

access.

2-38. The Forest Service acknowledges that EPA identified Alternative D as the 

environmentally preferable alternative. Consistent with the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule, development of all the action alternatives specifically included 

considering effects of trails with the objective of minimizing effects related to 

damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, other forest resources, harassment of 

wildlife, disruption of wildlife habitats, and conflicts between motorized trail use 

and existing uses. Alternative D does propose the smallest motorized travel 

system.

473/5. EPA believes that Alternative D is the environmentally preferable 

alternative. This alternative seems most consistent with the National Forest 

Management Act requirement that the Forest Service manage forest in an 

ecologically sustainable manner that “protects soil and water resources, 

streams, stream banks, shorelines, wetlands, fish, wildlife and the diversity of 

plant and animal communities.” 36 CFR 219.27(a)(4)(1982).

2-38. The Forest Service acknowledges that EPA identified Alternative D as the 

environmentally preferable alternative and believes it is most consistent with 

NFMA. Consistent with the 2005 Travel Management Rule, development of all 

the action alternatives specifically included considering effects of trails with the 

objective of minimizing effects related to damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, 

other forest resources, harassment of wildlife, disruption of wildlife habitats, and 

conflicts between motorized trail use and existing uses. However, Alternative D 

proposes the smallest motorized travel system.

473/6. EPA believes that Alternative D is the environmentally preferable 

alternative. It is most consistent with Executive Order 11644 (as amended by 

EO 11989) that states that designation decisions shall locate areas and trails 

open to ORV use so as to “minimize harassment of wildlife” and to “be based 

upon the protection of the resources of the public lands, promotion of the safety 

of all users of those lands, and minimization of conflicts among the various 

uses of those lands.”

2-38. The Forest Service acknowledges that EPA identified Alternative D as the 

environmentally preferable alternative and believes it is most consistent with EO 

11644 as amended. Alternative D proposes the smallest motorized travel system. 

The Department of Agriculture produced the 2005 Travel Management Rule to be 

consistent with Executive Orders 11644 and 11989, and to serve as the means to 

implement the policy direction contained in those Executive Orders. The 2005 

Travel Management Rule places more emphasis on considering the effects of 

motorized trails and areas, than of roads. Consistent with the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule, development of all the action alternatives specifically included 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Letter BH473 - Environmental Protection Agency – Region 8; Larry Svoboda, Director, NEPA Program. Ecosystems Protection and 

Remediation; Jody Ostendorf, NEPA Lead Reviewer

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

considering effects of trails with the objective of minimizing effects related to 

damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, other forest resources, harassment of 

wildlife, disruption of wildlife habitats, and conflicts between motorized trail use 

and existing uses. Any decision on this project will be consistent with law, 

regulation, policy, and executive orders.

473/7. The DEIS states that the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) for 

Alternative D 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” (page 28). In contrast, the DEIS 

does not demonstrate how the proposed action will protect resources and be 

ecologically sustainable. While the DEIS provides information on stream 

crossing and fisheries impacts, the Forest Service does not appear to use that 

analysis to support decision making that is consistent with the Executive Orders 

(11644 and 11989).

3-91. Consistent with the 2005 Travel Management Rule, development of all the 

action alternatives specifically included considering effects of trails with the 

objective of minimizing effects related to damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, 

other forest resources, harassment of wildlife, disruption of wildlife habitats, and 

conflicts between motorized trail use and existing uses. Design criteria listed in 

Appendix B would be part of the alternatives. The effects of implementation of 

the alternatives on natural, social and cultural resources are disclosed in Chapter 3 

of the EIS.

473/8. EPA evaluates the potential effects of proposed actions and the 

adequacy of the information in the DEIS. We rate this DEIS an “EC-2” 

(environmental concerns, insufficient information) under EPA‟s ratings criteria. 

The EC rating indicates that the reviewer has identified environmental impacts 

that should be avoided in order to adequately protect the environment. These 

are described in the attached comments. We also recommend additional 

analysis and information to fully assess and mitigate all potential impacts of the 

management actions.

2-61. Thank you for your comment. EPAs comments were valuable to the Forest 

Service and will be considered in developing the decision. Designation decisions 

will be made in accordance with the criteria in § 212.55 of the Travel 

Management Rule.

473/9. [From Attachment 1] EPA is concerned that the proposed action could 

exacerbate existing water quality impairments on several streams on the BHNF. 

Alternative B would have 547 road/trail crossings on perennial streams, 20 

miles of road/trail within 30 feet of perennial streams and 125 miles of 

road/trail within 119 feet of perennial streams forest wide (Table 29, page 123). 

There are several streams within the BHNF that are listed as impaired and not 

supporting designated beneficial uses due to temperature (SD DENR 2008, 

DEIS page 118). They include Battle Creek, Bear Butte Creek, Elk Creek, 

Grizzly Bear Gulch, North Fork Rapid Creek, Rapid Creek, Spring Creek, 

Victoria Creek and West Strawberry Creek. French Creek is also listed as 

impaired due to dissolved oxygen from natural and drought-related sources. 

3-37. The Forest Service has developed a protocol to inventory and assess roadstream crossings. The criteria to assess and prioritize the remediation of stream 

crossings is a management decision independent of the inventory and assessment 

protocol. Routes prioritized for remediation on page 308 of the DEIS (now Table 

B-3, p. 353)were identified based on them being non-system routes that may lack 

proper engineering design and therefore had the greatest potential for an additive 

incremental impact compared to the baseline condition. Mitigating stream 

crossings on streams that are temperature impaired due to natural causes (page 

141 of this document) may provide some positive benefits, but is not likely to 

address the actual source of impairment (natural causes). A table has been added 

to the Hydrology section in Chapter 3 of the FEIS detailing the number of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Letter BH473 - Environmental Protection Agency – Region 8; Larry Svoboda, Director, NEPA Program. Ecosystems Protection and 

Remediation; Jody Ostendorf, NEPA Lead Reviewer

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

Dissolved oxygen and temperature are directly related. The DEIS states that 

summer water temperature is increased, and winter water temperature is 

decreased, in part, because of road crossings that remove riparian vegetation, 

unmitigated low-water crossings, and from off-road vehicles crossing streams. 

It is not clear from the DEIS how many of the 547 road/trail crossings that 

would be permitted under Alternative B would cross those impaired water 

bodies.

EPA supports the need for a stream-crossing inventory protocol for the 

transportation system that gives priority to the impaired streams, and those with 

the most crossings.

crossings of impaired streams by alternative. Alternative B would reduce the 

current 131 road and trail crossings of these streams to 30.

473/10. [From Attachment 1] EPA believes the travel management plan should 

not permit any Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) use within 30 feet of an impaired 

water body. If proposed trails go up and down drainages or cross impaired 

water bodies in the proposed action, EPA recommends that those trails be 

immediately closed. EPA is concerned that allowing OHVs to continue to 

impact those waters will lead to further degradation of water quality.

3-76. Effects to riparian areas and wetlands were analyzed in the hydrology, 

botany and wildlife sections of the DEIS. As outlined in the DEIS and the FEIS, 

no streams are listed as impaired due to sediment. Design criteria would minimize 

impacts to the stream when trails are in proximity to the stream.

473/11. [From Attachment 1] In Appendix B: Design Criteria Common to All 

Alternatives, the Forest Service proposes armoring or remediating a number of 

perennial stream crossings which are prioritized based on level of use, degree 

of impact and aquatic resource value (DEIS page 308). EPA notes that the list 

does not include all of the impaired streams listed above (Battle Creek, Bear 

Butte Creek, Elk Creek, Grizzly Bear Gulch, North Fork Rapid Creek, Rapid 

Creek, Spring Creek, Victoria Creek and West Strawberry Creek). Please 

clarify whether that means the streams not included in the table have no stream 

crossings, or whether impairment is not considered part of the prioritization 

criteria. EPA recommends that all crossings of impaired water bodies should 

have the highest priority for armoring or remediation, and those crossings 

should be closed.

3-32. The majority of streams listed as impaired due to water temperature were 

due to natural sources. Prioritizing stream crossings on these impaired waters 

would have some beneficial effect, but would not be likely to address the true 

source of impairment. Prioritization based on other criteria may be more 

appropriate. The prioritization factors for stream crossing remediation have been 

clarified in the FEIS, Appendix B, described as follows.

Only perennial stream crossings on user-created routes or proposed new 

routes that would require construction were field-inspected and prioritized for 

remediation. These routes were considered to have the greatest potential to 

adversely affect water quality and aquatic resources, and thus are the most likely 

to appear on the list in Appendix B. Crossings on previously engineered system 

routes were presumed to pose less need for remediation. Only impaired streams 

crossed by user-created routes or proposed new routes requiring construction are 

identified in the list in Appendix B.

473/12. [From Attachment 1] The perennial stream crossings proposed for 

three years of monitoring includes two impaired water bodies, Elk Creek and 

Victoria Creek, and EPA recommends that those crossings be eliminated from 

the travel system (DEIS page 309).

Route Specific. Many existing system roads cross Elk Creek in many different 

locations. These routes were analyzed in various alternatives as roads open to all 

or roads open to highway legal vehicles. Several currently unauthorized routes 

crossing Elk Creek or Victoria Creek were proposed for designation in the 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Letter BH473 - Environmental Protection Agency – Region 8; Larry Svoboda, Director, NEPA Program. Ecosystems Protection and 

Remediation; Jody Ostendorf, NEPA Lead Reviewer

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

alternatives. Field visits determined the existing crossings on these proposed 

routes were currently not widening the channels. If selected in the decision, these 

crossings would be candidates for monitoring to detect any channel widening 

which could require mitigation.

473/13. [From Attachment 1] In “Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from 

Detailed Study” the DEIS states that the document will “consider the effects of 

motorized route designation on nonmotorized recreation opportunities” (page 

35). In response to a request from the Norbeck Society and other organizations 

to designate additional “Walk-In Areas” for additional protection from impacts 

from motorized trails, the Forest Service states that “designation of

nonmotorized routes is not the focus of this project.” However, the Travel 

Management Rule criteria for designation of roads, trails and areas states that, 

among others, the responsible official must consider effects, with the objective 

of minimizing impacts to soil, watershed, vegetation and other forest resources; 

harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitats; and 

conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing recreational uses of NFS lands 

(212.55(b)).

5-162. Alternatives in the DEIS and FEIS do comply with the Travel Management 

Rule and provide for a variety of motorized and nonmotorized recreational 

opportunities. The natural resource effects analysis of the Alternatives are in 

Chapter 3.

473/14. [From Attachment 1] The Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) provides 

information on motorized use, but there is no way to know from the maps how 

the proposed transportation system will impact nonmotorized users such as 

hikers, campers and mountain bikers. The MVUM should clearly identify 

primitive and semi-primitive areas on the forest such as wilderness, roadless 

areas and botanical areas so that nonmotorized recreationists will be able to 

avoid user conflicts.

4-343. The Motor Vehicle Use Map would follow national direction and 

symbology to be consistent with the overall program nationwide. It would not 

likely contain any additional information pertaining to semi-primitive or primitive 

areas. The effects of motorized use on nonmotorized recreation in each alternative 

are disclosed in Chapter 3 of the FEIS.

473/15. [From Attachment 1] EPA is very concerned that the proposed action 

would open additional roads to motorized opportunities inside areas with 

Recreational Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) for nonmotorized activities (page 

56). For semi-primitive nonmotorized areas, three areas – Dugout, Cook Lake 

and Sundance Burn – would have roads open to motorized use. Of the roaded 

natural nonmotorized areas, Bogus Jim, Smith Draw, Eagle Cliff, Forbes Gulch 

and Wood Canyon would see new roads opened to motorized use. According to 

Table 13, page 57, 38 miles of semi-primitive nonmotorized and 109 miles of 

roaded natural nonmotorized roads or trails currently available for 

nonmotorized recreationists would be opened up to motorized use. The DEIS 

5-151. Alternative D was designed to reduce the impacts of motorized recreation 

on existing primitive, semi-primitive and roaded natural nonmotorized settings on 

the Black Hills National Forest within the Forest Service's jurisdiction. All action 

alternatives would reduce the area open to cross-country motorized use across the 

Forest by several hundred thousand acres. Effects are disclosed in Chapter 3.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Letter BH473 - Environmental Protection Agency – Region 8; Larry Svoboda, Director, NEPA Program. Ecosystems Protection and 

Remediation; Jody Ostendorf, NEPA Lead Reviewer

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

states that this is not consistent with the Forest Plan guideline for ROS 

designations because the motorized users would impact the nonmotorized 

users. However, the DEIS does not analyze the impact of this decision on 

nonmotorized users. According to Table 9 on page 51, less than 10 percent of 

the BHNF 1.2 million acres of forest are nonmotorized. More than 90 percent 

of the BHNF is open to motorized use. Yet, the 2008 update to the National 

Visitor Use Monitoring project reflects that only 1.9 percent of NF recreational 

visitors listed their primary activity as OHV use (USDA Forest Service 2008c) 

(DEIS page 94). Therefore, this travel management plan appears to be designed 

for the benefit of a clear minority of recreationists on the forest. EPA strongly 

urges the Forest Service to reconsider opening any currently nonmotorized

areas up to motorized use.

473/16. [From Attachment 1] Based on Figures 10-14, pages 120-122, EPA is 

concerned that the DEIS does not propose any closure or decommissioning of 

roads or trails. The pictures show significant impacts to sediment, stream 

integrity, wetlands and floodplains on the Forest from OHV use. The Travel 

Management Plan provides for temporary, emergency closures based on a 

determination of considerable adverse effects (212.52(2)). According to the 

Travel Management Plan, if the responsible official determines that motor 

vehicle use on the Forest is directly causing or will directly cause considerable 

adverse effects on soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, or cultural 

resources, the responsible official shall immediately close that road, trail or 

area to motor vehicle use until the adverse effects have been mitigated or 

eliminated and measures have been implemented to prevent future recurrence. 

EPA does not believe the DEIS supports the Forest Service determination that 

there are no such areas on the Forest and, in fact, those photographs contradict 

that determination. EPA recommends that the FEIS identify the roads and trails 

that have incurred considerable adverse effects and propose closure of those 

areas until the impacts can be mitigated.

4-75. This analysis includes the evaluation of user-created routes and system 

routes for possible designation into the Forest motorized travel system. The 

evaluation of each route considered factors such as compatibility with existing 

land prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to the resource, wildlife objectives, 

safety, existing and/or potential conflicts as well as information provided from the 

public. These routes will also need to meet existing objectives, standards and 

specifications as identified within Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes 

that are determined to provide a benefit to the public and are consistent with the 

above factors are likely candidates for inclusion into the transportation system.

The decision may include the designation of some routes that currently do not 

meet established standards with the caveat that they be brought up to standard

prior to being formally included within the transportation system.

Opportunities to mitigate ongoing resource damage on nondesignated routes 

would be pursued under other project-specific proposals. Closure orders to protect 

resources can be imposed at any time.

473/17. [From Attachment 1] EPA is concerned that limited motorized crosscountry use will be allowed on 179,000 acres for retrieving harvest elk within 

300 feet of certain designated roads, and for dispersed camping within 100 feet 

of certain designated roads (page 25). This seems inconsistent with the Travel 

Management Rule Q-and-A section in the Federal Register stating that 

provision 212.51(7)(b) should be applied “sparingly,” to avoid undermining the 

5-91. The DEIS and FEIS alternatives considered a range of designated crosscountry motorized opportunities. Alternatives D and E provide no cross-country 

motorized travel. The natural resource effects analysis for this alternative are 

disclosed in Chapter 3 of the EIS.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Letter BH473 - Environmental Protection Agency – Region 8; Larry Svoboda, Director, NEPA Program. Ecosystems Protection and 

Remediation; Jody Ostendorf, NEPA Lead Reviewer

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

purposes of the final rule and to promote consistency in implementation. EPA 

recommends that the Forest Service not allow off-road driving to retrieve 

game. Driving 300 feet off a designated road will not help hunters remove 

game that was likely downed beyond 300 feet, but it will likely cause 

significant resource damage. With regard to dispersed camping, EPA is 

concerned about allowing resource damage from off-road driving into the 

forest. The cumulative impacts to vegetation, soils and water quality far 

outweigh any convenience factor of being 100 feet closer to a campsite. The 

Forest Service can manage motorized travel for dispersed camping by allowing 

parking along the side of designated roads where campers can walk into the 

forest to dispersed sites, and/or designating “spur” roads to established 

dispersed sites. EPA strongly encourages the Forest Service to reconsider these 

proposed exceptions to banning cross-country travel. Furthermore, not allowing 

off-road driving simplifies enforcement of the Motor Vehicle Use Map 

(MVUM) and ensures protection of forest resources.

473/18. [From Attachment 1] The DEIS states that land management agencies, 

including the Forest Service, and some states across the country have started 

establishing legal limits for sound emissions from OHVs, including 

motorcycles. The DEIS proposes to establish a 96 DB(A) sound emission limit 

for OHVs on the BHNF roads and trails. This noise level was selected because 

it is the maximum level currently mandated by at least five states. The DEIS 

also states that 96 DB(A) is regarded as an adequate limit by the EPA (DEIS 

page 76). Please provide your source for that statement.

4-330.

The source of the statement made in the DEIS is the following:

Motorcycle Sound Working Group. 2005. Sound Advice – Stakeholder 

Assessments and Recommendations of the Motorcycle Sound Working Group.

EPA-approved sound limits are currently 80 dB(A) for vehicles displacing less 

that 171cc and 82 dB(A) for those over 170cc, based on a precise, engineering 

acceleration test measured from a distance of 50 feet. Because the EPA test 

procedure is not practical for in-field enforcement, the Motorcycle Industry 

Council worked with the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) to develop a 

quick, easy and economical stationary sound test procedure, SAE J1287. A sound 

level of 96 dB(A) utilizing SAE J1287 is the lowest limit that does not prohibit the 

use of OHVs meeting the EPA sound limits.

473/19. [From Attachment 1] According to the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), noise levels above 85 dB(A) can 

cause hearing injury. The Federal Highways Administration considers noise 

levels above 75 dB(A), or any increase of 30 DB(A) or more above existing 

noise levels, a severe noise impact. Some States define what a severe impact is 

in their policy and have a procedure for dealing with severe impacts. Other 

States deal with severe impacts on a case-by-case basis. Decibel measurements 

are made on a logarithmic scale, which means that an increase of 10 decibels 

4-317. The Black Hills National Forest proposes a 96 dB(A) sound limit based on 

the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) J1287 Stationary Test. This limit was 

proposed because 96 dB(A) is the lowest limit that does not prohibit the use of 

OHVs meeting the EPA sound limits. EPA standards pre-empt the adoption of 

more stringent state standards. Most vehicles able to pass the 96 dB(A) stationary 

test meet or exceed the EPA test. The SAE J1287 Stationary Test is the most 

practical for the field and for enforcement testing.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Letter BH473 - Environmental Protection Agency – Region 8; Larry Svoboda, Director, NEPA Program. Ecosystems Protection and 

Remediation; Jody Ostendorf, NEPA Lead Reviewer

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

approximates a perceived doubling of the noise level. A noise source 

measuring 70 dB(A) is therefore 10 times louder than a source measuring 60 

dB(A) and 100 times louder than a source reading 50dB. The average 

background noise in a typical home is between 40 and 50 dB(A). Therefore, the 

FS is proposing to allow noise levels that are 400-500 times louder than a 

typical home.

The DEIS states that much of the land on the periphery of the Forest, and 

the 300,000 acres of State and private land within the BHNF administrative 

boundary is prized for private subdivision development, private ranches and 

land speculation whose end purpose is generally residential development (DEIS 

page 1). Given the patchwork nature of the BHNF, with widespread residential 

property mixed in with public land, EPA is very concerned about the impacts to 

private homeowners of allowing OHVs with those noise levels to pass through 

residential areas.

473/20. [From Attachment 1] EPA recommends that the Forest Service adopt 

legal limits for sound emissions based on recommendations of the Federal 

Highway Administration for “Lands on which serenity and quiet are of 

extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the 

preservations of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its 

intended purpose.” For those purposes the proposed limit is 60 DB(A). If that is 

not feasible, the Forest Service could propose an emission limit of 70 DB(A), 

which is recommended for “Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active 

sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and 

hospitals.” For more information, please see: 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/polguide/regulations.htm#pg3

4-322. The FHWA descriptor cited has not been applied as management direction 

to the lands in the project area. The Federal Highway Administration's sound 

limits are based on Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) ON-HIGHWAY test 

procedure J2825. The Black Hills National Forest proposes a sound limit based on 

SAE off-road test procedure J1287. See further response in letter/comment 473/18 

(Public Concern 4-330).

473/21. [From Attachment 1] The Travel Management Rule references the 

“need for maintenance and administration of roads, trails and areas that would 

arise if the uses under consideration are designated; and the availability of 

resources for that maintenance and administration” (Section 212.55(a)). There 

is also a requirement that the responsible official “monitor the effects of motor 

vehicle use on designated roads and trails and in designated areas” (Section 

212.57). EPA is concerned with the lack of resources identified for 

enforcement and maintenance of the transportation system. The DEIS states 

that “current Forest Service law enforcement resource alone are not at a level 

that would make enforcement of the prohibition of motorized-mixed use on 

4-250. The Forest is committed to using whatever funds it has available to 

accomplish the purposes of the final decision in a targeted, efficient manner.

Funding could include appropriations, cooperative relationships with other 

government entities, volunteer agreements, and user fees. Forest Service law 

enforcement personnel play a critical role in ensuring compliance with laws and 

regulations, protecting public safety, and protecting National Forest resources.

The Forest Service also maintains cooperative relationships with many State and 

local law enforcement agencies that provide mutual support across jurisdictional 

boundaries. Education and cooperative relationships with users would support 

enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary compliance.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Letter BH473 - Environmental Protection Agency – Region 8; Larry Svoboda, Director, NEPA Program. Ecosystems Protection and 

Remediation; Jody Ostendorf, NEPA Lead Reviewer

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

NFS roads,” and “limited enforcement success has likely contributed to 

increased road and area use violations, user conflicts and resource damage

(DEIS page 75). The DEIS also states that “annual road maintenance resources 

are approximately 50 percent of what is needed,” and “current maintenance 

funds are not sufficient to maintain the current trail system to standard” (DEIS 

pages 80-81). EPA is concerned that the Forest Service is proposing to add 

1,450 miles of motorized-mixed use trails to a transportation system it currently 

cannot afford to maintain, and issue a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) that 

the Forest Service has insufficient resources to enforce.

473/22. [From Attachment 1] EPA is concerned that many of the user-created 

routes that will be added to the designated system were not designed or 

engineered in a way that considered slope and erosion impacts, redundancy and 

minimizing impacts to soil, watersheds, vegetation, wildlife and habitat.

4-53. The evaluation of all routes considered factors such as compatibility with 

existing land prescriptions and/or designation, impacts to the resource, wildlife 

objectives, safety, existing and/or potential conflicts as well as information 

provided from the public. Administrative use routes would provide needed access 

to the Forest Service to accomplish management tasks. All routes would need to 

meet existing objectives, standards and specifications identified in Forest Service

manuals and handbooks.

Letter BH477 - Crook County Board of Commissioners; John A. Moline, Jr. Chairman; J.W. Hadley, Vice-Chairman; Kelly B. Dennis, 

Member

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

477/1. We [Crook County Board of Commissioners] feel that the magnitude of 

the changes proposed within the action alternatives will create a confused and 

frustrated public that is accustomed to an open unless posted closed approach 

to travel on the Forest. Alternative C is the only one that even slightly 

recognizes the current and ever-growing demand for quality motorized 

recreational opportunities.

2-36. Thank you for your comment. Alternative C does propose the largest 

transportation system. However, all the action alternatives propose opportunities 

for motorized recreation. They vary only in the amount and location of those 

opportunities. Table 7 on page 39 in Chapter 2 of the DEIS compared the 

recreational opportunities proposed for the range of alternatives. The State of 

Wyoming has implemented an Off-road Recreational Vehicle (ORRV) Program. It 

is the intent of the Forest to enroll all roads and trails designated for motorized use 

in the Wyoming portion of the Black Hills in the Wyoming State ORRV program.

477/2. Only three areas [in Alternative C] totaling ten acres, would be 

designated for “concentrated cross-country” travel. Going from the current 

situation of 864,000 acres open to unrestricted motorized cross-country travel 

to so few acres open to concentrated cross-county travel (and in the other 

5-80. Page 37 of the DEIS provides explanation for the proposed elimination of 

the cross-country recreational travel.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Letter BH477 - Crook County Board of Commissioners; John A. Moline, Jr. Chairman; J.W. Hadley, Vice-Chairman; Kelly B. Dennis, 

Member

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

alternatives ZERO acres of either open or concentrated cross-country travel), is 

inadequate and unrealistic. Sufficient signage and proactive educational efforts 

and material must be a part of the plan if the public‟s compliance with the new 

system is desired.

477/3. [In Alternative C] limited use cross-country travel parameters for game 

retrieval and dispersed camping are in need of change. We [Crook County 

Board of Commissioners] support allowing game retrieval deer and elk without 

any time or distance limitations, and cross-country travel for dispersed camping 

to be expanded to 200 yards off a designated road or trail.

5-88. The DEIS and FEIS Alternatives considered a range of motorized 

opportunities for game retrieval and dispersed camping. Alternative C delineates 

areas within which motorized game retrieval would be allowed for elk and deer. 

The EIS explains the proposed restrictions on cross-country travel for game 

retrieval in Chapter 2. The natural resource effects analysis for the alternatives are 

in Chapter 3. The 300-foot width for dispersed camping was chosen to be 

consistent with Region 2 guidance and designations for motorized dispersed 

camping used on other national forests.

477/4. We [Crook County Board of Commissioners] support continued, 

unchanged motorized access necessary for permitted uses on the Forest, which 

include but are not limited to, grazing, timber and fuel management, mineral 

exploration, and firewood cutting.

3-52. As stated in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS under "Features Shared by all 

Alternatives - Administrative use" as permit holders allowances would be 

available to do work directly related to the management on the permit. This has 

been carried forward to the final EIS. 

477/5. From a socio-economic perspective, motorized transportation on the 

Forest provides significant positive impacts within the county, region and state. 

As the ORV use survey done by the State of Wyoming demonstrates, the 

economic benefits directly connected with this use are important to the local 

and state economy. Those benefits include jobs and business opportunities 

created and supported by the use, and revenues for state and local governments 

(sales tax, gasoline tax, lodging tax, permit fees).

6-21. The Forest Service recognizes the importance of motorized vehicle 

recreation and events in the Black Hills area and has analyzed and presented the 

contribution of those activities on the employment and labor income within the 

seven-county Black Hills area. For a summary of the analysis and conclusions 

regarding economic impacts associated with the plan alternatives, see response to 

Public Concerns 6-2, 6-13, and 6-15. The analysis completed for the Black Hills 

applies a well documented modeling system, modeling inputs comply with the 

Data Quality Act (see response to Public Concern 6-18), and are similar to the 

methods adopted by the Wyoming Department of State Parks and Cultural 

Resources in their economic assessment of off-road vehicle use (2006).

477/6. The 1998 Crook County Land Use Plan and the land use and/or natural 

resource plans for the other counties in the Black Hills should be considered 

and noted accordingly within the text of the plan.

1-63. The Forest Service consulted with Crook County prior to issuing the Draft 

EIS, and provided a copy of that document to the County to solicit comments on 

the travel management plan project. The Forest Service continues to be willing to 

involve Crook County in the planning process and during implementation.

477/7. There appear to be no specific accommodations for persons with 

disabilities or other physical limitations to enjoy recreational uses on the 

Forest. We [Crook County Board of Commissioners] would like there to be 

5-141. The EIS considered a range of alternatives for motorized road and trail 

opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. The greatest motorized 

opportunities and access are in Alternatives B and C. Persons with disabilities 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Letter BH477 - Crook County Board of Commissioners; John A. Moline, Jr. Chairman; J.W. Hadley, Vice-Chairman; Kelly B. Dennis, 

Member

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

exceptions made on their behalf so as to continue to allow them a full range of 

opportunities.

would have the same access rights as the general public.

477/8. We [Crook County Board of Commissioners] fear that the approach 

being taken in the draft document [DEIS] will lead to noncompliance by 

regular Forest users and ultimately result in further restriction and possible 

prohibition of motorized travel within the Black Hills National Forest We urge 

planners to be cognizant of the on-the-ground realities of this issue and to 

incorporate as much motorized access as is possible.

5-25. Alternative C provides the highest level of motorized routes for the Forest.

Effects on natural resources are disclosed in Chapter 3.

Letter BH480 - Crook County Natural Resource District, Board of Supervisors, Wayne Garman, Chairman

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

480/1. Water quality issues are important to all of us, and they are especially 

important to the Crook County Natural Resource District (CCNRD). Any 

changes to the current travel management plan should take into consideration 

issues related to water quality. A reduction in the amount of roads/trails will 

have the effect of condensing public use, therefore increasing the pressure on 

areas where travel is permitted. Proper consideration should be given to travel 

areas around streams and lakes so the impact on water quality will be minimal. 

We feel that, in the long term, protecting water quality is in the interest of all 

those who utilize National Forest lands and should be a cornerstone of any 

forest management plan.

3-27. General and route-specific design criteria have been identified to maintain 

water quality. The effects of implementing the alternatives upon a variety of 

resources including water quality are disclosed in Chapter 3 of the EIS.

Letter BH549 - Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Orvis Little Eagle for Ron His Horse Is Thunder, Chairman

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

549/1, 2. Although the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe appreciates the efforts the 

Forest Service is making by attempting to manage motorized vehicle traffic in 

the Black Hills National Forest -- reducing adverse impacts caused by 

unmanaged and unregulated cross-country and road and trail usage -- the 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe as all Lakota/Dakota/Nakota tribes believes that the 

1-2. The legal issues surrounding the Black Hills Treaties and the 1980 Supreme 

Court decision to award monetary damages for the taking of the Black Hills are 

beyond the scope of this DEIS. However, the Black Hills National Forest has a 

legal trust responsibility to actively engage in a government-to-government 

relationship with sovereign tribal nations. This responsibility is articulated in laws 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Letter BH549 - Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Orvis Little Eagle for Ron His Horse Is Thunder, Chairman

Letter No./Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

Black Hills are sacred and were wrongfully taken by the U.S. Government.

The Tribe‟s position hasn‟t changed since the Supreme Court decided 

United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, et al., 448 U.S. 371, 100 S. Ct. 2716 

(U.S. 1980) on June 30, 1980. That position is that the Standing Rock Sioux 

Tribe rejects the offer of payment to settle the Sioux Nation‟s claim for the 

Black Hills affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in that case. The 

Black Hills are not for sale!

While the Lakota/Dakota/Nakota tribes have not obtained justice in the 

federal courts, we look to Congress for legislation mandating the return of 

federal lands in the Black Hills Accordingly, while we appreciate the efforts of 

the Forest Service to maintain the natural beauty of the Black Hills while 

managing public use, we strongly oppose all new construction in our sacred He 

Sapa. We continue to oppose the -- in our view -- unlawful use and/or 

destruction of He Sapa and its natural resources. We remain deeply concerned 

about the protection of Lakota/Dakota/Nakota cultural resources in the Black 

Hills.

The DEIS offers several alternative for travel management in the Black 

Hills. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, like the other Lakota/Dakota/Nakota

tribes, continues to oppose the -- in our view -- unlawful use and/or destruction 

of He Sapa and its natural resources. We oppose all federal activity in the Black 

Hills that the Tribes have not been consulted on. Therefore, while we recognize 

that the alternative that offers the least amount of destruction of the forest while 

creating the most opportunity for the Forest Service to manage traffic is best for 

He Sapa and its natural resources, we oppose all federal activity in the Black 

Hills. As noted above, the Black Hills are not for sale! 

and executive orders as explained in the Cultural Resources section of Chapter 3 of 

the FEIS. The Forest maintains a notification mailing list for sixteen (16) federally 

recognized tribes, and regularly consults with Tribal representatives regarding 

projects authorized under the NHPA and the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA). The 16 different tribes from five states have expressed traditional 

cultural, spiritual, or geographical interests in the Black Hills. Each tribe was sent 

a copy of the Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan DEIS (USDA 

Forest Service 2009) on March 12, 2009, with an invitation to comment and a 

Forest Service contact. Invitations were subsequently extended to each of the 16 

Tribes to attend a formal government-to-government consultation meeting hosted 

by the Forest near Custer, SD, on April 21, 2009. The primary purpose of that 

meeting was to discuss any questions or issues that Tribal representatives may 

have had pertaining to the Travel Management Project. The purpose and need for 

this project includes reducing adverse impacts caused by unmanaged route and 

area usage. The decision on this project would lead to accomplishing this 

objective.

DEIS Post Comment Period Letter - Fall River County Commissioners; Joe Falkenburg, Chairman; Mike Ortner, Vice-Chair; Glen Reaser, 

Member; Joe Allen, Member; Anne Cassems, Member

Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

Comment 1. The Fall River County Commissioners realize that only a small 

part of the Black Hills National Forest land (46,000 acres) extends into our 

county. Although this is a small portion of the vast acreage under your control, 

it is a significant acreage to our county because we depend on 

1-3. The Black Hills National Forest is managed under the principles of sustained 

multiple use as directed under the Multiple-use Sustained-Yield Act and other 

legislation relating to the National Forests. In carrying out this task the Forest 

Service strives to manage timber, livestock grazing, mining, and outdoor 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

DEIS Post Comment Period Letter - Fall River County Commissioners; Joe Falkenburg, Chairman; Mike Ortner, Vice-Chair; Glen Reaser, 

Member; Joe Allen, Member; Anne Cassems, Member

Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

recreation/tourism dollars to help our economy. The Forest Service acres in 

Fall River County have long been hunted for deer, antelope and elk and contain 

other significant botanical and archeological resources. It is our intention to do 

everything in our power to keep public use of the public lands controlled by the 

Forest Service.

recreation in a manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long term. The 

purpose and need for this project includes elements of developing a transportation 

system to meet increasing demand for recreational opportunities and providing a 

range of quality experiences; reducing adverse impacts caused by unmanaged 

uses; and aligning travel and recreation opportunities with the management 

capabilities of the Forest. By meeting these objectives to the Forest Service intends 

to satisfy the mandate of multiple use management.

Comment 2. Nonetheless, we [Fall River County Commissioners] certainly 

agree that the Unauthorized Route Miles (land where ATV‟s currently travel 

off-trail) need to be significantly curtailed as the ATV‟s are destroying the 

vegetation in some areas.

1-4. The Black Hills National Forest is managed under the principles of sustained 

multiple use as directed under the Multiple-use Sustained-Yield Act and other 

legislation relating to the national forests. In carrying out this task the Forest 

Service strives to manage timber, livestock grazing, mining, and outdoor 

recreation in a manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long term. The 

purpose and need for this project includes elements of developing a transportation 

system to meet increasing demand for recreational opportunities and providing a 

range of quality experiences; reducing adverse impacts caused by unmanaged 

uses; and aligning travel and recreation opportunities with the management 

capabilities of the Forest. By meeting these objectives, the Forest Service intends 

to satisfy the mandate of multiple use management.

Comment 3. We [Fall River County Commissioners] also have concerns about 

the few but detrimental number of careless ATV operators who cut fences and 

leave gates open.

4-251. Forest Service law enforcement personnel play a critical role in ensuring 

compliance with laws and regulations, protecting public safety, and protecting 

Forest resources. The Forest Service also maintains cooperative relationships with 

many State and local law enforcement agencies that provide mutual support across 

jurisdictional boundaries. Education and cooperative relationships with users 

would support enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary compliance.

Comment 4. To close Fall River County to motorized game retrieval, however, 

makes no sense. Large game animals cannot be drug by one person for very far. 

It is only reasonable to allow motorized game retrieval on Forest Service lands 

in our county. Game retrieval also occurs during a time of the year when other

tourism is low and the growing season is over so there is almost no damage to 

the botanical resource.

Game retrieval is also easily enforced , since every off-road vehicle should 

have a harvested animal to show to the officers. ALLOW motorized (large 

animal) game retrieval.

5-97. The alternatives in the draft and final EIS provide a range of options for 

game retrieval. The effects of these options on various resources are discussed in 

Chapter 3 of the EIS. The effects and public comments will be considered in the 

final decision.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

DEIS Post Comment Period Letter - Fall River County Commissioners; Joe Falkenburg, Chairman; Mike Ortner, Vice-Chair; Glen Reaser, 

Member; Joe Allen, Member; Anne Cassems, Member

Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

Comment 5. We [Fall River County Commissioners] would support Alternative 

C.

2-36. Thank you for your comment.

Comment 6. We [Fall River County Commissioners] also note that on our maps 

of Alternative C, you have omitted the Forest Service road located in Section 

31, Township 7, Range 3, which is indicated on the other versions of the maps. 

Please add that road back on to Alternative C.

Route Specific. NFS road 318.3B was included in Alternative B and thus can be 

considered for selection in the decision.

Comment 7. We hope that you will diligently enforce the new rules and prevent 

further damage to our lands by careless motorized vehicle operators.

4-259. Forest Service law enforcement personnel play a critical role in ensuring 

compliance with laws and regulations, protecting public safety, and protecting 

National Forest resources. The Forest Service also maintains cooperative 

relationships with many State and local law enforcement agencies that provide 

mutual support across jurisdictional boundaries. Education and cooperative 

relationships with users support enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary 

compliance. The final rule will not increase the agency's budget or the number of 

law enforcement officers. However, the final rule will facilitate enforcement by 

substituting a regulatory prohibition for closure orders and providing for a motor 

vehicle use map.

Letter Dated June 29, 2009 - Crook County Board of Commissioners; John A. Moline, Jr., Chairman; J.W. Hadley, Vice-Chairman; Kelly B. 

Dennis, Member

Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

Comment 1. The Forest Service has failed to map, present to the public and 

consider all of the “trails” within the Black Hills National Forest that are 

actually used for and are suitable for travel for MPV‟s, ORV‟s, and other 

motorized travel. Trails are generally thought of by the public and should 

include “any roads or trails which have been graded or constructed to carry 

vehicular traffic, or on which repeated vehicular traffic has created well defined 

tracks.” See definition below. This is the definition of an established road that 

is open to public use on State School lands owned by the State of Wyoming 

and some of which actually exists within the Black Hills National Forest. The 

“trails” that exist in the Black Hills National Forest such as logging roads, 

skidder trails and trails that are currently in use by motorized vehicles have not 

The purpose of this analysis was to lead to designation of a motorized travel 

system that could meet the increasing demand for recreational travel and provide a 

range of quality experiences within the management capability of the Forest; and 

which could reduce adverse impacts from unmanaged cross-country and route 

travel. This analysis was not designed to be a comprehensive, all-inclusive analysis 

of the suitability of every single route, existing or possible. We do not believe such 

an analysis is necessary to develop a motorized travel system that is satisfying to 

users, protects resources and is feasible to manage.

This analysis evaluated user-created routes and system routes for possible 

designation into the Forest travel system. The formal NEPA analysis process was 

preceded by extensive public involvement in which the public was solicited for 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Letter Dated June 29, 2009 - Crook County Board of Commissioners; John A. Moline, Jr., Chairman; J.W. Hadley, Vice-Chairman; Kelly B. 

Dennis, Member

Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

been considered by the Forest Service. By definition a trail is not a Forest 

Service trail unless it has been identified and managed as a “trail” by the Forest 

Service. The Forest Service only has 36 miles of designated “trails.” The public 

actually uses more than 36 miles of what they consider to believe are trails.

The failure to include what the public actually believes are “trails” and 

that are currently being used by the public has deceived the public into 

believing that the Forest Service is not closing that many roads and trails within 

the Black Hills National Forest that are actually being used and are suitable for 

MPV‟s, ORV‟s and other motorized travel. This deception has caused public 

comment to be made without all of the facts necessary to make informed 

comments. It has also caused Forest Service personnel to present alternatives 

without considering all of the trails or other areas within the Black Hills 

National Forest that are actually used and suitable for travel for MPV‟s, ORV‟s 

and other motorized travel.

The Board of County Commissioners in and for Crook County strongly 

recommends that Alternative A, the “no action alternative” be adhered to until 

the following recommendation is followed: Map all of the roads, trails, and 

“any roads or trails which have been graded or constructed to carry vehicular 

traffic, or on which repeated vehicular traffic has created well defined tracks” 

such as logging roads and trails, and other areas within the current motorized 

area within the Black Hills National Forest that are suitable for travel for 

MPV‟s and ORV‟s and other motorized travel.

routes that should be considered for designation for public use under the 2005 

Travel Management Rule. A large number of routes were considered for 

designation. On the Bearlodge Ranger District, all routes currently open to public 

travel, and all routes currently closed, were considered for designation.

The evaluation of routes considered factors such as compatibility with existing 

land prescriptions and/or designations, impacts to resources, wildlife objectives, 

safety, existing and/or potential conflicts as well as information provided from the 

public. Selected routes would need to meet existing objectives, standards and 

specifications as identified within Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks.

Comment 2. The Forest Service has failed to map and consider all of the lands 

and other areas within the current motorized area within the Black Hills 

National Forest that are suitable for travel for MPV‟s and ORV‟s and other 

motorized travel. The Board of County Commissioners in and for Crook 

County strongly recommends that Alternative A, the “no action alternative” be 

adhered to until the following recommendation is followed: Consider all of the 

lands and other areas within the current motorized area within the Black Hills 

National Forest that are suitable for travel for MPV‟s and ORV‟s and other 

motorized travel.

2-24. An interdisciplinary process was used to identify routes suitable for public 

motorized use designation, including all identified nonsystem routes, in the range 

of alternatives. The analysis identified natural and cultural resource concerns, 

recreation, access needs, and other related considerations consistent with the 2005 

Travel Management Rule to develop the range of alternatives. A range of 

alternatives was developed to consider a variety and mix of motorized travel 

opportunities on and off routes. The effects of the alternatives are disclosed in

Chapter 3 of the EIS.

Comment 3. The Forest Service has failed to consider the effect of the Board of 

County Commissioners in and for Crook County, Wyoming neither designating 

nor not designating any of the County Roads within the Black Hills National 

Forest on the State of Wyoming ORV System for Roads or Trails. The Board 

1-62. The Forest Supervisor met with representatives from counties containing 

National Forest System lands managed by the Forest Service at the scoping stage 

of the project. Copies of the DEIS were mailed to county commissioners for the 

counties of Crook, Weston and Campbell counties in Wyoming; and Lawrence, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Letter Dated June 29, 2009 - Crook County Board of Commissioners; John A. Moline, Jr., Chairman; J.W. Hadley, Vice-Chairman; Kelly B. 

Dennis, Member

Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

of County Commissioners in and for Crook County strongly recommends that 

Alternative A, the “no action alternative,” be adhered to until the following 

recommendation is followed: Consider the effect of the Board of County 

Commissioners in and for Crook County, Wyoming neither designating nor not 

designating any of the County Roads within the Black Hills National Forest on 

the State of Wyoming ORV System for Roads or Trails.

Meade, Pennington, Custer and Fall River counties in South Dakota. As the 

comment period came to a close the Forest Supervisor contacted counties, cities 

and towns in the Black Hills to request information on their plans to allow access 

from the Forest into their jurisdictions. The Forest Supervisor allowed another 30 

days for these comments. The Forest Service will respond to comments received 

from these entities, and they will be considered in the record of decision.

Roads known to be of County jurisdiction on the Bearlodge Ranger District 

were considered under all alternatives as “Other Jurisdiction” and only open to 

highway-legal vehicles. The effects of designating trails that dead-end at these 

roads were considered in the Recreation section in Chapter 3 of the EIS.

Comment 4. The Forest Service has failed to consider the Crook County Land 

Use Plan pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 176 

(FLPMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).The 

Board of County Commissioners in and for Crook County strongly 

recommends that Alternative A, the “no action alternative,” be adhered to until 

the following recommendation is followed: Consider the Crook County Land 

Use Plan pursuant to FLPMA and NEPA.

1-63. The Forest Service consulted with Crook County prior to issuing the draft 

EIS, and provided a copy of that document to the County to solicit comments on 

the travel management plan project. The Forest Service continues to be willing to 

involve Crook County in the planning process and during implementation. The 

Forest Service has complied with applicable laws and policies and has acted in 

good faith to involve the County and solicit their views.

Comment 5. The Forest Service has failed to present its plan to the Crook 

County Land Use Planning and Zoning Board for a public hearing pursuant to 

the Crook County Land Use Plan pursuant to FLPMA and NEPA. The Board 

of County Commissioners in and for Crook County strongly recommends that 

Alternative A, the “no action alternative,” be adhered to until the following 

recommendation is followed: Present the Black Hills National Forest Plan to 

the Crook County Land Use Planning and Zoning Board for a public hearing 

pursuant to the Crook County Land Use Plan pursuant to FLPMA and NEPA.

1-63. The Forest Service consulted with Crook County prior to issuing the draft 

EIS, and provided a copy of that document to the County to solicit comments on 

the travel management plan project. The Forest Service continues to be willing to 

involve Crook County in the planning process and during implementation. The 

Forest Service has complied with applicable laws and policies and has acted in 

good faith to involve the County and solicit their views.

Comment 6. The Forest Service has failed to consider the effect of 

concentrating motorized travel within the Black Hills National Forest. 

Currently motorized travel exists on 864,000 acres of the 1.2 million acres of 

the Black Hills National Forest and after this plan is imposed that will reduce 

motorized travel to about 28,000 acres or about 4%. Under Alternative B, the 

proposed action, limited motorized cross-country travel is proposed, and only 

for dispersed camping (on 63,500 acres, within 100 feet of certain designated 

roads) and retrieval of harvested elk (on 179,000 acres, within 300 feet of 

certain designated roads). The Forest Service has failed to consider the impact 

5-20. The EIS considered a range of motorized opportunities across the 

alternatives, and disclosed effects to natural and cultural resources, recreationists 

and neighbors in Chapter 3.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Letter Dated June 29, 2009 - Crook County Board of Commissioners; John A. Moline, Jr., Chairman; J.W. Hadley, Vice-Chairman; Kelly B. 

Dennis, Member

Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

to the environment upon the area that will be subject to the increased travel, the 

increased impact to the roads and trails caused by the concentrated motorized 

travel and the loss of access to most of the National Forest by the public that 

uses motorized travel within the Black Hills National Forest. The Board of 

County Commissioners in and for Crook County strongly recommends that 

Alternative A, the “no action alternative,” be adhered to until the following 

recommendation is followed: Consider the effect of concentrating motorized 

travel within the Black Hills National Forest.

Comment 7.The Forest Service has failed to consider the impact to persons 

with disabilities and other persons with physical restrictions that these proposed 

alternative plans will have on their use of the Black Hills National Forest. 

5-141. The EIS considered a range of alternatives for motorized road and trail 

opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. The greatest motorized 

opportunities and access are in Alternatives B and C. Persons with disabilities 

would have the same access rights as the general public.

Comment 8. The Forest Service has failed to consider the impact of actually 

enforcing existing laws that protect the Black Hills National Forest before 

imposing any of these action alternatives. Currently the Black Hills National 

Forest does not enforce any laws that protect the forest lands from the violators 

of existing laws. The Forest Service is understaffed and has failed to allocate 

adequate personnel to protect the resource. The action alternatives will create 

more restrictive use of the Black Hills National Forest and more foreseeable 

violations of the law. The Forest Service neither has the resources nor the 

personnel to enforce any of the proposed action alternatives.

4-250. The Forest is committed to using whatever funds it has available to 

accomplish the purposes of the final decision in a targeted, efficient manner.

Funding could include appropriations, cooperative relationships with other 

government entities, volunteer agreements, and user fees. Forest Service law 

enforcement personnel play a critical role in ensuring compliance with laws and 

regulations, protecting public safety, and protecting National Forest resources. The 

Forest Service also maintains cooperative relationships with many State and local 

law enforcement agencies that provide mutual support across jurisdictional 

boundaries. Education and cooperative relationships with users would support 

enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary compliance.

Comment 9. The Board of County Commissioners in and for Crook County, 

Wyoming, is opposed to designating any public roads, street or highway that is 

open to travel by a car, pickup, truck or commercial vehicle such as a logging 

truck onto the ORV system.

4-118. State traffic laws apply on NFS roads as provided for in 36 CFR 212.5(a) 

(1). State governments have long taken the lead in establishing registration, safety, 

and licensing requirements for motor vehicles and motor vehicle operators, 

providing a consistent framework for users within State boundaries. The Forest 

Service may designate certain NFS roads open to non-highway-legal motorized 

vehicles (motorized mixed use). These decisions would be made in the Record of 

Decision and will be informed by a motorized mixed-use analysis.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Letter Dated June 29, 2009 - Crook County Board of Commissioners; John A. Moline, Jr., Chairman; J.W. Hadley, Vice-Chairman; Kelly B. 

Dennis, Member

Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

Comment 10. The Board of County Commissioners in and for Crook County, 

Wyoming, is opposed to designating any public roads, street or highway that is 

open to travel by a car, pickup, truck or commercial vehicle such as a logging 

truck onto the ORV system. It is unsafe to allow unlicensed operators to 

operate an unlicensed vehicle without insurance on the same public road as 

these types of vehicles. The Board is not opposed to allowing the legal 

operation of MPV‟s with licensed operators to operate a licensed vehicle with 

insurance on public roads.

The Forest Service recognizes and agrees with the Board's concern for safety with 

respect to unlicensed operators and vehicles operating on public roads with other 

traffic. The alternatives address this concern in different ways. Alternative D 

minimizes the roads where mixed-use would occur with the intent of increasing 

safety for users. The decision will be informed by a mixed-use analysis.

Comment 11. The Board of County Commissioners in and for Crook County, 

Wyoming, is opposed to designating any public roads, street or highway that is 

open to travel by a car, pickup, truck or commercial vehicle such as a logging 

truck onto the ORV system. All existing trails whether designated or not in 

Black Hills National Forest should remain open for travel for MPV‟s and 

ORV‟s and if the Forest Service chooses to restrict travel from larger motorized 

vehicles on a road it should be designated and enrolled on the ORV Trails 

system.

4-30. Trail opportunities for vehicles 65 inches or less in width have been provided 

for in Alternatives B, C, and D of the FEIS to varying degrees. Effects to the 

natural resources for this activity are disclosed in Chapter 3.

Comment 12. The Board of County Commissioners in and for Crook County, 

Wyoming, is opposed to designating any public roads, street or highway that is 

open to travel by a car, pickup, truck or commercial vehicle such as a logging 

truck onto the ORV system. The Forest Service should restrict operations of 

MPV‟s, ORV‟s and other motorized travel due to weather, elk calving, nesting

and other local conditions on a case-by-case basis to protect the resource.

4-66. This analysis evaluated the designation of user-created routes and system 

routes as part of the Forest motorized route system. Seasonal restrictions are 

proposed on some routes for resource protection purposes. The evaluation of each 

route considered factors such as compatibility with existing land prescriptions 

and/or designations, impacts to the resource, wildlife objectives, safety, existing 

and/or potential conflicts as well as information provided from the public. These 

routes would also need to meet existing objectives, standards and specifications as 

identified within Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks. Routes that are 

determined to provide a benefit to the public and are consistent with the above 

factors could be designated as part of the transportation system. The data relating 

to all routes from this analysis would be kept in the administrative record.

Comment 13. The Forest Service in Chapter 2 of the DEIS under 

Administrative Access has provided for access by permit holders, but does not 

clearly specify that access to the entire permit area is available for all vehicles 

and equipment historically or currently used and such vehicles and equipment 

as may be available in the future. The Board of County Commissioners in and 

for Crook County strongly recommends that Alternative A, the "no action 

alternative” be adhered to until the following recommendation is followed: 

3-47. Administrative access was addressed in Chapter 2 of the draft EIS under 

"Features Shared by all Alternatives - Administrative use", and also in Chapter 3,

Range section- "Assumptions The DEIS stated that access would be allowed to 

contractors and permit holders operating within the terms and scope of their 

contract or permit, and reasonable access would be allowed as appropriate for 

other local, State and Federal agencies to manage their adjacent or isolated parcels.

Administrative access as a concept would not restrict any type of vehicle. This has 
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Letter Dated June 29, 2009 - Crook County Board of Commissioners; John A. Moline, Jr., Chairman; J.W. Hadley, Vice-Chairman; Kelly B. 

Dennis, Member

Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

Ensure that historic and continued access for all permit holders on the Forest 

are maintained and honored. 

been carried forward to the final EIS.

Comment 14. The Forest Service in Chapter 2 of the DEIS under 

Administrative Access has provided for access by contractors, but does not 

clearly specify that access to the entire contract area is available for all vehicles 

and equipment historically or currently used and such vehicles and equipment 

as may be available in the future.

See response to Comment #13 above.

Comment 15. The Forest Service in Chapter 2 of the DEIS under 

Administrative Access provides “Reasonable administrative access for other 

local, State and Federal agencies...” but fails to provide for access by private 

landowners. It also mischaracterizes this access as some sort of agency 

concession rather than the restatement of a right. The Board of County 

Commissioners in and for Crook County strongly recommends that Alternative 

A, the "no action alternative” be adhered to until the following 

recommendation is followed: Ensure that historic and continued access for all 

in-holders on the Forest are maintained and honored.

4-40. The Forest Service recognizes the need for people to be able to access public 

and private lands in ways that do not create resource damage. All current legal 

access rights would be maintained and the Forest would work with all requiring 

legal access.

Comment 16. The present Forest Service policy that provides only one access 

to in-holdings poses health and safety risks in the case of an emergency 

situation (certainly fire and possibly flood).

See response to Comment #15 above. In the event of an emergency, no inholding 

would be denied emergency egress from their properties. The agency policy 

stipulating only one access point is intended to avoid the development of numerous 

individual driveway accesses from a single subdivided parcel, which could 

increase resource damage. Local ordinances and State laws govern development on 

private lands.

Comment 17. The Board of County Commissioners in and for Crook County 

strongly recommends that Alternative A, the “no action alternative,” be 

adhered to.

Thank you for your comment.

Comment 18.The Board of County Commissioners in and for Crook County 

strongly recommends that Alternative A, the “no action alternative” be adhered 

to until the following recommendation is followed: Consider the impact to 

persons with disabilities and other persons with physical restrictions that these 

proposed alternative plans will have on their use of the Black Hills National 

Forest.

4-105. A roads analysis was conducted on Forest high-speed roads resulting in a 

Roads Analysis Report published in October 2005. A travel analysis was 

conducted on high-clearance roads, trails, and unauthorized routes resulting in a 

Travel Analysis Process Report published in September 2007. These reports 

provide a technical, science-based review of the Forest transportation system.

The EIS considered a range of alternatives for motorized road and trail 

opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. The greatest motorized 

opportunities and access are in Alternatives B and C. Persons with disabilities 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Letter Dated June 29, 2009 - Crook County Board of Commissioners; John A. Moline, Jr., Chairman; J.W. Hadley, Vice-Chairman; Kelly B. 

Dennis, Member

Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

would have the same access rights as the general public.

Comment 19. Therefore the Board of County Commissioners in and for Crook 

County strongly recommends that Alternative A, the “no action alternative,” be 

adhered to until the following recommendation is followed: Consider the 

impact of actually enforcing existing laws that protect the forest before 

imposing these alternative plans upon the Black Hills National Forest.

4-250. The Forest is committed to using whatever funds it has available to 

accomplish the purposes of the final decision in a targeted, efficient manner.

Funding could include appropriations, cooperative relationships with other 

government entities, volunteer agreements, and user fees. Forest Service law 

enforcement personnel play a critical role in ensuring compliance with laws and 

regulations, protecting public safety, and protecting National Forest resources. The 

Forest Service also maintains cooperative relationships with many State and local 

law enforcement agencies that provide mutual support across jurisdictional 

boundaries. Education and cooperative relationships with users would support 

enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary compliance.

Comment 3. The Board of County Commissioners in and for Crook County 

strongly recommends that Alternative A, the “no action alternative,” be 

adhered to until the following recommendation is followed: Consider the effect 

of the Board of State Land Commissioners in and for the State of Wyoming 

neither designating nor not designating “any roads or trails which have been 

graded or constructed to carry vehicular traffic, or on which repeated vehicular 

traffic has created well defined tracks” that are on State Land located within the 

boundaries of the Black Hills National Forest on the State of Wyoming ORV 

System for Roads or Trails.

This proposal and the forthcoming decision address roads, trails and areas under 

the jurisdiction of the Forest Service as administered by the Black Hills National 

Forest. The decision will not address the management of routes by other 

jurisdictions.

Letter BH614 - Crook County Land Use Planning and Zoning Commission; Jeanne A. Whalen, Chairman

Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

614/1. We [Crook County Land Use Planning and Zoning Commission] feel 

that the magnitude of the change proposed within the action alternatives will 

create a confused and frustrated public that is accustomed to an open unless 

posted closed approach to travel on the Forest. Alternative C is the only one 

that even slightly recognizes the current and ever-growing demand for quality 

motorized recreational opportunities.

2-36. Thank you for your comment. Alternative C does propose the largest 

transportation system. However, all the action alternatives propose opportunities 

for motorized recreation. They vary only in the amount and location of those 

opportunities. See Table 7 on page 39 in Chapter 2 for a comparison of the 

recreational opportunities proposed for the range of alternatives. The State of 

Wyoming has implemented an Off-road Recreational Vehicle (ORRV) Program. It 

is the intent of the Forest to enroll all roads and trails designated for motorized use 

in the Wyoming portion of the Black Hills in the Wyoming State ORRV program.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Letter BH614 - Crook County Land Use Planning and Zoning Commission; Jeanne A. Whalen, Chairman

Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

614/2. Only three areas [in Alternative C] totaling ten acres, would be 

designated for “concentrated cross-country” travel. Going from the current 

situation of 864,000 acres open to unrestricted motorized cross-country travel 

to so few acres open to concentrated cross-county travel (and in the other 

alternatives ZERO acres of either open or concentrated cross-country travel), is 

inadequate and unrealistic. Also, sufficient signage and proactive educational 

efforts and materials must be a part of the plan if the public‟s compliance with 

the new system is desired.

5-80. Page 34 of the DEIS provides explanation for the proposed elimination of the 

cross-country recreational travel.

614/3. Limited use cross-country travel parameters for game retrieval and 

dispersed camping are also in need of change. We [Crook County Land Use 

Planning and Zoning Commission] support allowing game retrieval deer and 

elk without any time or distance limitations, and cross-country travel for 

dispersed camping to be expanded to 200 yards off a designated road or trail.

5-88. The DEIS and FEIS Alternatives considered a range of motorized 

opportunities for game retrieval and dispersed camping. Alternative C delineates 

areas within which motorized game retrieval would be allowed for elk and deer. 

The EIS explains the proposed restrictions on cross-country travel for game 

retrieval in Chapter 2. The natural resource effects analysis for the alternatives are 

in Chapter 3. The 300-foot width for dispersed camping was chosen to be 

consistent with Region 2 guidance and designations for motorized dispersed 

camping used on other National Forests.

614/4. We [Crook County Land Use Planning and Zoning Commission] 

support continued, unchanged motorized access necessary for permitted uses 

on the Forest, which include but are not limited to, grazing, timber and fuel 

management, mineral exploration, and firewood cutting.

3-52. As stated in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS under "Features Shared by all 

Alternatives - Administrative use" as permit holders allowances would be available 

to do work directly related to the management on the permit. This will be carried 

forward to the Final. 

614/5. From a socio-economic perspective, motorized transportation on the 

Forest provides significant positive impacts within the county, region and state. 

As the ORV use survey done by the State of Wyoming demonstrates, the 

economic benefits directly connected with this use are important to the local 

and state economy. Those benefits include jobs and business opportunities 

created and supported by the use, and revenues for state and local governments 

(sales tax, gasoline tax, lodging tax, permit fees).

6-21. The Forest Service recognizes the importance of motorized vehicle 

recreation and events in the Black Hills area and has analyzed and presented the 

contribution of those activities on the employment and labor income within the 

seven-county Black Hills area. For a summary of the analysis and conclusions 

regarding economic impacts associated with the plan alternatives, see response to 

Public Concerns 6-2, 6-13, and 6-15. The analysis completed for the Black Hills 

applies a well-documented modeling system. Modeling inputs comply with the 

Data Quality Act (see response to Public Concern 6-18), and are similar to the 

methods adopted by the Wyoming Department of State Parks and Cultural 

Resources in their economic assessment of off-road vehicle use (2006).

614/6. The 1998 Crook County Land Use Plan and the land use and/or natural 

resource plans for the other counties in the Black Hills should be considered 

and noted accordingly within the text of the plan.

1-63. The Forest Service consulted with Crook County prior to issuing the Draft 

EIS, and provided a copy of that document to the County to solicit comments on 

the travel management plan project. The Forest Service continues to be willing to 

involve Crook County in the planning process and during implementation.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Letter BH614 - Crook County Land Use Planning and Zoning Commission; Jeanne A. Whalen, Chairman

Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

614/7. There appear to be no specific accommodations for persons with 

disabilities or other physical limitations to enjoy recreational uses on the 

Forest. We would like there to be exceptions made on their behalf so as to 

continue to allow them a full range of opportunities.

5-141. The EIS considered a range of alternatives for motorized road and trail 

opportunities and disclosed effects in Chapter 3. The greatest motorized 

opportunities and access are in Alternatives B and C. Persons with disabilities 

would have the same access rights as the general public.

614/8. We [Crook County Land Use Planning and Zoning Commission] fear 

that the approach being taken in the draft document will lead to noncompliance 

by regular Forest users and ultimately result in further restriction and possible 

prohibition of motorized travel within the Black Hills National Forest We urge 

planners to be cognizant of the on-the-ground realities of this issue and to 

incorporate as much motorized access as is possible.

5-25. Alternative C provides the highest level of motorized routes for the Forest.

Effects on natural resources are disclosed in Chapter 3.

Letter Dated January 15, 2010 - Wyoming Game and Fish Department John Emmerich, Deputy Director

Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

Comment 1. Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of the 

BHNF Travel Management Plan were provided to your travel management 

officer from the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) in a May 13, 

2009 letter. In that latter, the WGFD encouraged the USFS to prohibit off road 

retrieval of game...

I would like to further clarify the WGFD position on this issue. This is 

important because inconsistencies have come to light between the positions of 

South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks and those of the WGFD; and we feel it is 

in the sportsman‟s best interest strive for some degree of forest-wide 

consistency.

Based upon the proposed open route density on the Wyoming side of the 

BHNF, the WGFD believes allowing up to 300 feet of motorized retrieval for 

elk from open, enrolled trails and roads would provide more of the 

aforementioned forest-wide consistency and not result in significant, negative 

impacts to wildlife habitat. 

5-86 (it won‟t damage the forest)

Thank you for your comment. The Forest Service appreciates the clarification on 

the part of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department of their position on this issue, 

and agrees that consistency across State lines would be in the best interest of Forest 

users. The Forest Service views the Department as an important partner in resource 

management and values their input on the game retrieval proposal and its potential 

effects.
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan

Letter Dated January 15, 2010 - Wyoming Game and Fish Department John Emmerich, Deputy Director

Comment No. and Comment Public Concern No. and Response

Comment 2. However, the WGFD wishes to stress this activity be permitted 

only for elk carcass retrieval, and not opened to all game species. In our 

estimation, about 150 to 200 elk are currently being harvested on an annual 

basis off BHNF lands in Wyoming. Due to the location and timing of much of 

this harvest, 300 feet of off road or closed road travel from an open route will 

probably result in minimal habitat and wildlife disturbance. Additionally, if the 

BHNF moves forward, as anticipated, to allow the same distance of off road 

travel for other, limited activities (such as dispersed camping) it would again 

seem to augment consistency while providing some degree of habitat

protection. Finally, having more regularity across State lines in relation to game 

retrieval should reduce confusion among hunters.

5-107 (retrieval for elk only)

See response to Comment 1 above. The alternatives vary in how they address game 

retrieval and dispersed camping. The input from the Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department will be considered in the decision on this project.